2012 season tires, what do you think ***SPOILERS****

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99110

We've had four constructors all running various levels of downforce that might as well be five constructors (Lotus) who we know are capable of winning. This season the tires have been made such an 'X' factor that almost any team on the field can match what a top team is doing due to perhaps 'Z' team in question finding the tire sweet spot better than 'Y' top team. So we have Mclaren who have a magnificent car with tons more downforce than Lotus, but Lotus is quicker because Mclaren didn't find the 'spot' that made the tires work right. Good for Lotus, right? But is this a war on aerodynamics?

It seems the fruits of Mclaren, Red Bull, Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes labor amounts for little if they don't find the sweet spot in the tires for a particular weekend. On one hand I am glad seeing so many teams running really well depending on their understanding of the tires, but OTOH it's sickening because something that's supposed to be a constant (tires) is now dictating how a team runs their campaign and engineering programs. It's making it less about making a great car and more about understanding tires which I am not sure the teams really agree with. Is it F1? Or F-tires?

Now we have Schumacher coming out the other day saying 80% of the drivers on the grid don't like the tires because they do not allow a driver to extract the most from the car or themselves. He's further saying a race these days feels like they are driving around following a safety car (Michael's words, not mine!) as they don't want to destroy these fragile tires no one seems to understand.


Did the gambling websites get with Bernie and bribe Bernie to make the races more unpredictable by having Pirelli make a tire with a tiny sweet spot and that falls apart? Last year didn't seem to be a huge deal, the tire simply fell apart and that was that. This year it's a bullseye, and whoever hits it or is near it, wins. It's great to see as a spectator, but frustrating as a team.

 

Personally, I think the current tire rules and the current tires are a joke. I was annoyed that a spec tire was being introduced to begin with, and even more annoyed that the teams are rquired to use two separate compounds during every race. Aside from that, now we have tires designed from the ground up to be damn near useless after a couple of laps. Why don't we just have random moving targets as well???

I think the rules should be reexamined and rewritten. If there must be a spec set of tires, and the use of two compounds, I think the compounds should have a more linear wear pattern and all the teams should be given a choice to use ANY 2 of the 4 compounds on any given weekend. Let the teams choose what works best for them and get back to hammering out more fast laps instead of kitty-footing it around trying to not get caught out.

Mark

 

It seems like they were just too much for what they were trying to accomplish, which was more passing. The DRS does more than well enough what they were trying to do and the tires very much look like a farce now. Teams can CFD design certain components and spend weeks building a piece to upgrade the car only to find the tires are what make the world go round and not so much some cleverly designed component. I suppose it's most maddening for aerodynamacists who design a car capable of much more than the tires are physically capable of.

 

In my opinion, a sprint race should essentially be an hour and half qualifying-pace run!

 

Certainly, Pirelli are in a tough position. It's been said before - As sole supplier if they win, they're almost forgotten. OTOH, becoming "front & center" isn't what we're after either.....

My 02c, and I can argue this all different ways;

- I like the idea of "bring all 4 and let 'em do whatever they want". But, it would be a nightmare for Pirelli. IIRC, they fill a 747 with 2 compounds ( + the others of course). Flying another jumbo round the world ain't cheap as we know. [Pretty much the reason they did away with refueling - The rigs alone took another jumbo.]

- Further, and I have no idea why the shelf life is so short (?), Hembery said they destroyed bunches of unused primes after every race..... Multiply that by all 4 "unused" and $$$!

- I don't have a problem with "must use both" - Working well, it forces 'em to think a little, and that's good. I would like to see 'em allowed to swap qualy tires for the race - Even if they've gotta be the same compound, let 'em use fresh ones at the start. Wouldn't add any cost either

- As for 'em falling apart - Tough one! - In fairness, they all told Pirelli they were happy with the tires after testing. They weren't quite as "front & center" in the first 3 races - Lots of "talk", and a few "suffered" here & there, but overall it was - "It's the same for everyone" - and that remains the case.

They asked Pirelli to be "aggressive", and they were - They were happy in testing, what's changed? The temps changed in testing too, they should have seen they appear to "need" a tiny window to work, surely?

Were they all blowing the rear tires in testing? Or did that come later? [Fancy ass "brake ducts" aren't capturing all the flow after all..... I dunno, just a thought?]

Cheers,
Ian

 

I can't help thinking that had the Merc's finished the other way round in China you wouldn't be saying this!

Sure, Michael has had an incredible run of bad luck, but it does remain the same for all. TBH, and I said this before somewhere, I'm surprised he was the one to express his frustration. He's earned that right, but AFAIK he's never thrown anyone under the bus before (? cue the haters..... )

Cheers,
Ian

 

It's difficult.

For us fans, we can see some fantastic racing. We don't have a one horse race like last year with Red Bull and just watch the rest of the teams squable around a bit for the rest of the places. 4 races, 4 different winners. From 4 different teams. When was the last time that happened in F1?

OTOH, I can see why drivers are getting frustrated. A recovery drive by doing quali laps for an hour and a half is nigh on impossible, you'll lose far too much time in the pit. For the designers it must be a ***** too, Certainly for Mclaren, as their car seems to be quickest overall.

I'm on 2 fences with this.

 

Luxembourg, 1997 apparently..... [Which may or may not have been in Hungary at the time!....]

I too can see both viewpoints - It may come down to "did my favorite jockey / team benefit or suffer" this past weekend alters one's POV (?)

Cheers,
Ian

 

i absolutely agree. The tire rules are nothing but another "contrivance", intended to make the race interesting, but ultimately less competitive as real racing.

The moving target idea ... why not? Why not have tires that randomly go flat, according to a master random number generator? These ideas could certainly make the "sport" more interesting ... therefore, a good idea, right?

and i really think that any time a team is motivated to not qualify as far up on the grid as possible ... something's a bit askew.

 

It's not perfect, it never will be always someone has got to moan about something.

The state of play with tyres has been done for a reason, and it's working the racing is great IMO.

 

I'm over it. Michael's luck is what it is.

I'm viewing the tire situation as quite a conundrum as I know Mercedes win was probably not possible because of it, but at the same time should a teams incredible amount of hard and clever work designing a car with superior aerodynamics really be all down to if their suspension arrangement can make best of the very finicky tires at the track in question? It seems counter-intuitive to designing an aerodynamically superior car doesn't it?

I'd be willing to offer conjecture regarding Vettel in Spain and that they are finding the tires and the car yet again are not playing nice with one another. Just because it's a different track. I just don't believe F1 teams should be having to deal with this as their primary factor in winning races.

 

No doubt the racing is wonderful. We're seeing a rainbow of different teams at the front which is neat

 

Bingo.

 

But at the same time it's frustrating ya know? Mclaren running in 9th all because they just couldn't get their hands around the tires this weekend. Really weird that a team should have to worry about something as insipid as tires rather than tuning that new advanced aero bit they poured over designing.

 

Negative on both counts

Yup. Whatever we say, we're all guilty of changing our view points if ''our'' driver is involved in some way. Perhaps even more when the driver is disliked in our viewpoint...

 

Agreed. Paraphrasing Viz, we may see a Caterham on pole soon if they get their tires "in the window" better than anyone else on a particular track. Good luck to 'em!

One could make an argument that that is *exactly* what they should be doing......... I'm not, but it has sure led to some interesting races - Called "great" by many here as we know.... Isn't that the point?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Well yes and no, as you know I am a Ham fan, Button beat him last year I attributed that to Buttons good tyre management, that's excluding Hams many tangles with Mr Massa though.

I hear your concern, however F1 is constantly tweaking the rules to increase on track action, IMO the tyres going off is not a bad way of doing it.

Folk complain about KERS DRS they are all factors to increase overtaking it is never going to suit everyone, however I feel at present it is not that bad, I do not like runaway success from any team or anybody to be honest.

 

yep.

Drivers in testing didn't complain about the tires-and its the same for everyone. MS should have gotten a podium in China but for his loose wheel....Pirelli wasn't responsible for the poor pit work.

Closer racing hopefully means more spectators which means higher revenues which means more money for everyone involved, especially Gollum.

 

guys, if the "figure of merit" is simply seeing different teams on the podium, i'm sure we can think of all manner of contrivances to achieve this goal :

- if you won the last race, you get two gallons less gas next race
- if you're leading the points, you have to use 7 different tire compounds in the next race
- as mentioned, add moving targets to the track
- randomly shut down engines on the track, just for some "excitement"
- add sprinklers that turn on and off randomly ... oh wait ... nevermind

what i'm saying is that "contrived conditions" may make for a variety of teams winning, and some artificial excitement during the "show" ... but it doesn't necessarily equal good racing (in my view)

 

Which is why NASCAR viewership is DOWN.

 

Agree, but there's a certain difference in 'artificialness' between giving everyone the same kind of let's call it 'difficult' tires and random interventions in the course of the race.

 

True.
But tires designed to fail are antithetical to what racing (f1racing in particular) should be all about.
What hubris it is to think that we can improve competition by adding artificial limits.
Truth is that it's no longer about the sport but about the show.
Dumb it down and add glitz. Get the TV numbers. Make the bucks. Whore out the tradition.


Thank you. I feel better now

 

+1

truer words, have never been written

 

Since Bernie has been running it, it always has been that way, at least we got rid of his side kick Mosley deciding the results over the board room table.

 

Thanks' usually my rants are received with suggestions that I have my meds checked