F1 could drop ‘designed to degrade’ tyres

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: F1 could turn its back on high degradation tyres in the wake of the blow-outs seen at Spa and row over pressures at Monza.

Show your support

Which drivers and teams are you rooting for in 2015? Here’s how you can show your support for all the competitors on F1 Fanatic:

  • Log in with your F1 Fanatic account (sign up here if you don’t have one)
  • Select Edit My Profile from the top-right menu
  • Select F1 Teams and Drivers
  • Make your selections then click Save Changes

Tweets

Comment of the day

With a third world championship for Hamilton looking ever more likely, how do we square his abilities as a driver with the fact he has a considerable car advantage?

You have to look at speed relative to the team mate in that case, and in that case Hamilton is faster and is out performing his competition so credit is due. As has been the case with Hamilton all his career, beating his team mate every season bar one.

Every world champion in history has had a fast car, no driver has won a championship from mid field, that’s just not how F1 works, so should be not credit all the champions in history because they have a very fast car or the best car on the grid.
Michael Woodward (@Woodyd91)

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ferrari’s hopes of seeing Michele Alboreto clinch the 1985 world championship took a blow in their home race at Monza as he retired while Alain Prost won, opening up a 12-point lead.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

77 comments on “F1 could drop ‘designed to degrade’ tyres”

  1. I suspect in the same sense that it “could” drop DRS or it “could” introduce malicious banana peels to the track randomly during events.

    1. haha, while you may be right, that headline sure put a smile on my face… “so you’re telling me there’s a chance!”

      1. A giant +1 for the Dumb and Dumber reference! LOL

    2. LULZ! Classic!

      Face it people, the only way F1 can “drop designed to degrade” tyres would be to drop Pirelli and hire a real tyre supplier. Seriously. And without the tyre war to drive development, it wouldn’t improve the show, just safety. Frankly, safety should be paramount!

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        9th September 2015, 14:06

        That’s absolutely wrong. If F1 give Pirelli a brief, they can only follow it. F1 asked for rubbish tyres so Pirelli made them. There can be no blame laid at Pirelli’s feet for the tyres we currently have.

        If F1 decides it wants actual racing tyres now, Pirelli will have to make that happen. If they fail, we can blame them but so far, they haven’t really done anything wrong other than to follow the brief they were given with next to no testing available to help them.

  2. I disagree with Webber. In terms of driver quality, F1 is at it’s best, or very close to its best. Appart from Maldonado, Ericsson, Nasr and, for obvious reasons, Stevens and Merhi, the field is full of very talented drivers. And you could add Maldonado and Nasr to that list, who are talented, juniour formula champions, who happen to have huge backing from their countries.

    Maldonado shows as a pay driver because he cannot stop crashing. If he was a little bit clamer, he’d be a respectable driver, like Perez who also brings tons of money to his team.

    Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel, Raikkonen, Alonso, Button, Ricciardo, Kvyat, Verstappen, Sainz, Massa, Bottas, Perez, Hulkenberg, Grosjean, I cannot think of a better field. They fill up 3/4 of the grid, and they are all very very good drivers. The 90s were FAR FAR worse.

    1. I agree, Mark’s constant belittling of Formula One is tiring. The grid is fantastic, even Ericsson and Mehri are junior series champions, while Stevens is safe a and solid pair of hands. Maybe Mark would reflect more favorably on the series if he hadn’t left it as a thoroughly beaten No. 2…

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        8th September 2015, 8:18

        More of that Webber nonsense (BBC) F1 talent pool never weaker – Webber
        (As an Aussie) I should like the guy. But he keeps on kicking F1 like a spoiled brat.
        I think the talent pool today is pretty good. Even Ericsson showed this weekend that he can be more than money (exception though). And Maldonado has at times shown real speed; and won in a Williams whereas Webber only got it on the podium once.
        And what a crap implying that he was beating Vettel during the start of 2010! The only reason Webber was ahead was because Vettel had 2 DNF’s until Turkey. And Webber was even beaten by Alonso that year!

        I do congratulate Webber with his first WEC win.
        But he is not sweeping the floor in with the competition in that series either. Of the 9 LMP1 Porsche drivers at Le Mans this year he was the slowest (fastest laps).

        1. Not to mention that the crucial moment at Le Mans was the night stint made by a certain rookie named Nico Hulkenberg…

    2. Well, the pay drivers haven’t really been too shabby have they? Maldonado for all his “character” is a race winner, and Nasr had an impressive debut. I was never much of a fan of Ericsson, but he really seems to be getting it together lately, keeping his nose clean, qualifying well, scoring points (3 out of 3 lately!) and making life pretty damn hard for his teammate.

    3. I agree. The drivers now are all very talented- most of them better than Webber was. Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Raikonnen, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Rosberg, Button, Grosjean, Bottas, Sainz, Jr. and maybe Massa, Nasr, Kvyat and Verstappen are all very talented drivers. In fact, I don’t think we have seen so many very good drivers since the ’80s- back in the days of Prost, Senna, Piquet, Mansell, Lauda, Warwick, Alan Jones, Keke Rosberg, Alboreto, Bellof, Pironi, Villeneuve, Arnoux, Laffite and maybe Brundle and Patrick Tambay- and even in the ’70s- there was Stewart, Lauda, Fittipaldi, Hunt, Peterson, Scheckter, Andretti, Reutemann, Cevert, Denny Hulme, Peter Revson, Chris Amon and also Tom Pryce. The ’70s, ’80s, and today are the decades that had the best crop of drivers- and the ’50s (really only Fangio, Moss, Ascari, Farina, Hawthorn and Collins), ’90s and the 2000’s were probably had the fewest number of really good drivers.

      1. I disagree, and do agree with Webber. I don’t believe the current mandate of F1 susses out all the best drivers. Put something more beastly in their hands, and at a minimum the pay drivers will at least need more experience before their cheque book is employed in F1.

        Imho, you can’t compare to the 70’s/80’s until you turn these cars into, or at least pointing toward the beasts they were, which they could do under the much safer circumstances of today, but I don’t expect they ever will. But if they at least try, as they seem to be talking about for 2017, that could be a step. Ground effects, less emphasis on wing, more mechanical grip, please. Driver vs driver, not driver vs disadvantaged driver be it from tires or DRS, conserving all the while. The presence of DRS particularly, destroys for me any comparisons to the past in F1. It’s processional anyway. Time for real change. The drivers aren’t being taxed in the right ways.

        1. “and at a minimum the pay drivers will at least need more experience before their cheque book is employed in F1. ”

          Ehh…. I think if anything the minimum standard is higher rather than lower, go back ten years and there are some pretty rubbish drivers, another ten, it gets laughable, ten more and it’s a farce. And it keeps going in that direction.

        2. @robbie, I think that you are heavily idealising the 1970’s and 1980’s – the 1970’s saw a swathe of semi-professional drivers competing in the “kit car” era, whilst the 1980’s saw figures like Huub Rothengatter running his own advertisements in The Telegraph to attract sponsors. That era wasn’t exactly short of poor drivers – on the contrary, it was awash with pay drivers.

          1. Don’t think so. Name the number of 17 year olds that we’re hired with very little experience to drive a 70’s/80’s F1 car. Others than just Webber have decried the current F1 generation of cars being too easy to drive. It is why all the talk is of change to cars that are more impressive in speed and sound. It is why so many decry DRS. Thought this was a no-brainer.

            Go back to any year or generation and I’m sure you’ll find some pretty ‘rubbish’ drivers, but put one of those drivers into one of today’s cars and he would find it a relative cakewalk.

            @anon It’s a bit rich to accuse me of heavily idealizing the 70’s/80’s while you go completely the opposite route and make it sound like amateur hour. This is not about whether or not there were pay drivers, it is about the quality of the grid including the pay drivers and for me the degree of difficulty, and as far as I know it is almost universally agreed that the cars are way easier to drive now, not to mention are slower than 10 years ago. They’re safer by far, which is good, but also means there is much less mental angst in the game than back then. And haven’t many already decried the lesser effect feeder series have on the normal chain of command in terms of drivers qualifying to get a F1 seat? Is that not why the rule was immediately changed that a 17 year old with so little experience cannot get in? Yes said 17 year old is doing great…in today’s cars…and wouldn’t have even been considered for a nano-second in the 70’s/80’s until he had way more on his resume.

      2. “maybe Massa”… Come on, the guy has 11 victories, 41 podiums and was second place in 2008 (very nearly won the championship). Give Massa a break…

    4. Lets see.

      Hamilton. Rosberg. Vettel. Räikkönen. Bottas. Massa. Ricciardo. Kvyat. Grosjean. Hülkenberg, Pérez. Alonso. Button. Sainz Jr. Verstappen: These are 15 drivers that I’m sure are, at the very least, as good as Webber.

      Nasr. Ericsson. Merhi. Stevens: These are kinda unknowns. Ericsson could be called terrible, but lately he’s been on top of Nasr, so maybe he’s not completely untalented. And Merhi isn’t even a pay driver.

      Maldonado. He’s Maldonado.

      So, 15 good (at worst) drivers, 4 unknowns, 1 Maldonado. I’d say this is a pretty good grid, talent wise.

      1. +1 especially about Maldonado. What would F1 be without him :-) I would really miss him!

        1. I really like Crashtor just for that, he’s such a character! I would really miss him if he was to go too.

          1. The thing is though that recently he has been desperately unlucky rather than outright terrible. There have been a fair number of incidents where others have crashed into him and not the reverse.

            But Hungary was vintage Crashtor! ;)

    5. One thing I will say about Ericsson, is that he is amazing to his fans. Of all the drivers he is likely more than most to go out of his way to talk to people and to sign there stuff. Which I think is fantastic.

      So it really makes me happy that he’s started to get on top of things, because I’ve often felt he threw away chances with nerves more than anything else.

    6. There’s a massive difference between a pay driver and driver who brings sponsors (Senna always brought sponsors but also got paid to drive, like Massa and Alonso today).

      As much as Webber is a tosser he’s quite correct about the physicality or lack there of in F1. That is exactly why a GP3 driver can step right into the current gen F1 and not have nay troubles at all.

      F1 NEEDS to be a step above the rest. That’s what “pinnacle” means!

      1. Personal training has come on a long way since the 80s though, GP3 drivers can step right in because they have months of specialised gym training under their belts.

        I don’t know whether they’d be able to manhandle an 80s F1 car for a race distance, but they haven’t been training for that (I imagine you’d need a lot more arm strength), so it’s an unfair comparison.

    7. I don’t agree with Mark’s comments at all, but I personally think 2012 had one of the best line-ups of all-time.

      – 6 World Champions (25% of the grid) – Vettel, Button, Hamilton, Alonso, Schumacher, Raikkonen – between them a total of 17 (soon to be 18) championships.

      – 12 race winners (50% of the grid) – those above plus Webber, Massa, Rosberg, Ricciardo, Maldonado, Kovalainen – between them a total of 275 wins (and counting!).

      – 18 podium finishers (75% of the grid) – those above plus Grosjean, Kobayashi, Perez, Petrov, de la Rosa, Glock – between them a total of 688 podium appearances (and counting!).

      And that doesn’t even take into account Hulkenberg, Vergne or di Resta, none of whom are too shabby either. Webber, Massa and Rosberg have all been close to championships themselves. Ricciardo has the potential to be a champion of the future. Grosjean is a potential race winner (and has already been close), while Hulkenberg has to get on the podium at some point! Not to mention that Hamilton and Vettel could still be sharing championships for quite a few more years as well.

      In 20 years’ time the grid of 2012 will surely be looked back on as one of the best ever.

    8. Never been a fan of mark but he’s right any one can drive a f1 car if they got the money everything about money especially f1

    9. petebaldwin (@)
      9th September 2015, 14:19

      Ok so to test this, I picked a season at random (2008) and tried to pick the best 20 drivers. The ones that raced in both seasons (Kimi, Massa, Alonso, Rosberg, Vettel, Button and Hamilton) are all in by default so we have 13 spots left between:

      2015: Perez, Hulkenburg, Grosjean, Maldonado, Stevens, Mehri, Ricciardo, Kvyat, Ericsson, Nasr, Verstappen, Sainz and Bottas

      2008: Heidfeld, Kubica, Piquet Jr, Nakajima, Coulthard, Webber, Trulli, Glock, Bourdais, Barichello, Sato, Davidson, Sutil, Fisichella, Kovalainen

      Personally, out of those left, I’d go with Kubica, Glock, Barichello, Sato, Fisichella, Webber, Hulkenburg, Grosjean, Ricciardo, Kvyat, Verstappen, Sainz, Bottas which would suggest that the grids are relatively even now as they were in the past. Certainly not weaker.

  3. Re Adam Cooper’s blog I would love it if Red Bull’s greedy betrayal of FOTA finally came home to roost. Then if they end up with Ferrari engines that will be double karma, as Ferrari get the Renault treatment and Red Bull get Ferrari’s famous B spec engines.

    1. Except the rules state the current engines must be offered. Sauber, Manor, Farce India, etc just can’t afford the latest update. I doubt RBR will have that issue.

      But I don’t want RBR using Ferrari or Merc engines. F1 needs another supplier. And the only manufacturer making a product even close to fitting in with these DAFT so-called “power unit” regulations is FORD. Their new GT40 Ecoboost V6 Hyrbid Turbo unit is LeMans ready… someone please slap Dieter into paying Ford enough to return to F1. Please!

      First
      On
      Race
      Day

      1. Tunnel vision ?

  4. To add to the CotD, drivers don’t accidentally end up in the best car on the grid. Of course there is some luck involved (Stefan Johansson’s career for instance, or the Brawn resurrection), but drivers don’t get picked for nothing. A (top) team obviously tries to get the best drivers available to them, so that means they have earned their place. If everything then comes together for a season (or more), then fair play. I’m not a Hamilton fan at all, but he and Mercedes were right to pick each other and it has brought them a lot of success, for which I can only congratulate them.

  5. So basically there are three options for Red Bull:
    1: Stay with Renault and stick it out. (seems very unlikely)
    2: Go to Ferrari (most likely)
    3: Go to Honda (almost zero chance of this- more of an option if we fast-forwarded 12 months. You might as well stay with Renault than be a Honda customer)

    I think they are going to get a Ferrari deal. Maybe they want to join up with a big manufacturer and wait three years?
    They’ve backed themselves into a corner, haven’t they?

    1. 4 Develop their own engine (not possible for 2016, also very unlikely)
      5 Persuade a new manufacturer to enter, or an old one to rejoin (Cosworth, Ford, same as 4)
      6 Drop out of F1 (uh-oh)

      1. From what German AMus writes, that number 4 seems to be their long term strategy (with RBR being somewhat open to financing a partner like VW/Audi to build that engine), although they look like they are now holding out for Bernie to arrange Mercedes engines for them to keep them on the grid until they can find something else long term

        Also, it seems that the 88 million in sponsorship from Infinity and Total will also disappear for Red Bull, and they will now have to pay for their own engine

        1. I can confirm RBR are not even considering making their own engines. I don’t know who started this rumour but it’s simply not true.

          1. You’ll need more than saying “I can confirm” to confirm anything, champ.

          2. I seem to remember some talk of this in 2010 whilst they were in full Renault moaning mode.

            Anyway, I’m actually surprised no one is talking about Nissan getting involved in F1.

  6. Re: Machionne’s comment. I’d like to see Ferrari capable of winning almost every race once again, and give Mercedes a true challenge. Let’s have some real competition for the first 3 places, unlike the past 25 years or so.*
    I think it’s about time 2 or even 3 or 4 teams have cars good enough to qualify for pole, and even then not be sure who will win.
    *It’s been cycles of dominant cars/teams – Williams, then McLaren, then Benetton, then Ferrari, then McLaren again, then Red Bull, then Mercedes. Ferrari might be next, but I hope they aren’t alone.

  7. Must say I have to agree totally with Will Buxton’s blog.

  8. In an age of recycling they should have a less wasteful approach to tyres, just like they have with engines. It is rather strange that when it comes to engines there is a willingness to save energy, with tyres it is the opposite. Seems like the FIA needs a unified strategy for what a formula 1 car should be like.

    1. I agree.
      It’s always amazed me that a seemingly professional company like Pirelli could agree to participate in a world-leading series and effectively allow it’s products to be shown to degrade. They might as well hold up a sign in the pits saying “Hey Everyone! Our products are designed to destroy themselves! Now fit them to your road cars.” Maybe I don’t understand marketing at all, but to me, that has always seemed utterly stupid.

      1. Maybe it’s because ORIGINALLY they weren’t designed to degrade. The just sucked and they (along with the multibillion dollar hedgefund that is F1) spun the story to save face and profits.

  9. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    8th September 2015, 1:31

    Re: Tiff Needell tweet
    If Monza were to be dropped from the calendar, then I would love Mugello to be the replacement. It’s easily the best racing circuit Italy has to offer.

    1. @tophercheese21 Mugello is indeed a great circuit, But like Imola & Magny-Cours I can’t see the racing there been all that good because its a very aero dependent circuit & is also pretty narrow in places.

      I don’t think i’ve ever seen any car category but on a decent race round there in the dry, Not even the touring cars.

      1. @njoydesign Imola WAS a good circuit, I personally feel its been completely ruined now & to be perfectly honest i’m not sure the revisions to the end of the lap a few years ago are particularly safe…. Been some horribly frightening accidents at the new, blind kink on the start line the past few years.

        If I had to pick the current Imola or Mugello i’d go with Mugello, Much better circuit.

  10. Redbull’s only realistic option is Ferrari, and Ferrari will name their price.

  11. Why would Ferrari want to supply Red Bull? Albeit running the risk of getting beaten on track? Potentially because Mr Marchionne, who is known to be pretty astute among his peers, has a plan up his sleeve.

    It could all be down to branding rights. Marchionne has been trying to raise Ferrari’s profile ahead of its IPO. While the performance of its factory team is one of the key ingredients to better image on the stock market, partnering up with a Red Bull, could boost its image further. I guess it depends on how you spin it. Beat Red Bull on track, and its business as usual, get beaten by Red Bull, and you say its a Ferrari engine in the back.

    The marketing opportunities for both Ferrari and Red Bull if they enter into this partnership is massive. Marchionne is a businessman, which is why he sacked LDM, who was holding on the romantic past and the ideals of The Old Man. I doubt he would care if Red Bull put a Ferrari on their drinks cans or if Ferrari produce a Red Bull Racing spec 458..if there is money in it…why not?

    1. Well, it does give them potentially more data to gather, it helps their budget and economy of scale and it would give them some influence over and inside information of an important competitor @jaymenon10.
      And Ferrari really doesn’t have to fear bashing by Red Bull as much as many others with the strong brand they have either.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      8th September 2015, 8:27

      get beaten by Red Bull, and you say its a Ferrari engine in the back.

      The problem is that the IPO is still expected this year. Thus that will not happen in time!
      @jaymenon10

    3. I’m not convinced of the marketing potential, myself. Why would Ferrari use Red Bull as their premiere racing partnership when they have their own, extremely successful, F1 team?

      Any promotion of Red Bull by Ferrari would diminish their own racing brand.

      1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
        8th September 2015, 14:34

        Not really. What’s more important to Ferrari than winning, is having a strong F1 in general. They (along with McLaren to a lesser degree) sell road cars based largely on the fact that they are an F1 team (or indeed ‘the’ F1 team. It is the essence of their brand. They need to always ensure that there is good competition in the sport above all else, because if F1 goes down the pan, so will Ferrari. I imagine over 90% of Ferrari purchasers will happily brag about the F1 breeding under the bonnet, but will struggle to tell you where the Scuderia finished last season.

  12. If that is the reason Mercedes are unwilling to give Red bull engines, then I really do jot blame them. Redbull have always disregarded other teams and acted onlyvin their own interest. Had Redbull not pulled out of FOTA, perhaps all the teams would be getting a fairer split of the revenue.
    Redbull currently gets more money than Mercedes, free money they can use to perpetuate their stay at the top.

  13. I was up until 1am (Australia time), with work at 9am just checking to see if Hamilton was going to be disqualified. All anecdotes and interviews Sky were providing prepared me for the sad inevitability of that. It’s only now after reading a few of those articles linked that I’ve a better understanding of what is essentially another Pirelli and FIA stuff up.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      8th September 2015, 9:11

      what did Pirelli do wrong in this instance?

      1. Fail to inform the FIA that, Mercedes had followed Pirelli’s recommendations for fitting tyres in the garage and that their engineer had signed off to say the pressures were correct at that time.

        And to check the FIA understood basic school physics, (PV/T), where as the Volume remains constant, if the Temperature is lower then the Pressure must be lower.

        1. Good one! Pirelli is responsible to check FIA.
          They can never win with this crowd!

        2. you think Mercedes don’t have the technology to let a little air out their own tyres?

        3. Mercedes is fully capable of calculating the amount of pressure needed to maintain an acceptable minimum pressure. PV/T isn’t rocket science, and the cooling of the tires and it’s effect on the tire pressure is a predictable parameter that every other team on the grid stayed within acceptable minimum ranges of.
          Either Mercedes understands the concept or they do not. I believe that with all of their engineering prowess that they understand PV/T.
          They simply got away with one here.

          1. You cannot say that all other teams kept within the parameters, because the FIA only checked the first four cars on the grid. Which just so happen to be the teams that had failures at Spa.

            So, are Pirelli conducting a witch hunt against those that complain loudest?

            Plus what is the purpose of the “warm up” lap, if not to get items up to working temerature before the race start.
            You also need to see if you can find the Sky after race show bit where Ant Davidson explains the start temperatures mean nothing, because each driver/car combination would probably prefer a separate start temperature so that the tyres for that combination are at the best temp/pressures in the race, after lap 1, to ensure the best grip, longevity etc.

        4. Careful with the ideal gas law, it’s main assumption is air is incompressible which in reality isn’t always accurate.

  14. Red Bull’s backed themselves into a bit of a corner haven’t they? Without Renault and Mercedes shutting the door they only have Ferrari or Honda power remaining. Honda is arguably in a worse state than Renault, so that leaves just Ferrari. The same Ferrari Horner had a thinly veiled dig at over their previous tie-up and the same Ferrari arguably in the same boat as Mercedes – why give an engine to a competitor with the resources to beat you?

    In one way that’s a damning opinion of Williams/Force India/Lotus, implying Mercedes do not fear them at all and on the other it’s tactically obvious. Why jepoardize your current advantage? Red Bull’s public mudslinging with Renault understandably would make other manufacturers nervous of joining them too, and if Ron Dennis is to be believed ‘no customer car can win the title’.

    So Red Bull are between a rock and a hard place. They’ve bashed Renault to the point they want to leave and now are faced with taking an engine that’s still not the best in F1 and being a customer instead of a works outfit. With the way they are, I could see them taking their ball and leaving – which would be a terrible thing for F1. Two teams, four drivers, presumably a track and the money and exposure the brand brings going out the door? Bad news. Although, even as a fan of them, you couldn’t help but say Red Bull engineered their own destruction if they did.

  15. I’m waiting for Vettel to say that they shouldn’t provide PUs to Red Bull if they are serious about winning championships.

  16. Regarding the tyre fiasco. I now see why in GP2 they penalised some drivers and they couldn’t do so in F1.
    In GP2 tyre blankets are not used so the tyres are always at ambient temperature. But in F1 the tyres can be in a wide range of temperatures depending on when the measurements are taken.
    The FIA didn’t take that into account when they went about their business of taking readings.
    Pirelli must set the correct procedures since it is at their own insistence that we have all the his drama.

  17. no driver has won a championship from mid field

    Whilst I agree that is 99% true, you’d have to say the Keke Rosberg’s 1982 Williams was mostly the fourth best car in the field that year. Although that was a bonkers season in terms of results, it would be like seeing one of the Red Bull drivers win the WDC this year.

    1. 2012 Red Bull was the 2nd-3rd-4th best car for most of that season.

      1. No I think the 2012 was a pretty good car that just struggled with the pirelli tyres. When the tyres became more durable during the 2013 season the red bull showed it’s real pace.

  18. This whole problem of mandated pressures etc.. stems from the Pirelli tyres been as fragile as they are (Due to the high degredatio mandate rather than Pirelli been incapable of making better tyres IMO) & therefore needing to have things like pressures & cambers regulated.

    Teams have been running tyres outside of the suppliers recommendations for decades & the tyre suppliers always ensured there tyres could cope with teams pushing the boundaries. It’s the same with the tyre swapping that was partly blamed for the Silverstone 2013 failures. Teams had been doing that for years on various suppliers & it didn’t cause any issues. I even recall GoodYear recommending teams swap its tyres in 1997 because Jordan tried it & found it helped with the blistering problems Goodyear suffered on a few of the more abrasive circuits.

    Its the same with arguments about drivers using kurbs & running a bit wide, Drivers have been doing it since kurbs were lowered following Barrichello’s crash at Imola 1994 & the tyres were always designed taking this in mind & ensuring they could cope with that abuse (Especially on circuits like Monza, Imola, Spa & Montreal where drivers would throw cars over fairly aggressive kurbs at chicanes) & if problems ever arose the tyres were beefed up to prevent it happening again.

    It seems the past few years its been the opposite, F1 has been forced to make rules to suit the tyres rather than the tyres been designed to suit F1 as was the case throughout F1’s history (And is still the case in other categories).

    1. Yes, it sure looks like the combination of wanting to produce tyres to degrade and no testing is just too much for Pirelli (and sure enough most tyre manufacturers wouldn’t play along exactly because they know it would be a bad move contrary to their usual targets of high performance and durability) @gt-racer.

      I must say that i really, really hope that the powers in F1 reconsider this tyre strategy for the 2017 cars and come up with something that makes more sense.

      Apart from that, I do think the FIA should look at making sure drivers do not go off track constantly, like they do in F1 currently. But surely it shouldn’t be by making it unsafe to use the kerbings!

      1. I think the thinking has to surround closer racing. Closer racing must be the goal. Hemberey points out that they could make tires that are good for 15 lap sprints and then in for refueling and a fresh set of boots and there was 2 overtakes per race when that was done before…yes…when they had refueling, and when the cars were just as affected negatively in dirty air.

        The tires need to be better. They need to allow the drivers to be able to reach some sort of limit for themselves mentally and physically, as well as the cars’, so that we feel they are really doing an awesome feat. I reject all notions that said tires immediately mean processions. Firstly, we have processions anyway, along with tires and DRS that kill the integrity of the sport. Better tires…and here’s the key…combined with less dependence on aero downforce, and more emphasis on mechanical grip, is the direction they must go.

        Two tire makers in a competition (no more a war than any other aspect of competition within F1) would ensure better tires, and to avoid processions they need to get off the aero addiction and go more toward ground effects and keep ensuring good mechanical grip.

        Obviously the direction of gadgety tires and DRS has not worked. Time to simplify and get back to real racing that is enthralling and makes viewers feel they just watched something incredible, not a borefest of conservation and DRS. Put another way, there are always going to be some races that are relatively boring vs other races…I’d be far less bored even with a fairly processional race, knowing the drivers are having to keep pretty sharp to tame the beast under them, than feeling like they must be having trouble staying awake, forced to ‘race’ at 8/10ths.

    2. This Pirelli bashing-Michelin idolizing is getting quite frankly ridiculous. We are talking about the 4th or 5th biggest tyre manufacturer, they basically create the high performance tyre segment with the original P Zero in the early ’70s providing the original 911 Turbo and the Lancia Stratos and subsequently the F40 in the ’80s. The P Zero Trofeo and Trofeo R are probably the best ultra high performance tyres on the market today and BBC are telling us they can’t provide a durable tyre if they’re asked to do so? Who are they fooling? Is this a joke? Give them a proper testing time and Km and they’ll do ad fine as anyone else. Btw if I were in their management I’d start to sue someone, you can’t write such a piece and got away scot free…

  19. My first comment of the day and there is a spelling mistake in there. Oh dear.

  20. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
    8th September 2015, 14:53

    Ben Hunt is talking rubbish. I was at Monza and there was ample toilets and food stalls.

    1. Agree. I had far more troubles in Silverstone (especially when it rains) or Hungary just to name the first that came through my mind.

  21. re, COTD… It’s easy. You completely ignore the fact that Fangio, Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Alonso and Vettel all had superior cars. You overlook the fact that it’s incredibly rare for a driver to win the WDC without also taking the Constructor’s championship– In fact, in the last 20 years, it’s only happened twice– Mika Hakkinen in 1999, and some kid named Hamilton in 2008.

    I would be more interested to know why, in the past 20 years, the driver that people have said is only fast because of his car, seems to be Lewis Hamilton. Even Vettel didn’t get slammed as hard or often for it.

    Hamilton matches two-time WDC Alonso in his rookie year (actually beats him on wins)– it’s the car. Must be spygate. Hamilton wins outright his second year, in a car that does not win the WCC– He was lucky. Hamilton beats Button two years out of three– people use a single statistic to claim Button out-performed Hamilton at McLaren. Hamilton survives 3 DNF’s and two back-row starts to claim WDC in 2014– and it’s only because his teammate “wasn’t that good”– a teammate who consistently outscored Michael Schumacher, and who, by the Button vs. Hamilton logic, is a better driver than Michael Schumacher.

    There is no driver in the history of F1 that people have been more desperate to diminish the scope of his accomplishments.

    1. I would be more interested to know why, in the past 20 years, the driver that people have said is only fast because of his car, seems to be Lewis Hamilton. Even Vettel didn’t get slammed as hard or often for it.

      That’s nonsense and you know it. It took for Vettel to win with Ferrari until a healthy part of the fandom even entertained the notion of him being an all-time great. Before that, people were all over his supposed dependcy on Newey-designed racing cars.

  22. It may be oversimplifying, but couldn’t they make a viable & safe 250mph tyre out of, say, yellow rubber, then add the race tread/surface in black. Then, when it wears down to the yellow, or when yellow shows through (i.e. flat spot) they have 2 laps to pit for new tyres – maybe?

Comments are closed.