2012 comment: Schumacher's Pirelli complaints

[eytl]

Hi everyone,

In the second of our 2012 opinion pieces (instead of regular race reviews), on the eve of the Spanish GP I've chosen to write about Michael Schumacher's recent complaints about this year's Pirelli tyres. Dig a bit deeper, and I reckon there are some interesting issues at play instead of just a question of tyre compounds.

Check out my analysis here: http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/2012/schumacher/index.html!

Cheers,
Enoch

[Stramala]

Go home Michael Schumacher.

He can't cut it in Formula One 2012 and is looking for yet more excuses. "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen," as they say. If every driver up and down the grid had concerns and the racing was bordering on dangerous as a result of tyres, he would have had a point, but this hasn't happened, so he does not.

[Phoenix]

You have brought forward in this article something I was thinking all along: the fact remains that every era in F1 had it particularities and, still, the fastest man who manages to cross the finish line wins. You put the example of the turbo era between 1984 and 1988, when you had those thirsty turbocharged engines and you could adjust how they worked from the cockpit, and yet you only had a limited amount of fuel to complete the race. Alain Prost obtained prominent successes in that era, winning two World Championships and finishing runner-up in another two seasons. But then, when the turbo era was gone, he was still very much a top-line driver and never, ever, ranted about anything. He just plugged in with the job at hand and adapted superbly. Why can't Michael just do the same? He's vastly talented and experienced, and I see no reason why he wouldn't adapt to what F1 means today.

[AndreaModa]

Very interesting read Enoch, thanks. I suppose you could almost label it the 'meaning' of F1 - whether people believe it should be a sprinting, no-holds-barred dash to the line, or whether it should have more substance, more complexity. I firmly believe it should be the latter, that the highest level of four wheeled motorsport should not only represent the pinnacle of technology, but also the best, most sophisticated racing available. As you pointed out, that was pretty much the case right up until the introduction of re-fuelling, but which was only really eradicated once reliability was refined to the extent it is now. We've now returned to a point where intelligent racing is defining the best drivers on the grid, rather than those who can just keep their foot buried to the floor for the longest, and I think that's to the sport's credit. What needs to be examined now is the super-reliability which continues to strangle the life out of the lower reaches of the grid.

Going back to the point about sophisticated, intelligent driving though, it's the same problem that I fear is currently sapping MotoGP of its appeal. There, electronics have really taken a hold, ensuring that the bikes can be ridden with very little finesse and be made to win by simply opening the throttle. I truly believe that Casey Stoner, whilst no doubt being a very good motorcycle rider, would be nothing like as successful if he was given a bike with few electronics on it. The skills of riders like Rossi, Doohan, and the rest before them, was being able to ride bikes that were hideous unwieldy things that went bloody fast and ate rear tyres for breakfast. Having grown up watching Rossi dominate, I know that one of his main skills was being able to master a bike that had worn tyres at the end of the race. That for me, was entertainment, watching a supreme master being able to manage a machine and ride it at speeds that others could not. He wasn't thrashing it to within an inch of its life, but racing wasn't about that, even though MotoGP races have rarely been any longer than 20-30 laps. The same can be said of Formula 1. It should be about the best, most talented drivers mastering cars that are on a knife-edge of performance - getting the most out of them without compromising later race performance. It's smart, intelligent racing, not just powering around in a mad dash to the finish.

[BlindCaveSalamander]

You have brought forward in this article something I was thinking all along: the fact remains that every era in F1 had it particularities and, still, the fastest man who manages to cross the finish line wins. You put the example of the turbo era between 1984 and 1988, when you had those thirsty turbocharged engines and you could adjust how they worked from the cockpit, and yet you only had a limited amount of fuel to complete the race. Alain Prost obtained prominent successes in that era, winning two World Championships and finishing runner-up in another two seasons. But then, when the turbo era was gone, he was still very much a top-line driver and never, ever, ranted about anything. He just plugged in with the job at hand and adapted superbly. Why can't Michael just do the same? He's vastly talented and experienced, and I see no reason why he wouldn't adapt to what F1 means today.

I wouldn't say Prost never ranted about anything - I do recall him being quite upset at the decision to go ahead with the 1989 Australian GP, but I think that's beyond your point, which is that he didn't complain about the regulations like Schumacher is.

As for the article, Enoch, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that Schumacher's talent lies in sprinting. Aside from his 1993 win in Portugal, I'm struggling to think of a race where he excelled by conserving his equipment, rather than pushing 100% for lap after lap. Certainly most of his greatest drives came from that technique of going all-out - aside from Hungary 1998 and France 2004, Brazil 2006 also comes to mind. And we all know the difficulty Schumacher has in closing out titles he hasn't already sealed up or lost going into the final race - Adelaide-gate, Jerez-gate, stalling from pole then blowing a tyre in Suzuka 1998, and barely scraping the single point he needed in 2003. I'm now wondering if Schumacher was trying to play things conservatively, and perhaps in doing so, driving outside of his comfort zone, which led to those mistakes (In the case of Jerez-gate, letting Villeneuve get that close, as opposed to the actual attempt to take him out)? Just something to think about.

[Sublime_FA11C]

I think he's just holding them to a ransom. I would. I need another helicopter and a few swimming pools and i wont stop pissing in your cornflakes until you pay me to shut up.

In 2010 he struggled a lot more than this year and the Bridgestones could probably last the entire race, and even featured uneven levels of degradation so that you didn't really know if your tyres were dead or if they would come back to life after a few more laps. I know he was a bit rusty but that lasted only for a few GP. This years Pirellis are expiring perhaps just slightly sooner then they should but that means Pirelli is 0.015% off mark and doesn't deserve the kicking Schumi is giving them.

Schumacher's pain in the neck (chronic Rubens Barichello) has gotten worse and seems to be spreading. It's making it harder still to cheer for him. What will be the next complaint when the tyres are spot on and completely stop constraining the drivers abilities? He really needs that taste of Champagne soon.

In my opinion he has lost none of his edge, but his luck has deserted him. He racked up quite a number of mistakes since his comeback, but those would have normally been balanced out by a healthy points tally except that so far he really has awfull luck. Since coming back he had decent machinery at his disposal and his skill and racecraft called for a few wins already. But it never happened and 50% of it is due to luck. It's not the tyres or the car or even the man, he just needs a win very very badly.

If he had secured a win sometime in the last 12 months his comments today would be different. EDIT - I refuse to belive he is simply a sprinter. We cant insult him like that after he has proven himself so many times. He had a car more suited to him and he sure as hell tested it a lot but that's where the advantages stop. Well maybe add that his team was better organised and had more talented people but honestly you can't fault someone for making most of any advantage or opportunity.

[Ferrim]

A nice one, Enoch. You've raised several valid points.

That said, I wouldn't dare to affirm that Schumacher can't adapt to the circumstances. No driver wins at least a F1 race, every year, for fifteen years, without being able to adapt quite a bit (compare the 1992 spec to the 2006 spec cars...). He has not blamed his lack of performance on the equipment, he's made several remarks about today's tyres, which you may agree with or not. I believe he would have been one of the greats if Pirelli had been around in the 90s instead of now, his main problem is one of age: old dog doesn't learn new tricks, no matter how adaptative he is.

[East Londoner]

A very interesting piece indeed. I have to wonder how long Schumi will stick it out for. I can see him doing one more season and then calling it quits.

[Yannick]

Thank you Enoch for pointing out Michael Schumacher may be the most successful sprinter of all in motorsport. However, having seen that victory where he held off Prost in 1993 on live TV, I must say he was very skilled at that as well, having come from the endurance racing of Group C to F1.
The fact that he specialized in sprinting later on does not mean he would be a one-trick pony, just like the fact that IndyCar driver Sebastien Bourdais having won all of his 4 championships on street and road courses only does not mean he would be less successful on ovals (Bourdais did race on a few ovals, but that's a long time ago and now, it's like learning it anew).
The endurance aspect is probably also something which requires a skill set from Schumacher which he might have not needed in a while. But I guess he is just as capable of winning races as teammate Rosberg on days when his car is better than those of the other teams. It is not a surprise that at 44, it might take him longer to adapt to strategic details like this, especially when everybody around him considers him such an experienced man and thus requires of him to come up with these thoughts all by himself. Enoch, you did come up with these thoughts whereas he only noticed the tyres don't work like they used to.
Feel free to send a link to your article to his management and let him in on the endurance aspect that way. I'm sure that would help. I know that's not something journalists usually do, but why not?

[eurobrun]

A very interesting piece indeed. I have to wonder how long Schumi will stick it out for. I can see him doing one more season and then calling it quits.

I think that this will be his last year before he retires.

[Wizzie]

Actually, could this also explain why Schumacher defended so hard during the dying stages of the 2006 Hungarian Grand Prix when the general concensus would have been to either back off or switch to dries, which probably cost him a chance as the title in hindsight?

[LellaLombardi]

I'm a big Schumi fan and I thought it was a really good, balanced piece.

I agree that Schumacher's comments stem from frustration. There is no-one else on the grid who has driven in so many eras of F1, and he has seen it all in terms of rule changes. Whenever he's had a bad qualifying, I actually get excited because in the past that would have meant one of his classic races coming up. It is unfortunate too that the Mercedes seems to be worse than any other car in terms of tyre conservation, and yes, his style is more geared towards sprinting. All those factors mean he has had a dismal time of it, and also some rotten luck this year. In China all these factors combined to really hamper him.

I also think this will be his last year, and it will be so disappointing if he finishes it without a podium or a win. I really hope that he can adapt to this era too because that will enhance his legacy.

Let's take Sergio Perez for a moment. He could be seen as the opposite to Schumacher here because he is very easy on tyres, and so is the Sauber. If the rules change again in a few years and we go back to the old system, will he struggle? I rate him very highly indeed as he is undoubtedly quick and savvy but I also think the current era and rules really suit him and that is a big contributor to his performance

FWIW, I don't like the Pirelli tyres either. It discourages people from pushing it in qualifying and the racing is now too dependent on tyre strategy and not enough on the drivers. How many times have drivers tried to launch an attack on another only for it to peter out because they have to look after their tyres? That isn't exciting racing for me.

[AndreaModa]

FWIW, I don't like the Pirelli tyres either. It discourages people from pushing it in qualifying and the racing is now too dependent on tyre strategy and not enough on the drivers. How many times have drivers tried to launch an attack on another only for it to peter out because they have to look after their tyres? That isn't exciting racing for me.

I agree, no-one wants to see dull racing where drivers don't attack because of tyre wear, but that's where the intelligent drivers excel, they conserve their tyres and launch their offensive at a precise moment, or position themselves so that when others are struggling towards the end of the tyres' life they are in the best position to capitalise. That is the type of racing I want to see. The smartest drivers being there, in the right place and at the right time making great passes and taking deserved victories. If the drivers are too dumb to conserve their tyres and realise it's a fundamental part of strategy, then in my opinion I don't care how fast they are, they shouldn't be in F1.

Qualifying is currently crap simply because of the rule forcing teams to carry over the tyres they use in qualifying into the race. The FIA needs to stipulate specific qualifying tyres and separate tyres for the race. They don't need to be a different specification, just sets that can only be used in qualifying. The way we have it at the moment means we have the teams effectively on an 'economy run' in qualifying to ensure their race strategies are as compromised as little as possible. I'm all for saving costs but the current setup hardly helps the image of the 'pinnacle of motorsport'.

[Mister Fungus]

FWIW, I don't like the Pirelli tyres either. It discourages people from pushing it in qualifying and the racing is now too dependent on tyre strategy and not enough on the drivers. How many times have drivers tried to launch an attack on another only for it to peter out because they have to look after their tyres? That isn't exciting racing for me.

Unlike the more exciting racing on bridgestones where one drivers followed another for literally 60 laps without even attempting an overtake?

[Enforcer]

I'm not fond of the tires either, tbh. It isn't a case that F1 should have no tire management ever, and that there should be no endurance aspect at all, it's that Pirelli made the tires wear off deliberately, when they could, concievably, have the same grip but with more durability. Where possible F1 should be about the best of the best, not something deliberately designed to be sub-optimal.

If the FIA could actually bring in rules to make the cars less stupidly sensitive to following each other, then you could have anything on the wheels and wouldn't have to rely on gimicks like DRS and artificially high tire wear to provide overtaking. That's the problem I have with the tire wear, the DRS and KERS - they're gimmicks. They're gimmicks that have made the sport better to watch, I won't dispute that, but I wish the FIA could get car design to a point where they weren't necessary for close racing. I always feel it makes the sport feel a bit fake.

[dr-baker]

I'm a big Schumi fan...
I agree that Schumacher's comments stem from frustration. There is no-one else on the grid who has driven in so many eras of F1, and he has seen it all in terms of rule changes.

Rubens Barrichello sprung to mind - debut in 1993, pre-refuelling, when Schumi's career was about 20 races old. And Barri has the record for most GP starts. Plus Graham Hill began in the 1950s and retired in 1975 - he too saw some major changes. Rubens too seemed to become a bit of a moaner when things were not going his way in recent years. Not sure if Hill ever did. Can anybody say either way what Hill was like in the early-to-mid '70s?

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

What bugs me is the attitude (and not just from Schumacher) that the fact that the tires are the limiting factor is somehow worse than the other possible limiting factors. There is always a limiting factor! It's called the formula. The formula has changed over the years countless times. The tires are the same for everyone. So people can't push the car 100% for every lap, so what? Jimmy Clark couldn't push for every lap either because he was driving an exploding Lotus. If he could have pushed, he would have probably been the first 7-time champion.

The limiting factor is now the tires. It's way better than the limiting factor being (purely) the aero in my opinion. And when the drivers were the limiting factor, we had a much higher fatality rate which I wouldn't want to go back to. This era is good, the best drivers are at the top of the championship, but many drivers have a chance to reach the podium. Absolutely fantastic!

[East Londoner]

Go home Michael Schumacher.

He can't cut it in Formula One 2012 and is looking for yet more excuses. "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen," as they say. If every driver up and down the grid had concerns and the racing was bordering on dangerous as a result of tyres, he would have had a point, but this hasn't happened, so he does not.

Yup, after Sunday I have no choice but to agree with this. Schumacher needs to retire, he's damaging his legacy.

[Sublime_FA11C]

Well after Schumi's lattest comments on Bruno after their incident, i think the kindest thing to do is to wait somewhere along the streets of Monaco, wait for Schumacher to bin it, get him out of the car, put a little curtain around the scene, and shoot him in the head.

Sad for horses, sad for him, but kindest overall.

[AndreaModa]

What bugs me is the attitude (and not just from Schumacher) that the fact that the tires are the limiting factor is somehow worse than the other possible limiting factors. There is always a limiting factor! It's called the formula. The formula has changed over the years countless times. The tires are the same for everyone. So people can't push the car 100% for every lap, so what? Jimmy Clark couldn't push for every lap either because he was driving an exploding Lotus. If he could have pushed, he would have probably been the first 7-time champion.

The limiting factor is now the tires. It's way better than the limiting factor being (purely) the aero in my opinion. And when the drivers were the limiting factor, we had a much higher fatality rate which I wouldn't want to go back to. This era is good, the best drivers are at the top of the championship, but many drivers have a chance to reach the podium. Absolutely fantastic!

Very well put, I completely agree.

[LellaLombardi]

I'd just like to draw attention to this article from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson ... iocre.html

The difference - Enoch's one was a well research, well balanced piece which even as a Schumi fan I felt the points made were very fair. Andrew Benson's one would not even be worthy of the Sun, I'd expect much better from the BBC. As one of the comments point out, you just can't keep saying "the fact is" and then follow it with something that isn't a fact!

This is why I like F1 Rejects and often re-read the articles

[mario]

What bugs me is the attitude (and not just from Schumacher) that the fact that the tires are the limiting factor is somehow worse than the other possible limiting factors. There is always a limiting factor! It's called the formula. The formula has changed over the years countless times. The tires are the same for everyone. So people can't push the car 100% for every lap, so what? Jimmy Clark couldn't push for every lap either because he was driving an exploding Lotus. If he could have pushed, he would have probably been the first 7-time champion.

The limiting factor is now the tires. It's way better than the limiting factor being (purely) the aero in my opinion. And when the drivers were the limiting factor, we had a much higher fatality rate which I wouldn't want to go back to. This era is good, the best drivers are at the top of the championship, but many drivers have a chance to reach the podium. Absolutely fantastic!

One noticeable difference between the brittle Lotus cars of the 1960's and the tyres of today, though, is that Chapman's designs were limited by the available materials and manufacturing techniques - in other words, the main limitations tended to be down to technological reasons. By contrast, the tyres that Pirelli are producing are not being limited by technological but commercial interests, which, as Enforcer alludes to, opens up other major questions about the future ethos of the sport.

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

What bugs me is the attitude (and not just from Schumacher) that the fact that the tires are the limiting factor is somehow worse than the other possible limiting factors. There is always a limiting factor! It's called the formula. The formula has changed over the years countless times. The tires are the same for everyone. So people can't push the car 100% for every lap, so what? Jimmy Clark couldn't push for every lap either because he was driving an exploding Lotus. If he could have pushed, he would have probably been the first 7-time champion.

The limiting factor is now the tires. It's way better than the limiting factor being (purely) the aero in my opinion. And when the drivers were the limiting factor, we had a much higher fatality rate which I wouldn't want to go back to. This era is good, the best drivers are at the top of the championship, but many drivers have a chance to reach the podium. Absolutely fantastic!

One noticeable difference between the brittle Lotus cars of the 1960's and the tyres of today, though, is that Chapman's designs were limited by the available materials and manufacturing techniques - in other words, the main limitations tended to be down to technological reasons. By contrast, the tyres that Pirelli are producing are not being limited by technological but commercial interests, which, as Enforcer alludes to, opens up other major questions about the future ethos of the sport.

I won't dispute that fact Mario, but I don't know that it necessarily leads to your conclusion. I look at the Pirellis as an interim solution to the long-term problems caused by the engine freeze and aero regulations. I think those problems are meant to be solved by the new formula (I don't know whether the new formula will solve them or not) and so questions about the future of the sport in light of the Pirellis are rather moot.

Now if you're concerned about the larger issue of the fact that at points in the past F1 represented the leading edge of technology, and that we're artificially limiting the technology in order to spice up the show, you're right. But that's happened many times including the banning of active suspension, CVT, traction-control, slick tires (since reintroduced) and others besides. It's been quite some time since there weren't artificial restraints placed on the technology in order to spice up the show.

I've kind of bounced around here, I may not be fully addressing your point (running a bit short of time at the moment) but it's an interesting discussion and I think it should continue. I'm willing to change my mind, but I think even avid fans need an element of the show to maintain their interest.

[slopps]

You have brought forward in this article something I was thinking all along: the fact remains that every era in F1 had it particularities and, still, the fastest man who manages to cross the finish line wins.

except today its not the fastest man who crosses the line, is it.
Firstly, the drivers all have to drive within both their own limits and the cars, (michaels point). So therefore, they all aren't giving it their all...because they can't.
Secondly, they have to drive to a defined laptime, nursing the tyres so that they dont have to make another costly pitstop.
Thirdly, the driver is now EVEN LESS of an influence on the result, due to how much track temperature is affecting the tyres.

2 articles written by James Allen and Mark Hughes about what happened in Spain conclude that the primary reason for the teams varying performances compared to Bahrain was due to varying track temperature. Hughes concludes:

'The sustained aggression and relentlessness, maintaining flat-out on-the-limit driving for lap after lap, a skill that so few can master, is currently an obsolete requirement.'

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... s-in-Spain

It is not just schumi complaining - in Brundles blog on Sky website he said:

'On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are.'

Of course you could argue that tyres is just as arbitrary as any other part of the car.
Except i can't think of another part of the car where temperature would influence the cars performance in such a dramatic way. Also - Of all the other limiting factors you can think of - can you think of any that have meant the driver could not drive to his own limits for the race?

This is what the pirellis are doing - the drivers simply aren't racing anymore, they are nursing the cars home - thats the difference.
What is really frustrating about all this is - DRS is a tool that works. It might be too powerful sometimes, or not enough other times, but on balance, it works. It solves the problem of F1's dependency on aero causing turbulence. It solved that problem of giving cars a chance to overtake. With refuelling, and normal racing tyres....the racing would be epic.
Instead we've taken 1 step forward and 2 steps back in F1 rules, yet again.

How about the damage its done to qualifying? thats a whole other thread.

Watch some youtube videos of the cars from the V10 era, with the nervousness caused by the grooved tyres, and even with TC, the cars would move about. Qualifying was spectacular, with drivers visibly on it. The 2003 season was epic.

How on earth can you say that you prefer the skill of managing a car, over the raw skill of driving on the limit? Its absurd. What was Senna known for? For being very very fast, for extracting all possible speed out a car. All the great drivers were known for speed. F1 is about speed, and the fastest drivers pushing to the limit......thats how they got to F1 - by being fast.

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

[Frentzen127]

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

[BlindCaveSalamander]

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

This.

[eurobrun]

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

This.

+3

Even though it does make Predicament Predictions quite hard.

[Nuppiz]

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

This.

If you think that the season is awesome simply because right now we've had a different team and driver winning each GP, fine. I also liked to see Rosberg and Maldonado win. But, what I don't like is that the competition really is now on who can manage his tyres the best, not who is the fastest driver in the fastest car. I mean, it's just stupid that no-one really knows the full potential of their cars, because they can't push it to the limit because either the tyres won't allow that at all of they would be ruined in a couple of laps. And they are in a ridiculously short supply throughout the weekend, which leads to people sitting out Q3 just to have fresh tyres for the race.

Don't get me wrong, I like seeing as many drivers as possible having the chance to win (esp. after the early 2000s Ferrari domination). But when the quality of racing is artificially limited by a factor which could be easily rectified (Pirelli has stated many times that the could easily make more durable tyres with the same grip, but the powers-that-be in F1 wanted them to be worse), I just don't like it.

[DanielPT]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

This.

If you think that the season is awesome simply because right now we've had a different team and driver winning each GP, fine. I also liked to see Rosberg and Maldonado win. But, what I don't like is that the competition really is now on who can manage his tyres the best, not who is the fastest driver in the fastest car. I mean, it's just stupid that no-one really knows the full potential of their cars, because they can't push it to the limit because either the tyres won't allow that at all of they would be ruined in a couple of laps. And they are in a ridiculously short supply throughout the weekend, which leads to people sitting out Q3 just to have fresh tyres for the race.

Don't get me wrong, I like seeing as many drivers as possible having the chance to win (esp. after the early 2000s Ferrari domination). But when the quality of racing is artificially limited by a factor which could be easily rectified (Pirelli has stated many times that the could easily make more durable tyres with the same grip, but the powers-that-be in F1 wanted them to be worse), I just don't like it.

I'm sorry, but if you are against these tyres because they limit the full potential of these cars then you probably should also be against:

1 - The electronic aids ban, because with them, these cars would almost fly.
2 - The current limited wings, you know, because they are limited in order to keep the cars together.
3 - DRS and KERS which are gimmicks to aid overtaking and do make the race more artificial.
4 - The engines and transmissions having to last several races. How much faster the cars would be if not having this constraint?
5 - The Aero appendices ban. Their absence limit the way cars work the air flow.
6 - The testing ban. Teams can't develop their cars to the true potential because they cannot fully test new parts on current conditions.
7 - The Flexible aerodynamic parts and ground effect bans. Can you imagine the cornering speed?
8 - The Blown diffuser ban. See above.

Granted, some of those were banned because of costs other were because of safety, but all of them make the cars much worse than what they would be. You can find a few examples in there were the rules were written to improve the show, namely 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8. Is Formula 1 worse without them? Some might say yes others might say no, it is all a question of opinion, just like this tyre discussion. My point is, the artificial racing argument is moot because, as I exemplified here, a Formula regulation already means that racing will be artificially limited. Tell me, having tyres that last less any different than having smaller wings? Or limiting engine revs? It is something the teams need to work with like pretty much everything else. Red Bull adapted worst to the Blown diffuser ban because they were so dependent on them, though luck. The same goes for the tyres the only difference being that, currently, no team still managed to maximize the potential of their cars on every race (except, perhaps, Toleman). Time will come when they do and you start to see the familiar faces coming to the fore and leaving everybody else behind, if that is your main course.

[East Londoner]

I find it incredibly puzzling that we have fellow F1 fans who obviously know their stuff, but who prefer rules which are dictated so much by an aspect of a sport which isn't conducive to the racing, nor is to do with the sports core appeal.......going as fast as possible. That IS what motorsport, and F1 in particular, is founded on - whether you like it or not.

Come on. I bet virtually everyone wanted Maldonado and Perez to win, because it was so unexpected and feel-good. No-one apart from the real hardcore fans wants to see a mind-numbing one driver demolision job on the field like in 2002 and last year. I was absolutely sick of Vettel pulling off into the distance every single race, so this season is fantastic because everyone is having to work for results. As they should, because they are supposedly the 24 best drivers in the world...

My advice, not only to our new member, but to everyone is: Enjoy this season while it lasts. I certainly am!

[Nuppiz]

Fine, then. But they still really should increase the amount of tyres per weekend so we won't see drivers sitting out Q3 simply because of that. Also, while other technical limitations have aimed at limiting the speed differences, increasing safety and/or cutting costs, I still stand in my view that the current tyres have changed the sport too much from a race of speed to a race of strategy. And because everyone gets the same tyres, you really can't find a way around the issue, unlike with most other technical limitations.

All in all, I think that F1 is currently way too much limited. Maybe I shouldn't be watching it at all, because I find a ton of bad sides in it every bathplugging season. But I still do for whatever reason I cannot explain.

[Wizzie]

This is what the pirellis are doing - the drivers simply aren't racing anymore, they are nursing the cars home - thats the difference.

For the first 45 years of Formula One, it was all about nursing the car home

[dr-baker]

This is what the pirellis are doing - the drivers simply aren't racing anymore, they are nursing the cars home - thats the difference.

For the first 45 years of Formula One, it was all about nursing the car home

Indeed. Either through potential mechanical unreliability or, in the 1980s, through nursing a set quantity of fuel, something that the current drivers have also had to do. Having to drive to a certain mpg or l/100km is exactly the same as what Herr Schumacher is complaining about.

[AndreaModa]

Spot on Wizzie and dr-baker. Couldn't agree more.

Fine, then. But they still really should increase the amount of tyres per weekend so we won't see drivers sitting out Q3 simply because of that.

But that's entirely separate issue relating to the way Q3 works where drivers have to start on the tyres they qualified. Change the rules for qualifying, giving drivers specific sets only to be used in that session, and the problem is solved.

It's quite a sudden change to go from what was super-quick sprint racing in the refuelling-era, and what pretty much all of us here grew up with, to the change to more endurance racing in 2010 when it was banned. The difference is that only this year do we have Pirelli tyres which aren't durable enough to make strategy easy, combined with the ban on blown diffusers which has bunched the field up. The combined result is the opportunity for teams like Williams and Sauber to challenge for victories when previously they wouldn't have anything like the pace to challenge the financially more powerful bigger teams like Red Bull and McLaren.

It's really great to see drivers working for their victories, and should this environment continue for the longer term and not be negated by the intense development of the top teams, then we will gradually see an order emerging that will characterise those that can drive their cars with the knowledge and intelligence to manage their tyres and push at the right time, and those which just can't. I expect a few drivers to have their careers cut prematurely as a result, and I think we can all guess who the first of them will be.

[eytl]

Wow, I didn't expect my article to lead to such an interesting debate/discussion!

I lean towards the DanielPT / Wizzie / dr-baker / AndreaModa position. If I may quote my own article:

It is an easy misconception to believe that just because a Grand Prix is now more like an endurance event, that somehow slowcoaches are rewarded. That is not true. Every race in history has been won by the driver who has legally covered a stipulated distance in the fastest time. That is the definition of a race. The driver may not have been afforded the opportunity to deploy his ultimate speed, but it has still been a question of who has gone quickest within a certain set of constraints.

I know this year's Pirelli tyres are not a "rule" as such, but since it applies to everyone it is, practically, a rule. Every rule change in the history of F1 has had some motive behind it, whether technical, commercial, sporting, or safety-related (or a combination of those). Thinking back, I'd say that ever since skirts and ground-effect were banned in the early 1980s, every rule change (even if dressed up in the name of safety) has had the effect of putting some kind of limit on outright performance. Whether it be limiting fuel tank sizes during the turbo era to make sure cars couldn't sprint all race, or the banning of electronic aids, or the introduction of grooved tyres, or the high front wings from 2001-08.

Perhaps the difference is this: previously, when drivers and teams stepped "over the limit", the consequence was a breakdown or a crash. With the current Pirellis, stepping "over the limit" doesn't mean the draconian threat of a DNF, it means a loss of performance. The idea of pushing to the limit seems synonymous with "Villeneuve" (of the Gilles variety, not Jacques), "Senna" (of the Ayrton variety, not Bruno), "Schumacher" (of the Michael variety, not Ralf) - a pedal-to-the-metal, who-dares-wins, devil-may-care, caution-to-the-wind, name-your-own-cliche kind of attitude. Where fast = spectacular. Where there's nothing on the other side except doom (which is particularly poignant in the cases of Villeneuve and Senna).

It may be said that there's less of the daredevil, spectacular and "courage" element in reaching the limit of the Pirellis, or in trying to find a set-up, given temperature and track conditions, to get as close to the limit as possible. It may be said that the current situation is therefore less appealing.

I don't agree. I think it still takes a form of daring and courage to know how to get as close as possible to this year's limit, without stepping over the line. How to stay on the safe side of the Pirelli "cliff" and yet go as fast as possible. And you still get moments where you know a driver is hitting that limit. For example, Maldonado's out-lap after his second stop was, to my mind, simply epic.

You know which driver over the last few decades would be having an absolute field-day with this year's nuances? Alain Prost. Compared to Senna, I think Prost is undeservedly underestimated. Prost was never, ever spectacular. But he was simply The Master of knowing how to max out a car within its constraints, and rarely going over. And I dare anyone to say that Prost was not fast.

(For the Aussie touring car fans out there, it should come as no surprise to you that I quite dislike the endless sprint which the Bathurst 1000 has now become. I much prefer the days when drivers and teams had to find the balance between speed and mechanical sympathy. When Allan Grice/Win Percy can take an unwieldy Holden Commodore VL to victory in 1990 against a Nissan GTR and a dozen Ford Sierras ...)

[mario]

Spot on Wizzie and dr-baker. Couldn't agree more.

Fine, then. But they still really should increase the amount of tyres per weekend so we won't see drivers sitting out Q3 simply because of that.

But that's entirely separate issue relating to the way Q3 works where drivers have to start on the tyres they qualified. Change the rules for qualifying, giving drivers specific sets only to be used in that session, and the problem is solved.

As an aside, Pirelli have announced that they have the capacity to introduce Q3 only tyres - either custom compounds or simply additional sets of tyres - if there was an agreement between the teams and the FIA to modify the rules accordingly (in part because Pirelli are concerned about a potential backlash from spectators that are frustrated about cars sitting out of Q3). However, according to Pirelli the teams do not seem to be especially keen on the idea, preferring the current system where they can gain a strategic advantage by not competing in Q3. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99766

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome this season is.

Hard to top this line!

[DanielPT]

Spot on Wizzie and dr-baker. Couldn't agree more.

Fine, then. But they still really should increase the amount of tyres per weekend so we won't see drivers sitting out Q3 simply because of that.

But that's entirely separate issue relating to the way Q3 works where drivers have to start on the tyres they qualified. Change the rules for qualifying, giving drivers specific sets only to be used in that session, and the problem is solved.

As an aside, Pirelli have announced that they have the capacity to introduce Q3 only tyres - either custom compounds or simply additional sets of tyres - if there was an agreement between the teams and the FIA to modify the rules accordingly (in part because Pirelli are concerned about a potential backlash from spectators that are frustrated about cars sitting out of Q3). However, according to Pirelli the teams do not seem to be especially keen on the idea, preferring the current system where they can gain a strategic advantage by not competing in Q3. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99766

I will admit that I am now on Pirelli's side here. They are very open to the idea of qualifying tyres and it is now the teams (who complain of the tyres and lottery and stuff like that) that are reluctant to change. Who's fault is that? Certainly not Pirelli's. And the teams saying that we enjoy the strategy when there is absolutely almost no running on Q3 is oh so very daft from them.

[dr-baker]

Spot on Wizzie and dr-baker. Couldn't agree more.

"Nuppiz:" Fine, then. But they still really should increase the amount of tyres per weekend so we won't see drivers sitting out Q3 simply because of that.[/end quote]

But that's entirely separate issue relating to the way Q3 works where drivers have to start on the tyres they qualified. Change the rules for qualifying, giving drivers specific sets only to be used in that session, and the problem is solved.

As an aside, Pirelli have announced that they have the capacity to introduce Q3 only tyres - either custom compounds or simply additional sets of tyres - if there was an agreement between the teams and the FIA to modify the rules accordingly (in part because Pirelli are concerned about a potential backlash from spectators that are frustrated about cars sitting out of Q3). However, according to Pirelli the teams do not seem to be especially keen on the idea, preferring the current system where they can gain a strategic advantage by not competing in Q3. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99766

I will admit that I am now on Pirelli's side here. They are very open to the idea of qualifying tyres and it is now the teams (who complain of the tyres and lottery and stuff like that) that are reluctant to change. Who's fault is that? Certainly not Pirelli's. And the teams saying that we enjoy the strategy when there is absolutely almost no running on Q3 is oh so very daft from them.

The rules should definitely be changed so that there is a strategic advantage TO running in Q3. The teams are often talking about "putting on a show for the fans." They should put their money where their mouths are and accept good, old-fashioned qually tyres, and get rid of the rule that says that you start with the fuel/tyres you qualified on. It serves no useful purpose (not even "for the show").

[BlindCaveSalamander]

And again, I'm having trouble seeing why people complain about Pirelli. They've only really ever done what was asked of them, which is spice up the racing. It's a thousand times better than the frequent snoozefests we had with Bridgestone - anyone remember Monza 2010? When the bloody softs lasted damn near the whole race? Hell, even Bahrain was somewhat exciting! Yes, perhaps they've erred in making the tyres too sensitive this season, but I can forgive them that, because no matter how much they screw up in that direction - even if tyres are on the verge of exploding after 3 or 4 laps - it will never eclipse the disgust I had for Bridgestone after Monza 2010.

It sometimes seems like Pirelli is the only entity in F1 that actually seems to give a damn about the fans.