http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94116

When discussing the Pirelli tyre problems at Spa, Paul Hembery said (read the article for context)



Does he or Pirelli understand what 'racing' is about?

performance vs reliability/durability.

There's nothing wrong with what Hembery said.

at that quote. Idiot.

Actually it was risk vs.perfomance.


P.S. I think Pirelli have done a great job this year.

So let's get this straight, because of that 1 comment, you're questioning whether Pirelli should be in F1? Bizarre. Of course they should. Their point is they'd rather teams sacrifice a little performance to ensure that everything is safe. It's not like he's implying that teams shouldn't chase performance, because of course they should, but not at the expense of safety.

Pirelli have done a good job so far IMO.

Before we kick Pirelli out, they should be issued different tire specifications, and tell Hembery to stay at home, making speeches at his office. I would like to see also new (uncomplicated) regulations. Three types of tires through the season (dry, intermediate, wet), and let the teams to choose which one or how many they want to use. No need to make pit stops, if tire holds up. Let team managers to make those decisions (not mandatory rules) on the tire change.

+1

I'd rather have Pirelli anyday over the graining Bridgestones. They are one of the few breathes of fresh air in this stagnant formula, especially after the flop called the '14 regulations.....

i hate mandatory pit stops and tires that last 10 laps - but that's me and i've followed F1 only a bit over forty years...

Do you understand what a 'grand prix' is about?

Pirelli has been the only thing that has saved this season. Imagine a Vettel whitewash without the exciting races, and we're back to 2002/4. The amount of criticism they get is naive and misplaced.

Exactly, the fact that we're calling this one of the most exciting seasons ever despite total domination from Vettel just shows how much Pirelli have contributed to Formula 1.

Absolutely.

Problem with statements such as Pirelli "saved" the season is that while maybe some drivers were lucky to have tires for the whole race, others perhaps were less fortunate.

Teams usually (or very, very seldom) do not want to go public with such admissions. My idea of tire is “the same for all”, and I am not convinced we have it this season; reporting on variances seems sketchy and rather not too reassuring. We have WDC, WCC, but I know nothing about WTC (world tire championship). Cars and drivers are competing, and since there is only one supplier – which is not necessarily bad – tires should be more stable to permit combination of vehicle and driver to shine on merit of theirs work. Webber for example was shafted, and so is Schumacher, just to name two names on the grid, and I am not convinced that Alonso and Hamilton are very happy either.

As Sebastian's fan, I want him to defeat on the track other drivers based on his skills, not because they had greater deterioration of theirs tires.

They have been brilliant, delivered exactly what was asked and exactly what was needed. TBH we don't need DRS with these tyres, cars are passing each other like I have never, ever seen, it's been fantastic. I have been watching since 1993 and this season has smoked all others because drivers are on different strategies and able to pass if needed cos they are on better rubber. Some of the racing has been amazing.

kudos Pirelli.

Not sure about all of these (excessive?) rules about tyres. It seems to me the best way to spice up the spectacle (if that's what you want) is to make tyres that last, say, 35-40 laps with a more linear decline in performance. Have only one dry-weather compound available.

This would guarantee at least one stop but would give a very wide window in which to make that stop - hopefully, giving some teams/drivers the option to try a strategy that's different from others (maybe looking at the way their car uses it's tyres rather than simply covering someone elses stop).

I'm sure it would save money too.

You'd make a great tabloid journalist with your selective quoting. You know exactly what you're doing so please don't stir the pot.

So basically you want a tyre that'll last the entire race with no degradation, graining, or drop off. So Bridgestone tyres from 2010 in other words.

Agree with those who believe Pirelli have been one of the main reasons this season has been great. I believe (although cannot recall source, so please don't ask) that they have contributed to more overtakes than DRS.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. If the teams and FOM/CVC were willing to pay a honest price for the tires, Bridgestone could have been convinced to stay and continue as suppliers. But everyone in F1 thinks a bit too highly about the 'status' of the show and sponsorship. Pirelli, too, will get fatigued of this nonsense in a few seasons. Hopefully some other sucker will be ready to build low quality tires for F1 and GP2 teams.

So you must be a fan of 2010 season. Not me.

I think that was Alonso's personal opinion too. He stated at the weekend that he thought Pirelli had xontributed more to the show than both driving aids.

Absolutely they should be in F1, we ought to be grateful to them. I think anyone who criticizes Pirelli are completely ignoring the risk they took when they came into F1.

They followed the FIA's request for more variance in the degradation of the tyres - because the entertainment factor was driving away fans and viewers, reduced viewers = less sponsor attractiveness which was struggling enough in the light of the worldwide recession. Everyone went mental about the Canada 2010 race because the varied surface knackered the Bridgestones...or perhaps people who do criticize preferred Monza where a set of softs went 52 of the 53 laps?

Pirelli have spoken about how they COULD make a tyre to last way beyond the limits of a grand prix, and no-one would be overly critical, but if you get a tyre to last 50 or so miles to spice up the show, you risk your reputation as people (who are too dumb to realize what's going on, or just love to troll on the internet) will only see/comment on the shitty lifespan of the tyres.

Pirelli don't ever deserve the fans contempt unless they pull a Michelin @ Indy trick. They, more than any other gadget, have given the fans an excellent season despite what ever various driver fans will have you believe about it making tyre conservation too important. They should be congratulated on being prepared to risk their reputation. For me, they come out stronger and with more credibility as a result.

Credit to the FIA as well for having the balls to request this from the potential suppliers.

if you want great tyres then you need compertion, simply.

so thatll be le mans series, and trophy trucks

I pick out the important (TO ME) part of an interview with the senior Pirelli engineer and you don't like it! Too bad.

F1 used to be about stretching the boundries - pushing the cars/drivers to go that bit further to beat the opposition. Pirelli don't want that, it might make their "40 miles and onto the scrapheap" tyres look bad.

What do Pirelli want - "F1 Nanny State" - don't do that you might get hurt. That might suit the people who've replied here claiming this year is the best ever. Why is it best - because the rubbish tyres are creating totally artifical overtaking. Overtaking that doesn't affect the final results of the races, because the best cars are still winning all of the races.

The best cars are winning all the races, as it has been for 99% of races ever. However, the crucial difference is that any one of the six best cars may now win, rather than just the one in front at the first corner. That's what makes it so good, there are genuine fights for the lead.

I might be completely wrong but I was under the impression that Pirelli provided the tyres for free, or nothing more than the oodles of free advertising and exposure that they received. Mind you it is potentially a lot of tyres to provide per weekend, sixty four per car, which is over 1,500 tyres each weekend. But every driver on the podium wears a Pirelli baseball cap which is some good guaranteed exposure of your brand. And a lot of people are talking about Pirelli these days which they just were not doing for Bridgestone in the last decade at all. I suspect that Pirelli are very happy indeed with their F1 return.

I think what F1 needs to move towards is removing contrived regulations in the sport, such as the need to fit two different tyre options during a race. F1 has loads of rules, but they should to try to reduce the rules that are specifically there to spice the racing up, and leave the rulebook there for safety and to eliminate performance advantage. I don't see why they need to have DRS and Kers and have to run different tyre compounds as well.

Well while you focus on the risk Pirelli took, you rather ignore the world wide exposure and extensive name recognition they gained simply by rejoining F1 and capturing or recapturing the attention of both previous and newer generations , the latter of which may not be as familiar with them. So the "risk" they took that you speak of, is negligible in light of the gains. Anyone with minimal intelligence realizes that their road tyres are not going to respond like F1 tyres - even if they don't realize F1 asked for tyres with a shorter lifespan. And that same individual with minimal thinking power would understand that if F1 allowed the tyre company in at all, it has to be top of the line. So I feel if Pirelli tried to use your argument as a basis of escaping criticism and/or responsibility for their business actions and dialogue, the result would be epic fail. (Not to mention the extraordinary irony/hypocrisy of their banking on fan appreciation of the business risk they took to support their hallowed position in F1, as you suggest, while simultaneously condemning teams for taking risks with their tyres (even acknowledging that the risk assessment parameters in each case is completely different, they'd still get the jaundiced eye over that one.))

Joining F1 means getting both contempt and praise from fans - and Pirelli is well aware of this. Nobody is going to continually reserve praise for them however, when they make what are felt to be poor decisions. I would disagree with your declaration that they 'don't ever deserve the fans contempt unless they pull a Michelin @ Indy Trick' - which was a fine example of "the epitome of an ignorant move" - but just one of many a tyre company can make. To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous as Pirelli, like all big companies, must face up to all of its business actions and dialogue as well as all praise and condemnation aimed its way as a result.

Yes.

It's not a 2 lap sprint is it. I think you're the one that doesn't understand what Formula One Grand Prix Racing actually is.

The gains were not enough for Bridgestone, they chose to withdraw from F1. Pirelli are only getting attention because of their 'lottery' tires, and because they are fresh to the scene. If their quality control and tires improve Pirelli too will see less and less 'value' in F1. Give it time.

I agree I focused on the risk Pirelli took and didn't bother to talk about the marketing perspective. You are correct that obviously the benefits rise above the rewards.

You mention "anyone with minimal intelligence" a couple of times, I refer you to the original poster's comments about junk tyres - it seems clear he's completely oblivious to the request and has decided Pirelli are clueless.

Quote : "F1 used to be about stretching the boundries - pushing the cars/drivers to go that bit further to beat the opposition. Pirelli don't want that, it might make their "40 miles and onto the scrapheap" tyres look bad.

What do Pirelli want - "F1 Nanny State" - don't do that you might get hurt. That might suit the people who've replied here claiming this year is the best ever. Why is it best - because the rubbish tyres are creating totally artifical overtaking. Overtaking that doesn't affect the final results of the races, because the best cars are still winning all of the races."

If that quote isn't proof that you'll never satisfy some people, then I don't know what is.

And most of the tire problems in Spa were caused by camber angles exceeding the save range recommended by them.

DTM style? No thanks.

No - we're getting 10 lap sprints.

I want a tire to carry the driver and vehicle in safe manner, but without being part of the competition. (Std. and stable - very little variation - component only). Combination of vehicle, driver, wheather, track condition, and team's strategy is sufficient mix for me.

We sometimes get too many pitstops, but generally Pirelli tires are imho good for the sport.

Some tire related rules should be dropped though. Like the Q3/race start one. Another example would be the tire allocation limit, which should be increased (from 14 sets in 2010 it went down to 11 in 2011!).

Impossible. Different cars will suit stable tyres as much as different cars will suit more variable compounds. We saw how Brawn were kinder on their tyres, Bridgestone control tyres, in 2009. Likewise, we saw the massive difference between teams such as Ferrari and Toyota on the Bridgestone competitive tyre in 2006, the latter unable to get any temperature into it.

Likewise with drivers. Alonso and Raikkonen initially struggled to get used to the 2007 Bridgestone control tyre, handing the initiative to rookie Hamilton.

Just because it's more in our face this season doesn't mean the Bridgestones had no part in competitions before this season. Why is Webber so slow this season? He hasn't adapted to the Pirellis, but doesn't that make his Bridgestone advantage unfair regarding Vettel?

You're suggesting an impossible situation unless all of the drivers and cars were identical.

Based on this season, NO. Give me last seasons Bridgestones any day.

Are you claiming drivers have a choice of tyres this year? One tyre running 2 seconds slower than the other doesn't present a choice.

Nope, I'm just rebuffing the idea that a tyre will not contribute to the "competition" as Sakae put it, based upon the fact it is a harder compound. It will cause (different) inadvertent variations in competition regardless of compound/brand. Last years Bridgestones were noticeably incompatible with Schumacher and Massa. This years Pirellis are noticeably incompatible with Webber. Sakae (as I interpret it) is seemingly suggesting that last years tyres are more fair and representative, but this is nonsense as we cannot know and tyres/cars/drivers/circuits/temperatures change every year.

That was reduced several years ago.

No. Now it it 6 sets of prime and 5 sets of option per weekend. I think that last year it was 7 sets of prime and 7 sets of option. For sure it was that way in 2009. Maybe the reduction came in 2010 - in that case obviously it was not a problem with the Bridgestone tires, but it is with the Pirellis.

Plus I think that the rule forcing the teams to return tires after each day is quite new.

Lowering the quality of the tyres to entertain the lowest common denominator is just laughable. But when the lowest common denominator is a vast majority of the fanbase, then it is easily accepted.

F1 is about pushing everything technologically to the limit....not degrading the quality for a Mcdonalds meal so that the majority can swallow it more easily.

600 passes this season? I only saw 2 dozen 'real' overtakes myself. The rest were just cars passing each other like they do on the highway.

Pirelli is just gimmicky tyres. Add DRS to it (FIA allowing the one following a mechanical advantage at a certain point that the one in front is not allowed to use while he has it on his car, to become a sitting duck) and what you have is just not real F1.

It is Tryes1.

F1 wouldn't exist without the people watching it so some concessions have to be made in the name of entertainment. There is not point whatsoever in having an immaculate race series that nobody at all watches. (I thought that DRS allowed the car following to have an aero advantage not a mechanical one ? )

Easy overtakes are so commonplace, that when a midfield driver, against all expectations, comes back at the frontrunner, we end up with an accident like LH & KK had on Sunday.

F1 hasn't suddenly become popular in the last couple of seasons. Bernie made his £ Billions some years ago.

Did they at least tried FFS?

So DRS/KERS & Pirelli are all to blame for LH's mishap on Sunday? That's stretching things beyond far isn't it?

F1 may well be the pinnacle of technology, but it's usually been controlled to some extent. What hasn't changed is that it's supposed to be a sport & sports are supposed to entertain, if they don't, they become minority sports very quickly.

Look at 20/20 cricket, it's far from the idea of a Test Match, but it's appeal is great for casual viewers & TV, This entices sponsors and brings in more cash for the game in general. Nobody who is a true fan regards 20/20 as comparable to a test match but it's far more likely to be entertaining. (Unless England are destroying the Aussies in which case it's ALWAYS fun!)

F1 was getting boring for established viewers, let alone casual/new fans, TV figures proved that, sponsors noticed that, owners, drivers & the FIA noticed that. They went looking at measures to improve the show. The mandate for any tyre company was to provide a degree of 'uncertainty' to the races through degradation. Pirelli have done just that. Sometimes the DRS zone is too large (Turkey obviously, probably Canada & Spa as well) but I'll gladly take a race with 'too many' overtakes than the borefests at Valencia over the years.

Yep,followed F-1 since a kid in the 1960's and have never seen anything like this,200 MPH machines scrubbing out tyres in a handful of laps & racing on blistered tyres,no matter who's at fault, is ridiculous.
As i posted in the other thread apparently Pirelli are throwing "more resources" into their F-1 programme but i bet they wish they had never returned to F-1,the Ghost of Firestone must be hovering.