Pirelli have been criticised for the new hard tyres they have brought to Barcelona because it is very hard, slow and does not last that much longer than the old hard tyre. I agree that the new hard Pirelli tyre is not good but I think that Pirelli had the right idea, in the first few races the hard tyre has been slower than the soft and lasting only 1 or 2 laps longer, so from a strategy point of view it has not been a tool but more an requirement of strategy. I think the hard tyre should obviously be slower than the soft but I think it should last quite a bit longer to give another dimension to strategy, such as going longer on the hard tyre to save a pit stop or have an extra pit stop and hammer the soft tyres to make up for it. This has not really been viable so far this season simply because the hard does not last long enough. So I think that while Pirelli may have got the compound a bit wrong they are still going in the right direction and are not resting on their laurels so should be cut a bit of slack because this is their first season back in F1 and with very limited testing opportunities they are learning on the go with everyone else.
Yes Mifune; I think Pirelli are doing a heroic job of trying to give the FIA what they want. However, as I have said elsewhere, if the difference between the two compounds they bring to a circuit are too great, we could see the somewhat bizarre scenario of teams doing one short run on the harder compound whilst focussing their race effort on eking out the significantly quicker softs for as long as possible! - This is not supposed to be a strategic option because it effectively negates the philosophy behind the two-compound regulation; so I hope top be proven wrong.
Absolutely. Drivers who called them a "disaster" should shut up and get on with trying to catch Red Bull. The tyres are not perfect, but Pirelli's approach is still infinitely better than the Bridgestone self-interest. Right on.
I think that whatever the gap in performance between the two tyres it should be compensated by durability. So if the soft tyre is 1 second a lap faster than the hard tyres, then the hard tyres should last for about 10 laps longer than softs.
Quite! (And usually this is close to what is seen). Of course it is never an exact science, which is the very thing that makes it interesting. But in my opinion you are correct in suggesting this is what they should be aiming at.
If the hard tyres proves to be so far off the soft tyre we could see teams avoiding it like the plague. Using it as little as possible as any longevity would be out done by the slow pace of the tyre.
ye, the diffence in lap times between the compounds should equate to saving a pit stop, or 2. I feel a bit sorry for Pirelli, they seem to be on a hiding to nothing despite doing what the FIA asked and making a tyre that 'falls apart', compared to Bridgestone who didn't because theirs 'last forever' (paraphrasing Brundle), as F1 is just a shop window for the masses, if you were a tyre manufacturer which complaint would you prefer? I've never liked these tyre rules, I'd prefer the tyre choice to be open with a selection of compounds which give a myriad of strategic options. That way we get to see the real range of driver skill, Button & kobayashi 0 stops, Alonso would probably 1 stop, Vettel, Hamilton, Webber 2-4. It wouldn't be unfair as all teams would have an open choice of the same tyres.