Pirelli 2013 F1 tyre range

Interesting info' Blog Zbod Food for thought and you may be onto something there, particularly about the huge chunks of rubber splattered about all over the place. It's a fat lot of good messing with the compounds to spice up overtaking if no-one can leave the ideal racing line to do so because of the marbles.

Methinks my own use of the term tyre war was somewhat inappropriate since the term was used to describe the Bridgestone vs Michelin bi-partisan era. In reality I don't see a solution for F1 since it is virtually a one spec' series due to ever tightening grip of the technical regulations. In a way I was I harking back to the days when there was variety across all of the engineering aspects.

We are between a rock and a hard place. Pirelli, it seems, is damned if they get it right and damned if they don't. The consensus in the motorcycle racing world is that there they've got it pretty well right. Thing is, apart from endurance racing, for motorcycle racing their tyre must last the race distance with a more or less predictable rate of degradation.

cider_and_toast 's suggestion is probably as close as we'll get to a solution. however, I wonder how Pirelli or anyone else will ever get it right for F1 when their customers can't get in enough pre-season testing. Perhaps a little more leeway on that would help as well.
 
It's a fat lot of good messing with the compounds to spice up overtaking if no-one can leave the ideal racing line to do so because of the marbles.

Can anyone think of an example of a driver declining to attempt to overtake a slower car due to marbles, in the past three years?

I know the drivers bang on about it, but I see no evidence for it.
 
The marbles haven't been quite as bad in recent seasons as they appeared to be on Sunday. There were plenty of complaints about them in the not too distant past. May not be an issue on these wide tracks like Malaysia. I was just "thinking aloud" re. the consequences of the current trend.
 
“These tyres make it very hard [for all the drivers],” he said. “It very difficult to make them last and particularly for me in Malaysia, I wasn't really able to make my tyres last as much as I wanted. I was fuel saving from an early point in the race which lost me a lot of time but generally these tyres make it... it's not fun, I didn't enjoy the race.

“It's not the same as back in the day when you had stints where you are pushing to the maximum the whole time, you had tyres that would last...."

-- Lewis Hamilton
 
From Autosport.com:

"It will all look good in the first five or six laps, having everyone fighting, but it's a little bit WWF* at the moment," said Webber, referring to the former name of the World Wrestling Entertainment series.

Webber also reckoned that the tyres were so sensitive that there was little chance of actually being able to race with them, even if the soft tyre was used for the final stint when cars had less fuel on board.

"[Adrian] Sutil tried that in Melbourne and Pirelli said that there were indications that the race fell apart for him because he tried to race people," he said.

"Whatever fuel load you have got in the car, if you race people, you are in trouble. So just don't race, put the tyre on and just try and get home."



*(The World Wildlife Foundation sued the World Wrestling Federation for using their initials, so they changed to the F to an E, for Entertainment)
 
These tyres are now stupid and are bringing F1 into disrepute, in my humble opinion.

Not that I blame Pirelli, they're just fulfilling the brief they've been given.

It's all very well trotting out trite sayings like, "The drivers should stop moaning, every team has the same equipment and they should just deal with it". This is Formula 1 for God's sake, supposedly the 'Pinnacle' of motorsport.

Please, please, PLEASE, FIA give them decent tyres and let them race!>:(
 
You could argue, if the teams where really concerned about the soft tyres degrading. Then they could have qualified on the harder tyres.

They are all to blame if I'm honest.
 
You could argue, if the teams where really concerned about the soft tyres degrading. Then they could have qualified on the harder tyres.

They are all to blame if I'm honest.

Not really. It's a prisoners dilemma. While it may have been better for all teams to qualify on the same tire, there's always an incentive to not break the agreement to gain some grid places.

The teams didn't set up this game, Pirelli did. So Pirelli is to blame.
 
Whoever provided the brief to Pirelli is to blame, surely, if indeed there is any blame to be apportioned.

I am fairly sure that the teams would have had a say in the decision too, do not think that they are merely the victims of this situation.
 
Whoever provided the brief to Pirelli is to blame, surely
Indeed.
As I have stated numerous times.
Andrew Benson said:
Pirelli is only doing what it has been asked to do and in that context the Chinese Grand Prix was a great success. Vettel, struggling for pace throughout the weekend, chose to sacrifice qualifying and start on the 'medium' tyre and hope he would benefit from those ahead struggling in the early laps on the 'soft'.


There are rumours that Pirelli will supply more durable tyres from the start of the European season in Spain next month - which they will not comment on for now


Quite the opposite of what Pirelli have been stating for the past few weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22145394
 
Tyres that don't last forever in F1 are a good thing, but a tyre that only lasts for 6 laps isn't a good thing, it ruins qualifying
 
Tyres that don't last forever in F1 are a good thing, but a tyre that only lasts for 6 laps isn't a good thing, it ruins qualifying
Not six laps, three, tops.

Vettel set the fastest lap of the race, on the softs, on the lap immediately following their warm-up lap. The very next lap (54), they started going off and he was slower by 0.448. It also bears mention that Vettel's fastest lap of the race was near about a quarter of a second slower than his Q3 best time, which he set on the MEDIUM tyres!!!

On the final two laps, Vettel was progressively slower by a further 0.995 and 1.84 seconds (1:36.808, 1:37.256, 1:38.211 & 1:40.051). So after three laps, total, (and two, if I'm honest), the soft tyres were knackered.

Vettel finished 0.23 secs behind Hamilton so there's little doubt but what he'd have nipped him if he'd got three good laps out of them before they went into decline. He came 2.4 seconds behind Räikkönen, who only had one lap below 1:40.00 in the entire race (and that by only 0.045), so Sebastian likely would have got him, too, if they'd lasted just four laps. And Alonso's penultimate lap (his quickest once Vettel had pitted for the softs) was 3.062 slower than Vettel's fastest. So if the softs had been at their best for a full five laps, by the finish, Vettel at least would have been taking the fight to 'Nando.



It really doesn't matter who we decide is responsible because the FIA know the truth of it. If you follow F1 closely, you know the only topic Pirelli's Paul Hembery is more vocal about than reminding us how boring F1 was before he/they bollocksed it is that the FIA have not yet issued them a contract (or tyre specs) for 2014.

Why, I wonder, are the FIA dragging their feet? Dare we hope that Pirelli will be sacked and the FIA will bring back one, maybe even two responsible adults as tyre suppliers?

No, sorry, I must be daydreaming. They couldn't possibly be that smart.
 
I wouldn't listen too strongly to Lauda. He told reporters that team orders wouldn't be used by Mercedes in the future, to which Ross Brawn contradicted less than a day later.
 
"This year, in general we have averaged one pit-stop less per car. If that trend carries on then we would soon be back to one stop at every race, so we need to do something to give it that extra challenge."
-- Paul Hembery, 06 Oct 2012

Doesn't sound like a man who thinks four pit stops per race is a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom