Thread: Pirelli defend tyres after Schumacher blast

Yes, there wasn't but it is normal to try to appeal to the fans. I really can't say why people don't understand it. F1 is trying to survive in a world in which there are many entertainments and you need to fight for your survival.

Originally Posted by wedge

There was never an agenda to entertain the audience.

If that was the case then would F1 have been in Las Vegas?

Originally Posted by F1boat

Yes, there wasn't but it is normal to try to appeal to the fans. I really can't say why people don't understand it. F1 is trying to survive in a world in which there are many entertainments and you need to fight for your survival.

Yes, many a sport has gone down that route and upset the purists. Take away the purity you take away the soul and what you have left is a gimmick.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

If that was the case then would F1 have been in Las Vegas?

What has Las Vegas got to do with it?

In the early '80s was there an agenda to spice up the show because F1 is boring? Was there an agenda or an obsession for more overtaking? Was there a need for DRS? Comedy tyres?

Originally Posted by wedge

What has Las Vegas got to do with it?

Entertainment.

Originally Posted by wedge

Yes, many a sport has gone down that route and upset the purists.

Talk is cheap, please give me an examples. I repeat - F1 must survive in a highly competitive media environment, and for this, it must entertain the majority of its fans. If it upsets some purists, so be it. Purists always reject everything new. A few years ago it was "no overtaking, so bad", now it is "too much overtaking" and the whining continues even after the Monaco GP in which the cars were able to survive on one stop strategy.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Entertainment.

As in glitz and glamour.

Did they go to Vegas because there would be numerous overtaking opportunities? Allow an underdog to win?

The unpredictability was mainly due to the evolution of technology. One would consider Pirelli's tyres as a retro-grade.

Originally Posted by F1boat

Talk is cheap, please give me an examples. I repeat - F1 must survive in a highly competitive media environment, and for this, it must entertain the majority of its fans. If it upsets some purists, so be it. Purists always reject everything new. A few years ago it was "no overtaking, so bad", now it is "too much overtaking" and the whining continues even after the Monaco GP in which the cars were able to survive on one stop strategy.

Snooker - Power Snooker, against the clock; shortened frames in the World Championship.

Cricket - 20/20 cricket.

Make F1 too unpredictable it cheapens the sport and F1 will no longer be the pinnacle. Who would care about genuine pace? Might as well give the drivers the same cars but then why would a team like Ferrari or even Williams feel the need to exist?

Make F1 too unpredictable it cheapens the sport and F1 will no longer be the pinnacle. Who would care about genuine pace? Might as well give the drivers the same cars but then why would a team like Ferrari or even Williams feel the need to exist?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but F1 is not too unpredictable. Unpredictable yes, too unpredictable no. Let's see the championship - the best drivers lead, same with the constructors. Let's see the teams who have won the races - McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari - the big three in recent years, Mercedes, which were expected to win sooner or later, and Williams, which are the third most successful team in history. I think that we have the right balance between show and sport. So the best guys still lead, but there is a chance for an underdog and a good show. What you want, wedge, is completely pure sport. What you want is a DTM for open-wheelers. And I think that this is the worst, which could happen to F1.

Originally Posted by wedge

As in glitz and glamour.

Did they go to Vegas because there would be numerous overtaking opportunities? Allow an underdog to win.

You said that "There was never an agenda to entertain the audience" and yet F1 was more than willing to go to the entertainment capital of the States to entertain.

The idea that F1 has only recently become concerned about "entertainment" is misleading IMHO. Entertainment has been a part of the sport since races were first organised for paying spectators.

The current rules don't "allow" an underdog to win. For one thing the rules are the same for everyone, unlike the past when we have seen one team with bespoke tyres, or the time when Goodyear provided special qualifying tyres to a select few teams.

But we're going over the same ground again and again. Our views differ. C'est la vie.

I really don't like how some people on forums disparagingly to formula 1's new "upredictability" and the tire lottery. Both of these labels are undeserved. This year teams have to work harder to extract good pace from their cars. Also, some of the usual predictability was gone because at times some of the top teams and drivers have either shown a bad form, or they suffered from mechanical problems, such as gear box changes, or other penalties. I don't think it was due to some lottery that we have seen some unusually good speed from some teams. Everything we have seen this year so far has an explanation IMO. Another thing that you should remember is that the performance differentials between cars have been reduced considerably. Engine development has been frozen and engines have been "equalized" more than once. The aero rules put a lot of constraints on what teams can do. Overall this results in speeds that are very close to each other. As soon as the front running driver/car/team have made a mistake, they will be within a striking distance from those coming from behind.

The only thing I really don't like this year is that teams are forced to save tires during qualification. This does really mess up the results, and leaves fans disappointed when they see cars parked in a garage during qualification stages.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

You said that "There was never an agenda to entertain the audience" and yet F1 was more than willing to go to the entertainment capital of the States to entertain.

The key to entertaining is executing it in a manner little in the way of gimmicks/novelty. Let's face it, Caesar's Palace fell into the latter:

Good idea: race in Vegas

Bad idea: featureless car park behind Caesar's Palace lined endlessly with concrete barriers.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The idea that F1 has only recently become concerned about "entertainment" is misleading IMHO. Entertainment has been a part of the sport since races were first organised for paying spectators.

True but since 2003 there's been a number of radical rule changes. Not Schumi's fault he missed out on a golden generation of competition at his peak.

Originally Posted by wedge

True but since 2003 there's been a number of radical rule changes. Not Schumi's fault he missed out on a golden generation of competition at his peak.

But there have always been rule changes, radical and otherwise, for different reasons. Safety. Aesthetics. Equivalency. Current F1 is no different to previous decades in this respect.

There does seem to be this view that 2000-2005 was somehow a "golden era" when races were broken up into short sprints and there's no doubt Schumacher excelled in those circumstances. Is it a coincidence that he is one of the most vociferous critics of the current rules and tyres in particular. Simply put, they don't suit his strengths.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

But there have always been rule changes, radical and otherwise, for different reasons. Safety. Aesthetics. Equivalency. Current F1 is no different to previous decades in this respect.

I find the last 10 years much more radical than previous decades to 'spice up the show'. Eg. single lap quali, knock-out style quali, tyre pit stops banned, team orders banned then re-introduced, race with 2 tyre compounds, soft tyres. Can you say the same for previous decades?

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

There does seem to be this view that 2000-2005 was somehow a "golden era" when races were broken up into short sprints and there's no doubt Schumacher excelled in those circumstances. Is it a coincidence that he is one of the most vociferous critics of the current rules and tyres in particular. Simply put, they don't suit his strengths.

Short sprints were prevalent when refuelling was introduced in 1994.

Not having an obedient team mate and the fastest car don't suit Schumi's strengths either . He's a nice bloke though. He was nice enough not to blame the car and the team even if that made more sense to moan about.

Originally Posted by wedge

I find the last 10 years much more radical than previous decades to 'spice up the show'.

For an entertainment to survive, modern times are much more difficult. As I have said, F1 is fighting for an audience which is also a target of football, music, movies, etc. In the 90s there were two or three big hits per year, now every week there is a new movie blockbuster. To stay home in Sunday, you need to be entertained IMO.

Originally Posted by F1boat

In the 90s there were two or three big hits per year, now every week there is a new movie blockbuster. To stay home in Sunday, you need to be entertained IMO.

How does that work then? You can generally go to the cinema any day of the week you choose. F1 however, will only be shown live once per race.......

Originally Posted by SGWilko

How does that work then? You can generally go to the cinema any day of the week you choose. F1 however, will only be shown live once per race.......

I can, because I am a translator and work in home (that's why I have time to visit this place so often lol), but most people work during the week and for them it will be quite difficult. And if the races are dull... I must admit that at one part of F1 in 2008, a season in which for a second time in a row it seemed that only McLaren and Ferrari can win, I skipped some races to go to see some movies... maybe I am an odd exception, but I still think that in order to survive F1 must be fun.

Originally Posted by F1boat

Garry Walker, I guess you enjoy the DTM series? It is completely pure and completely dull. I don't want to see F1 like this and if the price is to compromise purity, so be it (in my opinion). Again, I can't understand why only touring cars (and the BTCC in particular) should be exciting. Also, wedge, surely you can understand that F1 is business and at least partly show...

DTM pure? In what way? I haven't watched that series for 3 years at least. They have idiotic rules regarding how you can race eachother, how you must pit twice, there is nothing pure about that series.

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The tyres are one part of that equipment. If you push to the limit there is always a danger of going over the limit. The skillset of a driver includes the ability to judge & manage the equipment at their disposal whatever the era.

These days no one has the possibility of being on the limit during a race, because they are always saving tyres mode. At Monaco they were racing to delta time, that is how big a joke the current tyres are.
Is part of driver's ability not going out in qualifying to save a set of those ****ty tyres for race?

I don't recall there being such vorciferous criticism of the sport thirty years ago when we saw six different winners in the first eight races of 1982, and seven different winners in the first eight races of 1983. The view then was that it was exciting to see the best drivers in the best cars in the world pushing to the absolute limit of their skills and equipment.

LOL. These days those guys are not pushing to the absolut limit of their skills, going 2,5 seconds slower and racing to delta time is not pushing to the limit.
What a complete joke.

Villeneuve another one with a brain.

The Jacques Villeneuve Q&A | Features & Experts | Sky Sports Formula 1

Jacques, can I start by asking you what you think of the new look Formula 1 because in some quarters it is coming under some criticism, saying there is too much variety, maybe the tyres are not predictable. Do you like the Formula 1 you've seen this year?
Jacques: "I am not a huge fan, there's things I like and things I don't, but I guess that's the case for everybody and everything in life - not everybody will always be happy. But I am not a huge, huge fan right now."

Could you explain why?
Jacques: "Because it is too unpredictable on the tyre front. There is very little the drivers can do, the tyres just suddenly disappear and that doesn't seem to be to the level that F1 should be at. There have been some races this year where in the space of one lap the tyres just disappear and that is a little bit wrong, it should be more gradual."

Every proper race fan hates these joke tyres.

Garry, you know, you are not the highest authority about who is a proper fan and who is not. I watch F1 since 1992 and can't remember being so entertained as in the first races of the season. However, it looks that Montreal will be again one-stopper, so we are back to days of dull, predictable racing. I hope that you are happy about that. I am glad that there is GT racing this weekend.

Originally Posted by henners88

Drivers have not been pushing to the absolute limit for an entire race distance and have been racing to delta times for many years now. Pirelli have not changed that aspect of the sport.

In previous years drivers were never told to do 'delta times'. It was purely down to the drivers to manage the tyres when you could run conservatively and then extract more from the tyres. Even this was possible in 2005 when tyre changes were banned.

You really can't do that with Pirellis. The degradation is so atrocious that conservative tyre management is ever more critical.