[Tech Issue] 2011 Pirelli tyres

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MarkG

IMHO the current tyres, Kers and DRS are just temporary attempts to create artificial overtaking (and interest?) because the rules allow such ridiculous amounts of downforce in F1 cars. Massive downforce and very short braking distances equates to boring "racing", and whilst F1 cars have these properties, then proper racing with some "real" overtaking is pretty well non-existant apart from on rare occasions.
Unless F1 cars change to having vastly reduced downforce and braking distances, the only choice is to have artificial manipulation, or follow-my-leader "racing".

I'm not impressed or excited by a F1 driver overtaking purely because he has a significantly better tyre at that moment, or he's just pressed the Kers button, or he's just operated DRS.

All the talk about reducing F1 costs is just hot air. I would guess that costs can be reduced by a significant amount if downforce was reduced by 70%, and DRS and Kers were removed, and F1 would be the better for it.

There's plenty I agree with here.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There's plenty I agree with here.

Anything that mixes up the racing too much (cutting downforce by 70%) isn't going to sit well with the likes of Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull. Their whole winning philosophies are based on aero being king. Bernie couldn't sell F1 if Ferrari etc couldn't stay ahead of the less well known teams.

The Elephant is still in the room, but some don't want to let it out.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Anything that mixes up the racing too much (cutting downforce by 70%) isn't going to sit well with the likes of Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull. Their whole winning philosophies are based on aero being king. Bernie couldn't sell F1 if Ferrari etc couldn't stay ahead of the less well known teams.

The Elephant is still in the room, but some don't want to let it out.

It's so much the issue of downforce I agree with but with the use of DRS and KERS. Not so long ago cars didn't have devices, that let the driver to press a button and you overtook the other car. Yes there was break balance adjustment and there still is. There was increasing the turbo boost but at the risk of blowing the turbo charger and there are no more turbos now, but in the end of the day it was pretty much the driver and his car. However these days the designs are so restrictive due to costs, things like DRS and KERS have to be used, rather than freeing up the designs.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Anything that mixes up the racing too much (cutting downforce by 70%) isn't going to sit well with the likes of Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull. Their whole winning philosophies are based on aero being king. Bernie couldn't sell F1 if Ferrari etc couldn't stay ahead of the less well known teams.

The Elephant is still in the room, but some don't want to let it out.

If that is indeed the case then it needs the FIA to wield the axe and just get it done. Push it through on "safety grounds" if need be.

I hear people say this all the time "the teams wind tunnels will be mothballed", but that simply isn't true. Modern aero is geared towards doing two things for racing cars, A) generating downforce and B) aero effeciency. If downforce is no longer the aim, then producing a car that cuts through the air the best will become the main aim, and hey if the car makers want something that is road relevant, there it is right there.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

However these days the designs are so restrictive due to costs, things like DRS and KERS have to be used, rather than freeing up the designs.

Unfortunately 'cost' is the big thing these days, and there are good reasons why it shouldn't get out of control.

Martin Whitmarsh:

"It is okay for some of us at this end to say that it doesn't feel like a real and immediate priority – but if we don't do it then we won't have people to race against. It is as simple as that."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90584

P.S. Somehow we have to get this thread back on to the subject of those round black things.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Unfortunately 'cost' is the big thing these days, and there are good reasons why it shouldn't get out of control.

Martin Whitmarsh:

"It is okay for some of us at this end to say that it doesn't feel like a real and immediate priority – but if we don't do it then we won't have people to race against. It is as simple as that."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90584

P.S. Somehow we have to get this thread back on to the subject of those round black things.

I know what your saying about cost, it was one of the things that killed CART.

Getting back to tyres, how does cost feature in the plethora of tyre compounds, with their different colored logos, produced by Pirelli for this season?

[E.B]

One thing that somewhat grieves me is the huge gap between the cars one lap pace and race pace ..... on whatever tyre the gap between qualifying times and race times was approx 6 seconds.

Ironically Seb's fastest race lap was a 1:41.539, against a qualifying time of 1:34.870. That means Vettels race times were all outside the 107% rule!
Not one of his race laps was within 107% of his qualifying (pole) lap.

I dont like that. Mind you they used to need 1500hp qualifying engines and special qualifying tyres to get that sort of difference in days gone. And even then the race lap times were generally within 107% of their qualy times.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Getting back to tyres, how does cost feature in the plethora of tyre compounds, with their different colored logos, produced by Pirelli for this season?

It's probably not very costly at all. At least not compared to having Michael Schumacher pounding around Fiorano in his Ferrari for 100,000 kms of pre-season tyre testing. Not to say anything about the in-season tyre testing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's probably not very costly at all. At least not compared to having Michael Schumacher pounding around Fiorano in his Ferrari for 100,000 kms of pre-season tyre testing. Not to say anything about the in-season tyre testing.

Not that costly to make those different tyre compounds. Ok, What about supplying all the teams?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Not that costly to make those different tyre compounds. Ok, What about supplying all the teams?

My understanding is that there is a figure agreed by FOTA the FIA and Pirelli that makes each team chip in something between 2 and 3 million euros (depending on who you believe) to Pirelli to cover some percentage of the costs involved for the season's tyre use. AFAIK no team escapes the tyre charges; so there is no form of allegiance or preference.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by E.B

My understanding is that there is a figure agreed by FOTA the FIA and Pirelli that makes each team chip in something between 2 and 3 million euros (depending on who you believe) to Pirelli to cover some percentage of the costs involved for the season's tyre use. AFAIK no team escapes the tyre charges; so there is no form of allegiance or preference.

A bit like Indy. Thanks.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Not that costly to make those different tyre compounds. What about supplying all the teams?

Bridgestone and Michelin must have made hundreds of different compound tyres....every season

The costs come from developing and testing the tyre, particularly during a tyre war. If you have no competition, then costs are radically reduced. Making and supplying the teams with enough tyres for the season, even if you have to supply all but one of the teams, would only be a tiny fraction of the cost of engaging yourself in a tyre war.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Bridgestone and Michelin must have made hundreds of different compound tyres....every season

The costs come from developing and testing the tyre, particularly during a tyre war. If you have no competition, then costs are radically reduced. Making and supplying the teams with enough tyres for the season, even if you have to supply all but one of the teams, would only be a tiny fraction of the cost of engaging yourself in a tyre war.

Without competition the costs will certainly drop. Ok, thanks for that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Without competition the costs will certainly drop. Ok, thanks for that.

Bridgestone reportedly spent over $80m on tyres and tyre testing for Ferrari's 2005 season. No doubt Michelin spent roughly the same.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Bridgestone reportedly spent over $80m on tyres and tyre testing for Ferrari's 2005 season. No doubt Michelin spent roughly the same.

I bet they weren't sorry to see Michelin go.

[Bononi]

Ridiculous...

[tblincoe]

Wrote this up yesterday, but I thought this part would be especially relevant for this thread:

Managing the Pirellis is quickly shaping up to be a game of ‘chicken’, with each team trying to go as long as possible in their first stint before changing over to fresh rubber for the second. The importance of going as long as possible in the first stint is down to the finite limitations of the Pirellis, in that everyone has referred to the Italian rubber having three distinct phases. These phases were clearly indicated in the lap time progressions during each driver’s first stint of the Malaysian Grand Prix. For those who watched the race on television, the Pirelli phases were referred to on the world feed by Vettel’s race engineer, who asked over the radio, “What phase are the tires in Sebastian?” To which Vettel replied, “Phase one, beginning to enter phase two.” Several laps later, Vettel made his third and final pitstop. So just what are these “phases” in the Pirelli tire’s life? Let’s take a closer look:

* The first phase is a period of consistent performance that lasts for a variable duration of laps dependent on several factors, including: driving style, car characteristics, and track conditions. For the majority in the line plot above, this period lasted until around laps 8-9.

* The second phase is a period of consistent but manageable degradation that occurs over a fairly static 3-5 lap period. In the race, this phase generally occurred between laps 9-12. It appears that management of the second phase can be a significant performance differentiator as Button, Massa, and Alonso were able to close the performance gap to race leader Vettel during this period of the first stint.

* The third phase is what is referred to as the “cliff”, and no amount of effort on the part of teams can stop its effects once it hits. In the race, the cliff is represented in laps 12-14 just before the first round of pit stops. The drop-off in lap times for everyone (besides the early-stopping Mark Webber) during this period is extraordinary uniform.

Once one understands each phase and how the teams try to manage them, understanding the general development of the rest of the race becomes quite simple in spite of the relative confusion on display Sunday. Just take a quick look at the line plot again for each driver and you will recognize that each stint is an exercise in monitoring what phase the tire is in, with a goal of stopping just at the end of the tire’s second phase before reaching the cliff.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

We could go back to having rock hard tyres and to knowing what the result of the race will be after the first few corners. And at least we'll have a nice clean track. Not that it would be of much use to anyone trying to overtake the car in front. Or maybe it would if they keep the DRS and KERS?

Artificiality also comes with tyres that last a whole race distance, but don't go much further. It's quite possible to make them last 3 or 4 races. Just varying degrees of artificiality really.

We could have another tyre war, but I don't think that anyone in F1 still has the stomach for that, not if they want more than just a handful of cars on the grid.

And let's say that Michelin want to come in and do that, together with say Cooper and Khumo. Whose tyre name would you be putting on the cheque when it comes to making that very important choice for tyres? Or would it just be a case of the highest bidders getting first dabs?

Do we want 55 pit stops per race or more? This just so silly isn't it...it is all about the tyres again...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Do we want 55 pit stops per race or more? This just so silly isn't it...it is all about the tyres again...

I still for the life of me cannot see how this benefits Pirelli from a marketing point of view.

Seeing this tyre mayhem, would you put Pirellis on your road car?

Brave, very brave

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Do we want 55 pit stops per race or more? This just so silly isn't it...it is all about the tyres again...

It's not like we haven't had multiple pit stops before. Some cars stopped twice, some stopped four times. If they had never stopped or had all stopped only once, I don't think that the Sepang race would be rating an 8.

Originally Posted by wnut

I still for the life of me cannot see how this benefits Pirelli from a marketing point of view.

Seeing this tyre mayhem, would you put Pirellis on your road car?

Brave, very brave

Many car manufacturers fit Pirelli's as standard (Ferrari included). That's where the real customer feedback comes from.

I think those that actually know what's going on (and by now that should even include your mum) don't think that Pirelli can't still make decent road tyres. They do a similar thing in Superbike racing (see last weekends Donington event). The fans know what's going on. Pirelli motorcycle tyre sales have gone through the roof.

[Bononi]

You can't beat Pirelli's CEO, no sir...

[Marbot]

[gttouring]

I find it wierd that the tracks have not visibly rubbered in, and given the marbles created ...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by gttouring

I find it wierd that the tracks have not visibly rubbered in, and given the marbles created ...

This is a very interesting point, and something that I have asked myself why not?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's not like we haven't had multiple pit stops before. Some cars stopped twice, some stopped four times. If they had never stopped or had all stopped only once, I don't think that the Sepang race would be rating an 8.



Many car manufacturers fit Pirelli's as standard (Ferrari included). That's where the real customer feedback comes from.

I think those that actually know what's going on (and by now that should even include your mum) don't think that Pirelli can't still make decent road tyres. They do a similar thing in Superbike racing (see last weekends Donington event). The fans know what's going on. Pirelli motorcycle tyre sales have gone through the roof.

Pirelli make wonderful tyres...Pirelli were instructed to create a tyre that would fall apart after a given number of laps..

The problem I have is. the tyres lose so much rubber that there is only one racing line otherwise you are driving on ice, therefore it makes passing very difficult..

The "clag" the tyres produce is hitting the drivers in the face and hands, at 350KPH that is not funny..

There are way to many pitstops so this makes following the action rather harder than before..

What is the upside?

They will still sell tyres by the way because F1 has very little to do with Scott driving to his local supermarket..