Without having completed a single lap on them? They did half a dozen tests and 19 grands prix on them last year.
Pirelli certainly weren't too conservative with their allocations for the last two races either, both three stop races.
The FIA should allow Mercedes to test the tyres with the other teams - albeit possibly with restricted mileage - on safety grounds and ban them from at least the young drivers' test at the end of the year (which they don't use anyway).
Hembery calls for 2014 rule changes to allow Pirelli to modify tyres This sits very uncomfortably with me, I think Pirelli have too much power as it is and really don't trust them after some of the events of this season. I also don't think the tyres should be changed midseason unless on safety grounds. Hembery says Pirelli and the FIA don't care who wins, but there have been accusations of Pirelli favouring each of the top four teams at some point this season, and Ferrari are able to veto FIA rule changes, would that extend to tyre changes? I still think the fairest solution would be for Pirelli to supply 6-8 compounds and let the teams choose their own allocations for each race. Four compounds is nowhere near enough to supply two suitable tyres at every event given how varied the circuit layouts, track surfaces and weather conditions are across a 20 race season.
I think the main point is that the teams need to either unite or shut up. You mention the point that Pirelli have been accused of favouring both the teams who go easy on the tyres and the teams who chew them up at times this season. Even the current safety issues don't seem to have united the teams. That solution you propose sounds pretty good, and I'd certainly like to see the teams going back to choosing tyres somewhat. Just a couple of questions though: A) how would the teams know which tyres to bring? They wouldn't have time to test 5 or 6 different compounds in practice and do the necessary set-up work. B) how would you deal with tracks like Monaco and Canada, where the tyre wear is so low a team could easily do the entire race on one set of mediums? There's no strategy involved there.
I still think the 'using both compounds' rule should be scrapped. Its from an age of F1 we are no longer part of.
In my post above I forgot to say that Pirelli would come under huge pressure from teams who don't like the tyres next year if they're allowed to change them. It was bad enough this year with Red Bull in particular, if there's a chance a team could get the tyres swung in their favour they'll never be off Pirelli's case. A) I think most teams would just work off Pirelli's recommendation, but in cases such as Silverstone where Lotus thought Pirelli were too conservative they'd be able to go to softer compounds if they wish. They'd have to specify which compounds they'd want well in advance so Pirelli could bring them. B) Montreal is easy to overtake and has a short pit stop time so there'd probably be teams who go for a two stop strategy on softer compounds. Even if everyone just did one stint that's the way it is sometimes, and you'd still have racing on track as different teams and drivers wear the their tyres at different rates. Monaco's a one stop race anyway so no change there. And the 'top ten have to start on the tyres they qualified on' rule.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23254282 Pirelli switch back to softer rubber as planned for Hungary indicating the improvements are working
The current tyre rules will mean someone is always going to be favoured, the only way to stop the teams whingeing like little children is to have open tyre choices, then we'll see some beter races IMO.
With the announcement that the new engines are expected to produce up to 100BHP more than expected, as well as predictions that state that next year's technical regulations will not have the dramatic effects the FIA wanted, Pirelli want next years tyres to be widened (the reasoning being that if they do not, then too much power through too small a space = Silverstone all over again). Relevant excerpts from Benson's story: 10 out of the 11 teams are expected to reject this proposal. The 11th team is Mercedes...
um what? surely they need to regulate (even vaguely) how much power the engines are able to put out, otherwise the teams with the smallest budget will just plummet even further behind and it will just become a question of who has the most powerful engine. I assume this is because Mercedes know they already have the best traction and just want to exploit this even further with more power and wider tyres.
They will regulate how much power the engines will put out to keep the teams on a vaguely level playing field but they're not going to restrict the power arbitrarily, they will do what they did before the last engine freeze and allow all the teams to get to roughly the same level and allow changes "for reliability purposes". How pray tell are Mercedes to know they already have the best traction when none of the engines have been revealed yet?
I wonder if the ten teams blocking the proposal would have done so if the Pirelli-Mercedes test had never happened. I suspect not. But after Silverstone safety has to come before politics (it should've anyway but Silverstone just reinforced it). It will be a massive blow to Mercedes if they have the most powerful engine but can't use it to its full potential without damaging the tyres, especially if they've sacrificed economy and aerodynamics to achieve that. According to James Allen, industry insight puts Mercedes ahead of Renault with Ferrari behind. It's interesting that Pirelli are only seeking to change the rears, the increased grip from chunky rear tyres would cause the cars to understeer. They can't really increase the fronts though because the FIA are trying to reduce the height of the noses and adding an extra 15mm to the rolling radius will make matters worse, especially for the teams running a push rod front suspension (everyone bar McLaren and Ferrari) who need a high bulkhead to package it. On that note the FIA are lowering the nose height from 550mm to 185mm, but they're not lowering the bulkhead, so we could get some really ugly looking cars again as the teams try to merge an extremely low nose with a high bulkhead.
um because they already easily have the best traction this year, you can see them gaining a couple of tenths out of slow corners compared to everyone else (and seeing Hamilton breeze round the outside of Webber repeatedly made it even more obvious), and they'll obviously want to exploit that further as i've said, and of course Mercedes are making the engine for their car so they'll obviously be telling them they can use more power.
See AG's post above for why there's actually much better reasons why the tyres might need to be wider.
from ALAN PERMANE ON THE 2013 BELGIAN GRAND PRIX HUNGARY WAS OUR FIRST RACE WITH THE REVISED PIRELLI TYRE CONSTRUCTION / COMPOUND COMBINATION; WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THAT? From Budapest we’ve learned that the ‘new’ tyres seem to suit our car relatively well. We can only assess their effect on performance relative to the competition around us, and I’d say we’ve not done too badly on that front. Mercedes for example seem to be very well suited to them, but Ferrari perhaps not so much. Although we were slightly quicker than them in both Germany and Hungary, ourselves and Red Bull look very evenly matched. I wouldn’t say they’ve changed our position too much.
So Michelin have thrown their hat into the ring.. I wouldn't mind another tyre war. though if Pirelli lose out then I think its a bit unfair on them. I believe the tyre failures have been to do with how the teams are abusing them, hot air from exhausts etc
A tyre war takes us back to square one, the sport could never have 2 tyre manufacturers as there would be no way anyone would choose a tyre that degrades over a bulletproof one Pirelli have had a iffy year but its because the sport doesn't know what it wants and so gave a dodgy request to Pirelli. We want tyres that degrade but don't degrade
