FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[darwin dali]

No, the first article was a personal opinion of a site pundit I believe.

Second one is an official news item by the site itself.

I know the difference that doesn't negate their contradictory nature.

I think Peter Windsor's points are still very much valid. Remember that the Pirelli board will have to decide on this and if they feel fed up with the criticism they might decide against an extension of the contract...

[madbrad]

While it's expected for a tire to lose performance as it wears, it has never been as dramatis as in 2012. For Kimi and Fernando to lose so many positions because of it, just not the way the race should be decided. In the past you lost maybe 1 position and you had a fighting chance of keeping it. Not now. That to me is kind of an artificial factor in the race, kind of like the mandatory yellows in NAPCAR. I'm not keen on the whole thing. I think in those two instances, Kimi and Fernando worked hard to get to the positions they did, and deserve a chance at keeping them.

I completely disagree... it's up to the team to come up with a strategy based on their drivers capability and in those instances Lotus and Ferrari failed. The tires are the same for everyone... so why are we lauding Grosjean and Perez for their drives? How is the situation with the artificiality of tires any different than with DRS or KERS or any other gimmick designed to assist with the problems of overtaking?

Let me answer your points individually. They are all fine and I can see those points you make as perfectly valid.
Yes I know it's a team thing as far as the changing of the tires goes. The better drivers are losing their positions thanks to their teams' lack of understanding of the tires, or gambling. I am not lauding Grosjean and Perez. They were lucky. And yeah luck is OK in the sport as it benefits everyone from time to time. I would rather see luck help someone because another driver spun off or his engine blew or had a drive through penalty, than from regulation driven circumstance. Hamilton benefitted from what turned out to be the correct strategy, but Whitmarsh could not have known that. It was as much a gamble as it was for Fernando to stay out. It isn't different from KERS and DRS. I don't like those either. I don't like regulations that create artificial situations and affect the outcome and eschew driver skill. Maybe a little bit is not so horrible, but I just don't like the way the tires fall of suddenly and to such a large degree as to make the car undriveable. Pit stop or stay out on non tires, lose the race in any case despite earning the lead through skill. What these regulations(aero rules, KERS, DRS, tire compound) are saying is "If the crappy drivers or cars can't get past the good ones, let's help them!"

[What's Burning?]

No, the first article was a personal opinion of a site pundit I believe.

Second one is an official news item by the site itself.

I know the difference that doesn't negate their contradictory nature.

I think Peter Windsor's points are still very much valid. Remember that the Pirelli board will have to decide on this and if they feel fed up with the criticism they might decide against an extension of the contract...

Hello? McFly... did you misplace your irony glasses on today?

I like Peter, I do truly, and in my opinion he's being a melodramatic on this one.

Anyway, back to the unintentionally hilarious ESPNF1 articles. Vettel and Alonso "could coexists" & Upbeat Massa Explains Improvement.

[andrew]

To be fair to Pirelli, they are making the tyres as per the FiA's instructions. It's just a pity that what they've been told to make is a farce.

[What's Burning?]

While it's expected for a tire to lose performance as it wears, it has never been as dramatis as in 2012. For Kimi and Fernando to lose so many positions because of it, just not the way the race should be decided. In the past you lost maybe 1 position and you had a fighting chance of keeping it. Not now. That to me is kind of an artificial factor in the race, kind of like the mandatory yellows in NAPCAR. I'm not keen on the whole thing. I think in those two instances, Kimi and Fernando worked hard to get to the positions they did, and deserve a chance at keeping them.

I completely disagree... it's up to the team to come up with a strategy based on their drivers capability and in those instances Lotus and Ferrari failed. The tires are the same for everyone... so why are we lauding Grosjean and Perez for their drives? How is the situation with the artificiality of tires any different than with DRS or KERS or any other gimmick designed to assist with the problems of overtaking?

Let me answer your points individually. They are all fine and I can see those points you make as perfectly valid.
Yes I know it's a team thing as far as the changing of the tires goes. The better drivers are losing their positions thanks to their teams' lack of understanding of the tires, or gambling. I am not lauding Grosjean and Perez. They were lucky. And yeah luck is OK in the sport as it benefits everyone from time to time. I would rather see luck help someone because another driver spun off or his engine blew or had a drive through penalty, than from regulation driven circumstance. Hamilton benefitted from what turned out to be the correct strategy, but Whitmarsh could not have known that. It was as much a gamble as it was for Fernando to stay out. It isn't different from KERS and DRS. I don't like those either. I don't like regulations that create artificial situations and affect the outcome and eschew driver skill. Maybe a little bit is not so horrible, but I just don't like the way the tires fall of suddenly and to such a large degree as to make the car undriveable. Pit stop or stay out on non tires, lose the race in any case despite earning the lead through skill. What these regulations(aero rules, KERS, DRS, tire compound) are saying is "If the crappy drivers or cars can't get past the good ones, let's help them!"

You see... two people can agree to disagree and have it all done respectfully! Take that "other" forum members.

[racechick]

While it's expected for a tire to lose performance as it wears, it has never been as dramatis as in 2012. For Kimi and Fernando to lose so many positions because of it, just not the way the race should be decided. In the past you lost maybe 1 position and you had a fighting chance of keeping it. Not now. That to me is kind of an artificial factor in the race, kind of like the mandatory yellows in NAPCAR. I'm not keen on the whole thing. I think in those two instances, Kimi and Fernando worked hard to get to the positions they did, and deserve a chance at keeping them.

I completely disagree... it's up to the team to come up with a strategy based on their drivers capability and in those instances Lotus and Ferrari failed. The tires are the same for everyone... so why are we lauding Grosjean and Perez for their drives? How is the situation with the artificiality of tires any different than with DRS or KERS or any other gimmick designed to assist with the problems of overtaking?

Let me answer your points individually. They are all fine and I can see those points you make as perfectly valid.
Yes I know it's a team thing as far as the changing of the tires goes. The better drivers are losing their positions thanks to their teams' lack of understanding of the tires, or gambling. I am not lauding Grosjean and Perez. They were lucky. And yeah luck is OK in the sport as it benefits everyone from time to time. I would rather see luck help someone because another driver spun off or his engine blew or had a drive through penalty, than from regulation driven circumstance. Hamilton benefitted from what turned out to be the correct strategy, but Whitmarsh could not have known that. It was as much a gamble as it was for Fernando to stay out. It isn't different from KERS and DRS. I don't like those either. I don't like regulations that create artificial situations and affect the outcome and eschew driver skill. Maybe a little bit is not so horrible, but I just don't like the way the tires fall of suddenly and to such a large degree as to make the car undriveable. Pit stop or stay out on non tires, lose the race in any case despite earning the lead through skill. What these regulations(aero rules, KERS, DRS, tire compound) are saying is "If the crappy drivers or cars can't get past the good ones, let's help them!"

Cant help but agree with all you say Madbrad

[vaptin]

Ferrari knew what they were risking though, Rebull decided to pit Vettel, Ferrari didn't. They also knew that at the time they didn't pit Alonso after Lewis stopped. Grosjean I believe only did a one stop, and he wasn't on special tyres, good on Lotus and him for working the tyres well that race, it's a valid achievement isn't it? Therefore logically, Alonso's tyres wearing dramatically must also count as a valid failure.

The teams cannot predict accurately, but I kinda like that. I think strategy is part of f1, having degradable tyres means there is differentiation between the teams and team-mates in a way that wouldn't be there with longer lasting tyres.

[What's Burning?]

Believe me, I'd rather the regulations be changed. I'd love to see races run on tires that allow the maximum amount of performance out on the track instead of reward the maximum amount of conservative driving.

The point I'm making is the regulations are the same for everyone, so it's a level playing field. More so even, since it's allowed teams not quite on the cusp competitiveness in qualifying to make up for it on race day because they have hit upon a sweet spot of performance where their car gets the most out of the rubber and I have no problem with that.

[LRW]

...... <snip> I am not lauding Grosjean and Perez. They were lucky.<snip>.......

I dont get how were they were lucky, exactly?

Perez and Grosjean planned a one stop, as they thought they could make the tyres last. They then went out, and drove consistently enough to make the tyres last, and passed Alonso and Vettle who had pushed too hard and failed to make their own tyres last.

Thats not luck. Thats one strategy being better than the other for those conditions and track.

[What's Burning?]

...... <snip> I am not lauding Grosjean and Perez. They were lucky.<snip>.......

I dont get how were they were lucky, exactly?

Perez and Grosjean planned a one stop, as they thought they could make the tyres last. They then went out, and drove consistently enough to make the tyres last, and passed Alonso and Vettle who had pushed too hard and failed to make their own tyres last.

Thats not luck. Thats one strategy being better than the other for those conditions and track.

It's luck when it happens to someone other than the drivers your support.

[racechick]

Believe me, I'd rather the regulations be changed. I'd love to see races run on tires that allow the maximum amount of performance out on the track instead of reward the maximum amount of conservative driving.

The point I'm making is the regulations are the same for everyone, so it's a level playing field. More so even, since it's allowed teams not quite on the cusp competitiveness in qualifying to make up for it on race day because they have hit upon a sweet spot of performance where their car gets the most out of the rubber and I have no problem with that.

Yep. i agree with all that too. Whats wrong with me with all this agreeing?

[Jabberwocky]

I think the problem is not the people who follow the sport but for the people who do not, all they are going to be getting is drivers saying "Pirelli are poo"
If I was Pirelli I would not be happy with that

[What's Burning?]

Believe me, I'd rather the regulations be changed. I'd love to see races run on tires that allow the maximum amount of performance out on the track instead of reward the maximum amount of conservative driving.

The point I'm making is the regulations are the same for everyone, so it's a level playing field. More so even, since it's allowed teams not quite on the cusp competitiveness in qualifying to make up for it on race day because they have hit upon a sweet spot of performance where their car gets the most out of the rubber and I have no problem with that.

Yep. i agree with all that too. Whats wrong with me with all this agreeing?

Go eat some bad seafood and see if it agrees with you.

[racechick]

Believe me, I'd rather the regulations be changed. I'd love to see races run on tires that allow the maximum amount of performance out on the track instead of reward the maximum amount of conservative driving.

The point I'm making is the regulations are the same for everyone, so it's a level playing field. More so even, since it's allowed teams not quite on the cusp competitiveness in qualifying to make up for it on race day because they have hit upon a sweet spot of performance where their car gets the most out of the rubber and I have no problem with that.

Yep. i agree with all that too. Whats wrong with me with all this agreeing?

Go eat some bad seafood and see if it agrees with you.

[LewEngBridewell]

To be fair to Pirelli, they are making the tyres as per the FiA's instructions. It's just a pity that what they've been told to make is a farce.

I disagree.

I notice it wasn't a "farce" last year? Pirelli supplied tyres then too, you know.