James Allen and Mark Gillan have made an article on the effect of the changes: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/05/what-pirellis-mid-season-changes-will-mean/ This is an excellent point. It could have a real knock on effect going into next season. I thought there was very little chance of there being a Brawn next season because everyone would have learnt from the last regulation change, but this complicates things, this year's championship could hinge on development in the next two or three months, the teams challenging for the title will have to delay moving resources to the 2014 project as much as they'd have liked.
It's all a bit too contrived for my liking. I prefer the opposite lock, four wheel slide, grippy tyres, wheeelspin, flat out kart style of driving, not poncing about with tyre management being the primary factor. Bring back the Goodyear's In fact I gave up watching the last bloody race and mowed the lawn, what a load of very expensive rubber shredder's, a complete joke. Even Button is pissed off.
Bahji, yea man, I am not going to the British GP this year, who wants to spend £150 to watch some poor sod driving his heart out, only to see his efforts destroyed by a basic element, the tyres.
"Contrived" is exactly the right word, Ernie. It is ridiculous that any formula – particularly that which sits at the pinnacle – deliberately sets about using tyres in an effort to make the show interesting. Long ago, I warned of meaningless overtakes through an over-prescribed focus on tyres, instead of making proper use of DRS*, and have always argued that pit-stops should be optional rather than a tacky add-on designed to titillate the casual viewer, who of course will be the first to turn away when they find the whole thing too baffling. It needs to be relatively simple so as to be relatively easy to understand. Whether through refuelling or cardboard tyres, never force pit-stops as part of a formula! Simply allow them as an option. For this to be possible, any tyre supplier should be required to provide at least one compound capable of at least half race distance. This longevity itself will require it to provide less grip than a softer compound which can only manage a third or a quarter of the distance (or even the silly five stints which was the average last time around!). The idea of forcing a driver to use two different compounds during a race also sits uneasily with me, although I am not suggesting this should go overnight and agree that in the past it has made things interesting. But teams and drivers will be far more capable of performing to their maximum when they have more choice; and what we have now is most of the best drivers in the world pussy-footing around with dangerous footwear on which they cannot show their outright speed. Give them the possibility of doing just one stop if they feel it is their best hope; and, in an effort to sex-up the show, do not be overly concerned that some or even all teams may choose a similar strategy. – This circus is meant to be about racing, so stop forcing the clowns to jump through hoops for the kids and let them do the spectacular stuff which we know they are all capable of!- - - o0o - - - *I hope to be excused in avoiding the temptation to elaborate about DRS here, because I wish to stick to the matter which needs most urgent repair: tyres. Right now F1 has a slow puncture… --------------------------------------------------- P.S. to Ernie: sorry to hear you're not coming to Silverstone this year.
Formula 1 tyre change: tech implications of Pirelli's decision Pirelli's decision to change its tyres from the Canadian Grand Prix onwards will potentially have a far-reaching effect. With changes to the construction moving back towards the 2012 tyre specification, married to the current compounds, teams will be heading back to their computer screens to re-optimise their cars around the modified tyres. AERODYNAMICS Tyres have a big impact on the airflow around the car, not only because of their size but also because of the sidewall profile and the way it deforms. Traditionally, the impact has been more critical around the front tyres, as with the front wing in close proximity to the tyre, small changes in this area have a compound effect downstream. But with the increased importance of air and exhaust flow around the rear tyres in the current generation of grand prix cars, there will also be implications for the rear end. For windtunnel testing, Pirelli supplies 60 per cent scale tyres, which accurately reflect the deformation of the tyre. Teams should be able to revert to the 2012 windtunnel tyres for aero testing. Because of the change, teams will need to produce new versions of wings, endplates, floors and brake ducts. SUSPENSION The change to the tyre construction will impact the suspension. Teams are provided with Pacejka models of the physical properties of the tyres by Pirelli, allowing their accurate representation in simulations. As with the windtunnel tyres, it will be a case of reverting to known 2012 tyre data. From this base, teams can look at revising their spring, damper and linking rates to account for the difference between the new and old construction. Additionally, the suspension geometry will need revising to get the camber gains and the roll-centre location that work with the older tyres. This requires revised suspension elements at the front and rear, necessitating new patterns, moulds and wishbones to be made, which is a significant investment mid-season. Teams are faced with a large, but not insurmountable, challenge to adapt to the new tyres given the experience gained last year. But it is a drain on resources for teams already stretched to develop new cars for the 2014 regulations. The combination of the old tyre construction and new compounds will also be untested by teams going into the Canadian GP, which is quickly followed by some punishing, fast-flowing European tracks with unpredictable weather. So any steps to stabilise the racing with these tyres could be offset by the effort required to adapt to them.
Incidentally, does anyone think the current tyres are responsible for the higher number of finishers at the moment? With the exception of Maldo, I'm not sure I can remember a driver having an unforced, race-ending spin in the dry in a long while. A few years back we generally had at least 3 drivers lose it during a race.
Good point although improved reliability plays more of a role but certainly you would not of had Hamilton retiring on the last lap at Monza in 2009 with these tyres. As Brundle pointed out on Sunday when on board with Kimi the drivers are incredibly easy with the throttle on the way out of a corner and then are very gentle with the car going into the corner knowing an oversteer moment or lock up could ruin the tyres (and your race).
In a sense: yes. If something discourages pushing the boundaries of adhesion, drivers remain well below their own thresholds for the most part, so driving errors become rarer. These tyres are simply not capable of allowing a driver to showcase a full skill-set. That said, making radical changes to them mid-season is not only unprecedented (so far as I can remember), but is clearly unfair on teams who believed they had to deal with what they were given. And I say this despite the fact that the implications are already well-understood from last season because some of these cars will be more difficult to convert than others.
I can see your point, V-HR. Tongue-in-cheek: One wonders if Pirelli's willingness to bend is symptomatic of their product. Let's just hope such compliance does not lead the company to disintegrate!
This season's tyres have, I feel, gone too far. It's a simple fact that we should not be having 3-4 stop races. I'd quite like Pirelli to produce one set of tyres that can be as durable as physically possible just to see where the limit lies, incidentally.
It's the thermal degradation and overheating that's the problem, the drivers are having to drive well below the limit to keep the tyres as close to the working range as possible, it's not excessive wear that's the issue. I have no problem with four stop races as long as they're the exception and not the rule, and as long as the drivers can push hard on each stint. The tyres should be designed with a specific working life in mind, be it a third of a race, half, three-quarters whatever, but they should be able to be pushed over that stint. Switching to last year's construction should cure the excessive degradation and delamination issues.
It's moving the goalposts really, and quite considerably. Unless there was no way other way to address the safety issues, this change shouldn't be happening. When things get banned/changed mid-season it's usually been a dodgy interpretation of the rules, not completely changing something fundamental to the cars. It's ridiculous.
Agreed. I have been saying since the year dot that there should always be at least one compound which is at least capable of completing half a race distance. What we should be aiming at is to provide a genuine choice to drivers and teams, rather than prescribing a meagre and tasteless diet. Whatever happened to that old-fashioned phrase: 'Variety is the Spice of Life'? Power to the drivers to make these cars go! Yes, the thermal degradation was deliberately designed into them! But in my opinion, such dabbling was unnecessarily excessive. I'm also mostly in agreement with your comment about specific working life, although this can be difficult to get right when the idea is to provide realistic alternative race-strategies. That said, such idealism is an essential starting point, so yes, in principle, I agree. I'm not quite so much in agreement about five stint racing though, unless you're speaking of a 24 hour event – which I'd take any day! Yep. Agreed. F1 has dug itself into a most unfortunate situation.
I believe a change of compound which would enable any, and I mean 'any' driver to complete at least half of a GP on one set of tyres would make no difference to the pecking order, the same drivers will be up the front and the same drivers will at the back, it would however empower the drivers to demonstrate their skills and also be completely fair to all teams and drivers, a few suspension and areo setup changes and off we go, after all its only a bloody car. One has to remember these guys are the best drivers on the planet and at the moment the racing is a non event and does not warrant or deserve the term Grand Prix.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22543884 Max definitely underestimated Horner, apparently he's capable of brainwashing an entire nation of people.
The decision has come after much controversy following Sunday's Spanish Grand Prix, which brought to a head complaints that have been growing all season. These are that the need for drivers to manage the tyres, which have been designed to run out of grip quickly to ensure teams have to make multiple pit stops, has become too big a feature in races. Viewers and spectators are not happy with the fact the drivers are not pushing to the limit all the time and feel the sport is in some way being polluted. Some say that F1 has become too artificial as a result, that it looks manipulated. “In 2011, Vettel won the Spanish Grand Prix. He also made four pit stops and there were 77 pit stops in the entire race. There were no complaints from Red Bull then” Gary Anderson BBC F1 technical analyst At the same time, Red Bull have been complaining that the tyres are restricting their cars' performance, and they have done a good job of getting into the public consciousness the idea that this is happening with all the cars. But if you look at the data, things are not so different this year than they have been at any time since Pirelli became the sport's sole supplier in 2011, or even in the last year of Bridgestone tyres in 2010. This year, Ferrari's Fernando Alonso won the Spanish Grand Prix making four pit stops, and there were 79 pit stops in the entire race. Red Bull team boss Christian Horner complained on Sunday that it was "too confusing for the fans", and that "it wasn't great" for his team to be heard telling their driver Sebastian Vettel not to race Lotus's Kimi Raikkonen when he came up behind him. Red Bull's owner Dietrich Mateschitz went further, saying F1 was not a sport any more. In 2011, Vettel won the Spanish Grand Prix. He also made four pit stops and there were 77 pit stops in the entire race. There were no complaints from Red Bull then. [h=2]Last four Spanish Grands Prix[/h] 2010 (Bridgestone) Pole time 1:19.995 Fastest race lap 1:24.357 (+4.362secs from pole) Race duration 1hr 35mins 44.101 secs (two-stop race) average lap time: 1:26.425 2011 (Pirelli) Pole time 1:20.981 Fastest race lap 1:26.727 (+5.746 secs from pole) Race duration 1hr 39mins 3.301secs (four-stop race) average lap time: 1:28.837 2012 (Pirelli) pole time 1:21.707 Fastest race lap 1:26.250 (+4.543secs from pole) Race duration 1hr 39mins 9.145secs (three-stop race) average lap time: 1:29.229 2013 (Pirelli) Pole time 1:20.718 Fastest race lap 1:26.217 (+5.499secs from pole) Race duration 1hr 39mins 16.596secs (four-stop race) average lap time: 1:29.039 If you want to know how hard drivers can push in a race, the best way is to compare both the race fastest lap and the average race lap time with the pole qualifying time. I have compared data from the last four Spanish Grands Prix, including 2010. It gives an interesting result. Although the cars were out-and-out faster on Bridgestones, there is very little difference in the offset from pole to fastest lap - even less if you use the data of the offset from the race winner's fastest lap and his qualifying time - or from pole to average race lap. This would seem to undermine two key complaints being levelled at F1 at the moment - that the Pirelli tyres have dramatically affected the ability for drivers to push hard in races, and that this has markedly worsened in 2013. It also rather undermines Pirelli's claim that the cars are three seconds a lap faster this year and that this is overworking the tyres. Announcing the change to the tyres, Pirelli said it was "for the good of the sport" and insisted it had not come about as a result of pressure from Red Bull. But it also admitted the new tyres it produces will prevent the worrying-looking delaminations that have been seen in recent races, where a cut in the rubber leads to the tread being thrown off. I suspect this last reason is one of the main motivations for the change. It's not good PR for a company to have its tyres fall apart like that on global television. [h=2]WHAT'S CHANGING AND WHAT EFFECT WILL IT HAVE?[/h] The big question is what exactly is changing about the tyres, and whether it will favour one team over another. Pirelli has not yet said what it will do, but the strong suspicion is that it will keep the front tyres the same and change the rears so they are more like last year's. It may even go as far as to use last year's rear tyres. In 2012, the rear tyres had a different construction that allowed the carcass to expand more at speed. In addition, the material used meant any cuts from carbon-fibre debris on the circuit would result in a deflation rather than a delamination. If Pirelli goes back in this direction, as expected, it will help prevent the tyre trying to throw off its rubber when it is damaged. The front tyre is the one that most affects the performance of the car. Its profile and shape, the shape of the contact patch and so on, has a significant effect on the aerodynamics. By contrast, changes to the rear tyre only affect the performance of the tyre itself, as opposed to making a crucial difference to the airflow around the car. I bet if you were to ask all the teams to choose the two tyres they wanted to take to Monaco next week - the last race before the tyres change - they would all go for the super-soft and soft. Which is exactly the selection Pirelli has made. Play media please log in to view this image Alonso's four-stop tyre strategy wins the Spanish Grand Prix Last year, the vast majority of the time, it was the rear tyres that first started to lose grip during a race. But in Spain, Vettel's problem was that the front tyres were getting too hot and he was having to slow down to stop them overheating and degrading. So if the front tyres are not changing, that won't help Red Bull in that situation. Mercedes, who have been going backwards in races after qualifying well, have the opposite problem. Their car is rear-tyre limited. The suspension and tyre of an F1 car need to be in harmony. If you have a soft suspension and a stiff tyre, the car moves too much. If you have the opposite, then the tyre moves too much. This year's tyres are stiffer in construction than last year's, so most teams are running the pressures lower to try to make the tyres more compliant - they don't want that stiffness in the rear of the car because it makes traction worse. So a less stiff construction might help Mercedes because it will bring the rear suspension and tyres more into harmony and improve their traction, reducing the load on the rear tyre. [h=2]IS IT FAIR TO CHANGE THE TYRES MID-SEASON?[/h] At the final grand prix of last season in Brazil, Pirelli supplied a prototype version of the new 2013 tyre for the teams to try. The idea was that it would give them data to work with over the winter so they could prepare their cars. The teams have worked with those tyres throughout pre-season testing and now for five races, and a pattern is emerging. please log in to view this image Guide to the tyres in Formula 1 Mercedes have a fast car in qualifying that goes backwards in races because of excessive rear-tyre wear. Red Bull have the next fastest qualifying car but their race-qualifying compromise is far better than the Mercedes, to the extent that Vettel has won two races so far and has secured a third place and two fourths from the others. He is leading the championship as a result. But Red Bull are, at certain circuits, struggling to keep the tyres alive for as long as Ferrari and Lotus, who are not quite as fast in qualifying but look after the tyres better in races. Ferrari have probably the best race-qualifying compromise of all. Alonso has won twice and been second once. Had he and the team not made the errors they did in Malaysia and Bahrain, he would almost certainly be leading the championship by a small margin from Vettel, rather than trailing him by 17 points. So, you can say that Ferrari have done the best job of adapting their car to the demands of the tyres. That's basically what a team's job is - to get the best out of the equipment at their disposal. It's not really right to mess with that in the middle of the season. It will create a lot of work for the teams and, while we can't be sure, it could well undo all the good work some have done to the benefit of others, who have done their jobs less well. “Inevitably, that will mean people will always wonder whether this change has affected the results - and, in the end, whether the right guy won the championship” Gary Anderson BBC F1 technical analyst Personally, I think if Pirelli were worried about the life of the tyres, a fairer choice would have been simply to go one stage harder on the compound - create a new 'hard' tyre and throw away the current 'super-soft'. The current 'soft' would become the 'super-soft', the current 'medium' the 'soft' and the current 'hard' the 'medium'. The problem now is that the sport is open to accusations of meddling, and some people are going to be suspicious of the motives for it. Inevitably, that will mean people will always wonder whether this change has affected the results - and, in the end, whether the right guy won the championship.
