Back to tyres...

Pirelli 'needs wider choice of compounds' to avoid one-stop races

Pirelli needs a bigger choice of dry weather tyre compounds to choose from to avoid low-degradation one-stop races like the Indian Grand Prix. Pirelli would like to be able to supply tyres which force teams into two or three stop strategies at every race.

"As a minimum, we could do with eight compounds, with low and high [temperature] working ranges in each of the four levels [super soft, soft, medium and hard] that we've got now."

A sign of Pirelli being pushed for choice could be seen in India where for the first time in a long time drivers could push their tyres lap after lap:

Hamilton had been able to attack throughout the race. When he got onto the radio during his second stint and expressed his fear that his tyres wouldn't last, it was because he had become accustomed to not being able to push 100 per cent without paying the price anymore. He expected that terrible feeling when the rubber fell off a cliff, but that moment never came [Link].


What are your thoughts on Pirelli and its tyres, would you like to see them offer cool and hot weather tyres, or maybe just a fifth compound?
There have been several complaints about Pirelli as well as much praise but in F1 you can never rest on your laurels...

 

I just think they should offer soft and super soft only. It would force more pitstops, but on the downside, more tyre management.

Or maybe the FIA should think about upping the minimum weight limit for the car to make them heavier, forcing more tyre wear.

 

I reckon there could be more strategic influence if they offered three dry-weather compounds instead of two at each race weekend. Not only would you have more variations in race strategy but teams would have less time to gather data on all compounds throughout the weekend, which throws it up in the air come race day.

 

Good article, BLS. Well worthy of bringing up now.


Poor old Pirelli are damned if they do and damned if they don't. This is particularly true when the science of pit-stops has become so well understood, so well-practiced and so incredibly (and predictably) – fast!

Despite bending over backwards to the whims of the FIA and a demanding public which rarely understands the subtleties (present forum excepted!), there will always be an element of complaint from those who feel it does not suit them. ALWAYS. But the public should not buy into this either way! Tyre conservation has always had an element to play in Grands Prix (except during the silly, wholly artificial, forced-refuelling era – which did away with the need to think). Tyres should be 'a given' and should not be frequently manipulated as a gimmick. They should never have been promoted to the high-profile (sic) the public are now so aware of in the first place! But the horse has bolted, so lamenting it is to blow hot air to the wind. Therefore, reluctantly, I'll get off this high one…

No matter what Pirelli do, nor what the FIA demand, there will always be a general convergence on what teams decide to do under various conditions. So my first response is this: stop tampering! There is no 'perfect' scenario. It's a myth! Tomorrow's temperature will be slightly different and scupper the best laid plans. All Pirelli can do is what they have been doing: continue to try to provide two tyres from their range which may (hopefully) encourage different strategies at the forthcoming circuit. But this cannot be forced!
I really think it's time the public understood that racing to a 'formula' can only go so far. Let the other gimmicks provide them with the artificial action they demand. But when if comes to tampering with the tyres, I say BACK OFF! These are not toys, so leave them alone!

The fundamentally important thing is that pit-stops should never be imposed. They should always be optional. And at least one of the compounds provided should be capable of achieving at least half race distance without being nursed, even if it is still significantly slower than another option (sic). This is the only way to get a real, non-artificial race with various possibilities, which may appeal to strategists as well as public.

There is much to say and I have run out of time but I must say this. – And I say it in anticipation of it forming part of the subject matter of this thread: we should NEVER consider returning to forced refuelling! It was Grand Prix racing at its tackiest.
Ughh. God knows how we survived it…

 

He made near 30 laps on the softs yet 15 laps in on the hards he was expressing concern that the hards wouldn't make it.

The last race reeked of nobody wanting to truly push their tyres... Most seemed happy to sit tight and follow the plan for fear of having to 2 stop or more. I was hoping somebody might go hell for leather on them, burn them up and two stop.

Either way when it comes to tyres... when everybody is on the same strategy they make no difference.

 

I'd like to see them do away with the top ten starting tyre rule, I'd like to see them offer ALL the compounds to the teams each race, with the stipulation all team make one pit-stop, this will open up proper strategies, becaus eat the moment pretty much every team has the same strategy at each race. Or another possible, give the teams a quota of tyres to last the whole season (the ones used in Q2 & 3 replaced), like engine and gearboxes, then we'll see people using different strategies at each race

 

What were the tyres used in india? They were not the softest 2 were they? They were hard and soft which means a big for Pirelli

Interestingly if you look at this you can see the last couple of compound choices have favoured Red Bull. The remaining race compounds historically favour Alonso
[TABLE]

[TR]
[TD]Australia[/TD]
[TD](Melbourne)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Button[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Malaysia[/TD]
[TD](Sepang)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]Alonso[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]China[/TD]
[TD](Shanghai)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Rosberg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bahrain[/TD]
[TD](Sakhir)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Vettel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spain[/TD]
[TD](Catalunya)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Maldonado[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Monaco[/TD]
[TD](Monte Carlo)[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]super-soft[/TD]
[TD]Webber[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD](Montreal)[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]super-soft[/TD]
[TD]Hamilton[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Europe[/TD]
[TD](Valencia)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Alonso[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Great Britain[/TD]
[TD](Silverstone)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Webber[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[TD](Hockenheim)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Alonso[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hungary[/TD]
[TD](Budapest)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Hamilton[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Belgium[/TD]
[TD](Spa-Francorchamps)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]Button[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[TD](Monza)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]Hamilton[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Singapore[/TD]
[TD](Singapore)[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]super-soft[/TD]
[TD]Vettel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Japan[/TD]
[TD](Suzuka)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]Vettel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Korea[/TD]
[TD](Yeongam)[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD]super-soft[/TD]
[TD]Vettel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]India[/TD]
[TD](New Delhi)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD] Vettel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Abu[/TD]
[TD]Dhabi (Yas Marina)[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD]soft[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]United States[/TD]
[TD](Austin)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Brazil[/TD]
[TD](Interlagos)[/TD]
[TD]hard[/TD]
[TD]medium[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Am I the only one who thinks this contrived degradation on order to mix the field up is a bit too artificial. My opinion they should all have the 1 same dry, 1 same wet and 1 same intermediate tyres.

 

Crazy to think we haven't seen the medium-soft combination since Hungary. I like the idea of tyres where drivers can push but India was a borefest as everyone did the same strategy.

Give the teams the Hard and Supersoft as it would then ask the question whether to get pole on start on a heavily degrading tyre or qualify a bit further back and go long before putting on the faster tyre at the end!

 

I think I wou jus have 1 verys soft compound that is quick but would never last over 1/3 rd of the race - people would have to pit no matter what and the onl variable would be that the top 10 would have 3 or 4 more laps on the tyres ( hence shorter 1st stint) and the slower drivers would 2 stop and the quicker drivers would 3 stop!

 

Good point, this is what i was thinking, one of their first races as tyre supplier was 2011 in Spain where they had the soft tyre and then was what was in effect a 'super' hard tyre and the difference between the two was something like 2 seconds. If I remember correctly Alonso led the first part of the race then put the hards on and fell all the way back to fifth because he could not work the extra hard tyre, similarly I remember Jenson having a shocking start and being in the pack before making the strategy work to get third.

But with the tyre choices recently, as you mention matt everyone has done the same thing and as a result races have become quite static, also I do not buy into this idea that making tyres deliberately degrade quicker or making them have a small operating window turns F1 into lottery because while we did have 7 different winners from the first 7 races when the tyres were difficult to fathom after the those 7 races the top three in the championship were Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel many who think are the 3 best drivers at the moment

 

Not artificial at all. They all both have the same rubber and same allocation available. Its a challenge for the teams how they use them.

This is a better solution than having 2 or more tyre suppliers as then the difference is not even.

I like the current format. I just wish the tyre deg was turned up a little more

 

I suppose this depends upon how one defines 'artificial'. But there is surely no disagreement with Vilsmeier's use of "contrived"?

 

They tried giving teams one tyre compound to use for the whole weekend. The net result was years of boring races.

EDIT: Well, I say one tyre compound, they could choose from two. Given that this had very little impact on strategy...

 

I'm not disagreeing with what you've said here, IBVettel; but I believe other factors such as forced refuelling (for instance) were more significant in dictating similar strategies.

 

Contrived or challange?

 

Contrived.

 

oh ok then

 

The tyres havn't really produced any strategic differences because of the silly 'you must use both compounds' rule, which basically means all the teams use exactly the same strategies.

 

I must have been watching a different race as I missed all this being able to push the tyres. I saw a lot of cars tootling around in circles, some with some pretty ugly marks on their tyres waiting for a pit call. Long pit lane seemed to = quicker cruising on a 1 stopper than racing on a 2 stopper.