Pirelli Tyres in 2011
- Thread starter McZiderRed
- Start date
Josephiah
Podium Finisher
Yes, I was certain that would be the case, but wouldn't it be interesting (or just very confusing) if they allowed teams to mix and match? (My post was more a thought experiment than a rules query
)
On a sort-of-related note, I think in motoGP they have tyres which are asymmetric - i.e. the profile and rubber compound varies from left to right across the tyre depending on whether the circuit is clockwise or anti-clockwise.
J
On a sort-of-related note, I think in motoGP they have tyres which are asymmetric - i.e. the profile and rubber compound varies from left to right across the tyre depending on whether the circuit is clockwise or anti-clockwise.
J
In F1 all the tyres are equal apart from sizes front and rear.Many years ago one team,maybe Brabham,Lotus or it might have been Williams with their active suspension had sets of right and left handed wheels made, for use on clockwise or anti clockwise circuits.
These are banned in the technical regulations today.
These are banned in the technical regulations today.
Back in the 1970s and 80s it was common among the Goodyear runners to run different compounds on the front and rear - 'B's and 'C's usually. Very probably it was the same for the other suppliers too.
This was in the days of specialised qualifying rubber and so on, the like of which we will never see again.
This was in the days of specialised qualifying rubber and so on, the like of which we will never see again.
This was in the days of specialised qualifying rubber and so on, the like of which we will never see again.
Q tyres, one of the most excitng and dangerous things ever used in F1, "You've got 1 lap son, make it count". Although the way today's drivers whinge on about the tyres they use in qualifying you would think that they were only good for one lap.
Having read all of Snowy's testing threads, I have a concern for the efficacy of some the new tyres provided Pirelli.
Obviously, some drivers are better at "tyre management" than others, but are the tyres such that they will disadvantage the majority of the field or will this add to spectator enjoyment (as was, perhaps, intended)?
Obviously, some drivers are better at "tyre management" than others, but are the tyres such that they will disadvantage the majority of the field or will this add to spectator enjoyment (as was, perhaps, intended)?
I think any extreme predictions in F1 are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. I remember when the engines changed from V10 to V8 there were people willing to bet at long odds on not a single car finishing the first race!
At this point the teams are experimenting and learning about the outer reaches of tyre performance. No doubt they are deliberately exposing them to all kinds of treatments, pressures, driving styles and so on to gather data and build up their performance possibility frontiers - what will they be able to do, safely, on a race weekend, and what is out of bounds.
When it comes to the first race I expect to see a more settled picture. By this I mean:
- The teams will have found ways to run the tyre compounds in order to retain decent levels of performance through a stint (possibly by varying stint length/number of tyre stops)
- Nonetheless there will still be an advantage to the driver who can preserve his tyres longer.
This has always been the case, but is clearly going to be more important than in the past. There's a debate to be had about whether this sort of skill is appropriate for sprint racing formulae like F1 (or more suited to endurance racing etc.) but historically it has always been part of the overall package required.
At this point the teams are experimenting and learning about the outer reaches of tyre performance. No doubt they are deliberately exposing them to all kinds of treatments, pressures, driving styles and so on to gather data and build up their performance possibility frontiers - what will they be able to do, safely, on a race weekend, and what is out of bounds.
When it comes to the first race I expect to see a more settled picture. By this I mean:
- The teams will have found ways to run the tyre compounds in order to retain decent levels of performance through a stint (possibly by varying stint length/number of tyre stops)
- Nonetheless there will still be an advantage to the driver who can preserve his tyres longer.
This has always been the case, but is clearly going to be more important than in the past. There's a debate to be had about whether this sort of skill is appropriate for sprint racing formulae like F1 (or more suited to endurance racing etc.) but historically it has always been part of the overall package required.
Am I the only one who thinks the new tyres have turned F1 from racing into some sort of 3 day exercise in tyre management?
I get that some people like the whole managing/nursing a car to the end of the race, ensuring that they don't scrub their limited sets of tyres too much during qualifying, but personally I'd rather see racing.
If more and more races are going to be determined by who has a decent enough set of tyres left for their 9th pit-stop, then meh is all I can say.
I get that some people like the whole managing/nursing a car to the end of the race, ensuring that they don't scrub their limited sets of tyres too much during qualifying, but personally I'd rather see racing.
If more and more races are going to be determined by who has a decent enough set of tyres left for their 9th pit-stop, then meh is all I can say.
Completely agreed Brogan.
I think there should be a difference between "how many sets of tyres you can keep fresh before Sunday" and "driving skillfully during the race to preserve your tyres so you don't have to make an extra pit stop". Right now it seems like a case of the former.
I'm still going to hold faith for a few races yet to see how everything adapts but even though I enjoyed Malaysia for what it was I do feel slightly empty about it now.
I think there should be a difference between "how many sets of tyres you can keep fresh before Sunday" and "driving skillfully during the race to preserve your tyres so you don't have to make an extra pit stop". Right now it seems like a case of the former.
I'm still going to hold faith for a few races yet to see how everything adapts but even though I enjoyed Malaysia for what it was I do feel slightly empty about it now.
I think the quotas should be increased, but i understand the cost management that the FIA are attempting to bring in even if i don't agree with how they implement it. I believe each team pays £1m for tyres a year, can't remember where i heard that, but anyway, i presume that fee will need to increase to get them more tyres. Its great having all the team involved in strategy calls etc, but this is meant to be a sprint series and as you say, not a management game. Why have the fastest race cars in the world, then tell them they can't drive them flat out or their tyres will run out?
Hopefully Pirelli will 'tweak' the tyres slightly, in order to make the harder tyres last slightly longer. I like the fact that the teams have to make more than 1 pit stop per race, but they've gone too far the other way at present...
The number of tyres were limited to save costs. Its been so for the last couple of Bridgestone years as well, with the quotas being reduced each year. Last year it was 14. This year 11.
I was sorry to see F1 become a series of sterile sprints between pitstops, so I'm glad to see the reintroduction of more intelligence into racecraft. Ideally I'd give the teams three sets each of all four compounds per weekend, that might be fun. Or at least, under the current structure, one more set or two.
In the context of the testing ban and engine freeze, the money saved on taking out three sets of tyres can't be very much at all. And I have my own views on cost-cutting anyway...but that's for another time.
I suppose it depends on what you think F1 'is' or 'should be'.
In the context of the testing ban and engine freeze, the money saved on taking out three sets of tyres can't be very much at all. And I have my own views on cost-cutting anyway...but that's for another time.
I suppose it depends on what you think F1 'is' or 'should be'.
I had a post typed out but it was essentially the same as some of Galahad's points.
An extra set of tyres is a drop in the ocean cost-wise so why not increase it?
Having tyres which degrade a lot more and reducing the number of sets available is too much at once.
I'm fairly sure this was one of my main concerns when the 2011 rules on tyre allocations were announced, and that was before Pirelli decided to make them out of marshmallow.
An extra set of tyres is a drop in the ocean cost-wise so why not increase it?
Having tyres which degrade a lot more and reducing the number of sets available is too much at once.
I'm fairly sure this was one of my main concerns when the 2011 rules on tyre allocations were announced, and that was before Pirelli decided to make them out of marshmallow.
But realistically they need to be increased, as the tyres seem to be hampering the event - which would go against the saving costs intention.
Personally I feel they need to increase the quotas, and make the hard tyres last a lot longer (and chuck the option in of running without a pitstop!).
snowy
Champion Elect
More pit stops often equals less overtaking on track, it is quite possible there would have been more overtaking and more meaningful overtaking at that, had the teams had sensible tyres.
David Coulthard's avid protestations that die hard fans loved the race in Malaysia are unfortunately wide of the mark. I know for a fact that a lot of people really enjoyed that race and a lot of them were die hard fans. But the fact remains that it was a cacophony not a symphony.
David Coulthard's avid protestations that die hard fans loved the race in Malaysia are unfortunately wide of the mark. I know for a fact that a lot of people really enjoyed that race and a lot of them were die hard fans. But the fact remains that it was a cacophony not a symphony.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
