Hey, From Autosport; I guess the boys in red had a quiet "chat" with the Pirelli guys! Cheers, Ian http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93680
The made the tyres harder to help McLaren earlier. Now they made them softer to help Ferrari. They should freeze the design of the tyres before the season starts and let them alone. That would be the only fair solution.
So, you do believe it's all a conspiracy?....... Maybe next season, but I think that would be a little unfair on Pirelli right now. 'Twas different when they could pound out the testing miles, but even Pirelli can only test new ideas on Fridays now, and by their own admission they're still learning. OTOH, I can certainly argue that they should bring all 4 compounds to every race and let each team decide what they want - Except Pirellis costs then skyrocket as noted elsewhere. As long as it's the same for everyone, I'm good with it. [The argument for the sole supplier of course.] Cheers, Ian
I thought it was weird they aren't going to use the hard compound at Monza. Would the hard tires last too long there?
And watch an inferior car win because of the tire brand they run? No thanks. The sole supplier rule was a blessing to F1. The competing should be between the teams, not between the tire companies.
yup. and separate tires for quali and race. saving quali tires for race day is good strategy but bad for fans.
+1...I know that they are rightfully fearful of losing ratings with a RBR runaway, but I'm not a fan of all of the tinkering. Let the best team win, period.
Nonsense. Everyone with the same tires and same engines and same cars and same fuel. That is a spec series. It is where F1 is headed. Multiple tire manufacturers led to greater innovations and multiple strategies being used. The racing was a lot better. 1 compound does not fit the requirements of all teams on all tracks. Period. Not true. Most F1 fans simply do not have access to information how many tires a team has left, what is the wear on them and what compound was used in qualifying. Sitting in the stands it is even harder to gage who is on what set of compounds. At least in the days of multiple tire suppliers it was clearer... Ferrari run Bridgestone.... XYZ run Michelin... Tires were part of the team and fans picked their cars' tires to match those that had just won on Sunday. They were not the fixed variable used to manipulate the outcome of the show.
I always thought the two compound rule was set by the FIA. Turns out the stupid idea of two tires comes from the tire companies?
Let the teams pick and choose from the four compounds. I think this would bring a lot more uncertainty (good for fans), and would give the tire manufacture's name more time in the limelight (good for tire manuf.). The biggest story of the day would be what tires and what strategy each of the teams are on.
Who cares if the hard tires don't get used for the rest of the season? They last too long and are boring. The softer the better. This is not a conspiracy to favor any team. It is a cunning plan to keep the overall F1 show interesting by forcing 3 or more pit stops in any given race. As for the rule forcing the usage of at least two compounds in a race - I agree that is a rubbish rule and needs to be pensioned off as soon as possible.
Not as I understand it. The mandate for running two compounds comes from the FIA. The choice if which ones comes from Pirelli. That was news to me.
About time. What took them so long? Seriously, when it was announced that Pirelli would become the sole tire manufacturer it was a given to me, that they would work "exclusively for" Ferrari. Pirelli has been one of the prime tire manufacturers for Ferrari for decades so I was a bit surprised they didn't work closer together right from the start with the goal of creating a "Ferrari tire". Glad to see that finally some old connections are being put to good use again. Should have happened a lot sooner.
Actually that was my opinion. No attempt at being sarcastic. I do believe there is a lot going on in F1 behind the scenes that we never see or where we only see some strange outcome of. This is about big egos and more important big money. And not "just" F1 money, but car manufacturing big money. What we see on Sunday on the track is probably only half of what drives the results.
Are you saying they can't adapt? They have to adapt every time Pirelli changes its strategy. Requiring the use of multiple compounds during a race is adding a phoney component to the competition. Refueling was eliminated, tire changes (except in the case of tire failure, obviously) could be too. Pit stops ruin the flow and pace of the race. Let the race be between drivers and cars, not pit crews.
I disagree. It is a team sport and pit stops give the mechanics a chance to be part of the action. Also it throws in a bit of a random element, which is a fresh wind in an established WDC situation.
+1 to all of the above except "3 or more stops" - I reckon they want two or more, but as we've seen, you can sometimes pull a one stopper. Very good to have a mix of strategies IMO. Incidentally, the complete article (link in the OP) also notes that "they don't expect to use it again" - It's not ruled out completely. Indeed. Pirelli have got in the habit (I don't believe it's a "rule") of announcing which they're gonna bring 3 races ahead of time. The next 3 will be M & S, M & S and S & S/S for example [ http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93611 ]. With all due respect; Nonsense! (IMO!) Pirelli were (and remain) staunchly independent of any single team. One of the reasons the early tire testing used the old Toyota and a non race driver. There's various interviews with Hembery where he states in no uncertain terms that no team (regardless of position in the pecking order) would influence their decisions on which two compounds to bring - They look at likely temps, expected wear rate and so on to decide. There is absolutely no way Ferrari (or anyone else) is influencing this decision. Cheers, Ian
