FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The FOTA have have asked Pirelli to build their new hard compound tyres to last just 30 laps. Their intent is to reduce durability so the tyres themselves will cause the cars to have to pit, not once per race, but twice. And not because the rules demand it but because the tyres are going away.

But isn't this asking Pirelli to cut their own throat?

Over the last three seasons, Bridgestone have been F1's sole supplier of tyres and I think their reputation has soared on account of their extraordinary service life. If you've not been impressed with their durability, I must conclude you just haven't been watching. At the final race of the 2010 season, for instance, Jenson Button got 40 laps out of a set of supersofts (!!!) under race conditions, and those were the same tyres he'd run in Q3. Robert Kubica started the same race on medium compound tyres and managed to run them 47 laps. At last year's GP of Europe (Valencia), Kamui Kobayashi ran the entire race on the same set of mediums, even refusing to pit during a safety car period. He finally pitted on the very last lap because the Sporting Regulations demanded it, not because his tyres did.

You and I are ardent fans of the sport and realise the implications of such decisions but what of the average motor racing fan, much less the casual observer? I'm inclined to believe Pirelli are disadvantaging themselves by agreeing to build a less durable tyre because it inevitably will be compared to the Bridgestones it is replacing and found wanting. And since tyre manufacturers enter F1 for the benefit of their street tyre market, I can't help but think the FOTA have just asked Pirelli to sabotage their own potential commercial success.

Then again, I still think its a mistake to only have one tyre vendor.

[darwin dali]

Well, I would think it's not JUST the tires but also the car and the driver that determine the mileage you can get out of a set of tires.
But agreed on your point(s), especially on having more than one tire supplier.

[myownalias]

I generally disagree with the having to use two tyre compounds idea, introduce a refuelling ban then enforce a pit-stop to change tyre compounds, what's the point of that? That's as silly as the rule that lasted one whole season where a set of tyres needed to last a whole race distance. With the enforced pit-stops, refuelling ban, moveable wings and KERS, F1 is turning into an artificial sport, what next; mini guns on the cars to shoot out rivals tyres?

But yes; I agree it's definitely going to be detrimental to their brand; maybe they should pull out of F1 before the season starts, see what FOTA/FIA/FOM do then!

[What's Burning?]

The FOTA have have asked Pirelli to build their new hard compound tyres to last just 30 laps. Their intent is to reduce durability so the tyres themselves will cause the cars to have to pit, not once per race, but twice. And not because the rules demand it but because the tyres are going away.

But isn't this asking Pirelli to cut their own throat?

Over the last three seasons, Bridgestone have been F1's sole supplier of tyres and I think their reputation has soared on account of their extraordinary service life. If you've not been impressed with their durability, I must conclude you just haven't been watching. At the final race of the 2010 season, for instance, Jenson Button got 40 laps out of a set of supersofts (!!!) under race conditions, and those were the same tyres he'd run in Q3. Robert Kubica started the same race on medium compound tyres and managed to run them 47 laps. At last year's GP of Europe (Valencia), Kamui Kobayashi ran the entire race on the same set of mediums, even refusing to pit during a safety car period. He finally pitted on the very last lap because the Sporting Regulations demanded it, not because his tyres did.

You and I are ardent fans of the sport and realise the implications of such decisions but what of the average motor racing fan, much less the casual observer? I'm inclined to believe Pirelli are disadvantaging themselves by agreeing to build a less durable tyre because it inevitably will be compared to the Bridgestones it is replacing and found wanting. And since tyre manufacturers enter F1 for the benefit of their street tyre market, I can't help but think the FOTA have just asked Pirelli to sabotage their own potential commercial success.

Then again, I still think its a mistake to only have one tyre vendor.

I agree, I'd like to see two suppliers, and if I recall, Pirelli started making the pre-requisite excuses just before the post season test, underscoring that they were told to make tires that lasted less to make the season exciting... I'm sure we'll have that fact pounded into the audience by commentators as part of some sort of amends to Pirelli.

If we had two supplies, there would be so much more nuance to the various strategies and alliances... I miss it.

[darwin dali]

I generally disagree with the having to use two tyre compounds idea, introduce a refuelling ban then enforce a pit-stop to change tyre compounds, what's the point of that? That's as silly as the rule that lasted one whole season where a set of tyres needed to last a whole race distance. With the enforced pit-stops, refuelling ban, moveable wings and KERS, F1 is turning into an artificial sport, what next; mini guns on the cars to shoot out rivals tyres?

But yes; I agree it's definitely going to be detrimental to their brand; maybe they should pull out of F1 before the season starts, see what FOTA/FIA/FOM do then!

[myownalias]

That's going to be comfortable at 220mph down the Monza main straight!

[darwin dali]

That's going to be comfortable at 220mph down the Monza main straight!

A bit rough on the skull and spine, but hey, at least it's moving forward

[scotty]

Pirelli aren't cutting their own throat. They wouldn't do it otherwise, they're not run by stupid people!

All the teams and drivers must know Pirelli's plan and the general agreement they have with them regarding tyre life, and therefore should have already accepted that the tyres might go off on them - no reason to subsequently moan about it in public then, i think.

Do you remember in recent history where the problem of graining and marbles was rampant? That didn't negatively affect Bridgestone/Michelin's reputations, did it?

I would argue that the casual observer probably isn't knowlegable (or cares) enough about the intricacies of tyres in F1 to make the negative brand assocation in the first place, or care what tyres go on their road cars. Your average joe will just get whatever tyres the servicers put on. All Pirelli's important and relevant targets will know enough to take Pirelli's intentions correctly.

Meanwhile Pirelli will be gathering massive compound knowledge (and as such we will no doubt see an improvement to the tyre performance through the next couple of years), and have the marketing line of saying they are the sole supplier for Formula 1. Not too bad for them, i think.

[stonemonkey]

I don't know, I'd bet the casual fans who are influenced by F1 in their choice of tyre are more like 'Bridgestone, it's what they use in F1' instead of 'Ooooh their tyres could last a whole race'

[Jabberwocky]

So Pirelli are going to become supersticky instead of super long lasting.

[madbrad]

I don't think people will say "Wow Bridgestone makes such durable tires!" because they las almost a whole race or could last the whole race if the rules allowed it. I think they know they are that durable because of rules. The new 30 lap tire regis just that, a reg, and I don't think people are going to say " OMG those pirellis sure wear out fast, I'm never going to get those for my dumb Opel Cadet!" I think they will know it's regulated that way. Why, even those whole race Bridgestones are only about 1/200th as durable as a set of cheap Walmart brand road car tires.

[What's Burning?]

So Pirelli are going to become supersticky instead of super long lasting.

Like a five year old eating a cinnamon bun!

[texasmr2]

So Pirelli are going to become supersticky instead of super long lasting.

Like a five year old eating a cinnamon bun!

Now I want a cinnamon bun, daym you!!!

[bigpat]

I think Pirelli is taking on a tougher technical challenge than Bridgestone was....

As sole tyre supplier we couldn't tell just how soft the Bridgestone "super softs" actually were, as we had nothing to compare them to. They could build safe durable (hard compound) tyres, and have an easier life, not having to worry about blisters or graining. These two characteristics are ever apparent in a tyre war as each side pushes the boundaries of construction and compounds. The fact that a number of teams complained in '09 & '10 complained of difficulty of obtaining tyre temperature, and the comparatively small difference in lap times between the compounds, leads me to conclude hard compounds were indeed used.

Having very soft tyres last long distances, are a result of a number of factors coming together favorably. Things like track surface roughness, the lateral loads experienced by the car, downforce level, temperature, tyre compound etc, all count. I don't think you'll see "truly"sticky tyres lasting 40 laps around Spa, Suzuka, or Barcelona....

Pirelli have to find the compromise of providing a tyre that wears quicker, which traditionally meant a soft compound, without allowing the cars to be too quick. It also cannot have tyre that readily blister or grain. So like I said, a tougher technical challenge. It will be interesting to see what Pirelli's R &D policy is. Eg: Bridgestone had stiffer, rounder sidewalls, and higher camber settings, using more 'mechanical' means to obtain grip. Michelins had flatter treads, more vertical and softer sidewalls, using a more chemical interaction between tyre and track to get theirs....

I just hope Pirelli produces a better front tyre construction that Bridgestone did. The number of teams that complained of a 'weak front end' in slow corners was a sign, of something beyond chassis design.

Interested to see how this plays out..... As for this being bad for Pirelli's image? I don't think so. Last year will be a distant memory come Bahrain. More important to Pirelli is being "The Official tyre supplier of Formula 1".....

Cheers,

Pat

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Yesterday, Alonso was complaining the Pirellis degraded too quickly. I've seen no other driver mentioned by name as complaining of tyre life (or consistency) but the press are playing this as an indicator of a potentially serious problem for Pirelli. Today, Alonso is fastest of all at Valencia, 0.3 secs faster than Vettel, so perhaps that has softened his stance.