View Full Version : Rosberg's Tyres
He started on softs, after the first stop (can't remember which lap it was, I think 11-12?), Rosberg had hard tyres...
He pits again on lap 23 for hard tyres and pits again on the 34th for softs...
And again on the 45th for softs...
So he is getting 10-11-odd laps of both sets both primes and options?
So what was the point of two sets of hards if he was pitting essentially at the same times as those running softs?
And worse still he has to do the last 13 laps on softs - which is longer than he has gone on hards?
I don't understand the logic behind this whatsoever...
Were both the componds at the 10-11 lap mark? If so, why did they bother with the second set of hards?
Just goes to show that PIrelli can't produce racing tires. Be it soft or hard they all degrade exactly as fast. However this is what makes some people ravel about the great racing we get!
Koz, I believe that they just wanted to try something different - and you could say that it kind of worked. He had to hold up the drivers behind him so that in the end he would have much faster tyres and he could overtake them in the last laps, when their tyres were gone. In the end, he was in front of Button and Massa, so it worked quite well, didn't it?
Rosberg must have only had 3 good sets of soft tyres left. They only have 5 sets for the weekend.
That's right, it did work but it only worked because hard tyres failed to work for everyone else.
It's the exact opposite of what was happening last year, tyres just don't last. Based on this race hard tyres just lose you time but don't really give you any benefits for using them.
Had his hard on the first stint lasted another 6-7 laps he would have, IMO been ahead of Hamilton too. It's an uneasy feeling that a team ran 2 sets of hard tyres, and they ran them for fewer laps than softs. In the end it comes down to pretty much, save a set of softs for a blitz at the end when you're low on fuel.
This of course, also has very much to do with race/quali tyre (3/3) regulations as much as anything else.
steveaki13
8th May 2011, 15:13
We need a bit of both (Last Season and this Season).
The hard tyres need to be a little harder and last 20 laps a bit more like last year.
But the softs a fine as they are this year.
We just needed Pirelli to make the harder tyres a bit harder. If they could develop the harder tyres a bit more then we could have a better situation.
I wait with interest to see how the Wet tyres handle in a wet race.
That's right, it did work but it only worked because hard tyres failed to work for everyone else.
That was going to happen anyway, the hard tires are pure crap, they are around 1 seconds/lap slower and deteriorate as fast as the softer compound. What is the use of these hard tires then?!
I wait with interest to see how the Wet tyres handle in a wet race.
Most probably it will be a catastrophe.
steveaki13
8th May 2011, 16:00
Most probably it will be a catastrophe.
could be.
I may be wrong but P are changing the hards to do just that - last longer.
I may be wrong but P are changing the hards to do just that - last longer.
Yes. They've tested a harder control tyre which they want to replace the current hard tyre in a few races. Don't know when the change will take place, though, but I'm fairly sure that it will.
I may be wrong but P are changing the hards to do just that - last longer.
That is if they get it right. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
For what it's worth FIA could cave chose Spearmint to supply the tires instead of Pirelli.
That is if they get it right. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
For what it's worth FIA could cave chose Spearmint to supply the tires instead of Pirelli.
I know you've taken an instant dislike to Pirelli (amongst all the other changes for this year judging by your posts) but to give them their due they have produced the tyres they were asked for, so who is to say they will not now produce a more durable hard?
It's also only fair to point out that the teams have tested the new compounds and have all signed off as happy with the new primes - I think we should probably trust their judgement as more informed than ours.
SGWilko
9th May 2011, 09:41
Good though the racing has been, I would be very interested in what the state of play would be had there been a tyre war this year between Pirelli and ANOther Rubber Co. LTD, both adhering to the same current remit.
Would Pirelli be the better supplier, or would another supplier have tyres just as fragile, but without covering the track in licorice twists....?
I've held back in [continuing to] bad mouth Pirelli, as thus far - the behaviour of the tyres from testing where they fell apart just looking at the tarmac - the doom and gloom of gazillions of pit stops has been premature.
However, the fragility of the wet tyres is of concern, certainly where the rules are concerned, as it only needs an entire wet race weekend to leave the teams without enough tyres for the race!
Good though the racing has been, I would be very interested in what the state of play would be had there been a tyre war this year between Pirelli and ANOther Rubber Co. LTD, both adhering to the same current remit.
Would Pirelli be the better supplier, or would another supplier have tyres just as fragile, but without covering the track in licorice twists....?
I've held back in [continuing to] bad mouth Pirelli, as thus far - the behaviour of the tyres from testing where they fell apart just looking at the tarmac - the doom and gloom of gazillions of pit stops has been premature.
However, the fragility of the wet tyres is of concern, certainly where the rules are concerned, as it only needs an entire wet race weekend to leave the teams without enough tyres for the race!
The doom and gloom has been premature? WTF, didn't we all just watch a race with tire changes about every 9-10 laps?!
Bridgestone or Michelin would have mopped the floor with Pirelli in an open tire war, cause they can predict what their tires will behave like, in fact they can design a tire to behave as it is required, it's called knowledge.
Knowledge can not be bought Ioan, it must be earnt, and Pirelli have never once (to my knowledge) claimed they have perfected the tyres. In fact they have openly admitted it a work in progress.
I have no doubt if there was a tyre war going on Pirelli would be taking a battering from recent suppliers Bridgestone, or even Charlietwins, but there isn't. But let's not compare apples and oranges. If P were up against, say Goodyear, with equally out of date competition knowledge, it would be a good deal closer IMHO.
Also on the subject of tyre lifespan; 10 laps is 20% race distance or so. Are you suggesting a 'soft' should last longer? Let's see what they give us with this new hard compound. My personal hope is that the new hard will be slower and more durable to the order of 50% race distance.
I was under the impression Pirelli designed the tyres to do exactly what they are doing and that is to last considerably less time than the Bridgestones of last season. I see alot of criticism for Pirelli, but a considerable lack of knowledge when it comes to the brief Pirelli were given by the FIA. There will also be unknowns because Pirelli are in their first season of the modern era, and its predecessors had many season's before they had the durability we are used to.
:up: beautifully put.
If we accept that the FIA asked for a tyre that lasted for 10 laps, and lo and behold thats what we've got, it would suggest that Pirelli know what they are doing.
It's a big risk for a company to deliberately advertise themselves with a product that wears out quickly, so they should be applauded.
Knowledge can not be bought Ioan, it must be earnt, and Pirelli have never once (to my knowledge) claimed they have perfected the tyres. In fact they have openly admitted it a work in progress.
I have no doubt if there was a tyre war going on Pirelli would be taking a battering from recent suppliers Bridgestone, or even Charlietwins, but there isn't. But let's not compare apples and oranges. If P were up against, say Goodyear, with equally out of date competition knowledge, it would be a good deal closer IMHO.
Also on the subject of tyre lifespan; 10 laps is 20% race distance or so. Are you suggesting a 'soft' should last longer? Let's see what they give us with this new hard compound. My personal hope is that the new hard will be slower and more durable to the order of 50% race distance.
The FIA should have never given them the sole supplier contract. F1 isn't supposed to be a playground for testing crappy tires. They should have toyed around in lower single seater formulas and get some knowledge first.
I was under the impression Pirelli designed the tyres to do exactly what they are doing and that is to last considerably less time than the Bridgestones of last season. I see alot of criticism for Pirelli, but a considerable lack of knowledge when it comes to the brief Pirelli were given by the FIA. There will also be unknowns because Pirelli are in their first season of the modern era, and its predecessors had many season's before they had the durability we are used to.
Wrong impression.
Why were all drivers and teams criticizing Pirelli after the first tests? Because this is what they asked Pirelli to do, or because they realized just how crap the tires were?
Why did Pirelli already come up with several iterations for each compound? because they designed the tires as supposed to?
Why are they going to have to bring a new hard compound soon? Because they can't design jack sh!t when it comes to F1 tires.
The claim that this is what they were asked to do is hogwash to save their and FIA's face for giving them the contract.
Just wait and see how the supper softs hold in Canada where Pirelli masterfully allocated the super softs (not yet raced this season) and softs.
They will probably have to rebrand some hards and very hard compounds in order to save face with only 4-5 stops.
The FIA should have never given them the sole supplier contract. F1 isn't supposed to be a playground for testing crappy tires. They should have toyed around in lower single seater formulas and get some knowledge first.
I hardly think constructing a tyre for Formula Renault or other such junior series would give them any knowledge that would apply to F1.
The facts are that Bridgestone wanted out. Pirelli wanted in.
Without them we'd be running on low profile Charlietwins (yuck!) or totally untried Avon's (I think I'm remembering correctly that they pitched for the contract).
I hardly think constructing a tyre for Formula Renault or other such junior series would give them any knowledge that would apply to F1.
The facts are that Bridgestone wanted out. Pirelli wanted in.
Without them we'd be running on low profile Charlietwins (yuck!) or totally untried Avon's (I think I'm remembering correctly that they pitched for the contract).
GP2 would have been good enough for a start, if they convince they can move to F1, which wouldn't have happened IMO.
And teh facts are that not only Pirelli wanted in, also other wanted in, Michelin included.
Sonic
10th May 2011, 09:39
^^^ I know. I did mention both Michelin and Avon wanting into the sport.
GP2 wasn't an option. The FIA want the same supplier for F1 and their supports, leaving only the very lowly race series to supply.
Retro Formula 1
10th May 2011, 10:18
They are Superbike, WRC, GP2, GP3 and so far are supplying a F1 tyre exactly as specified by the FIA.
These tyres are morphing and giving some great races so I really can't understand why ioan has got his knickers in a twist again.
I am sure that the problem of excessive marbles will be addressed and agree we need a slightly longer lasting hard to offer more options.
Apart from that, I would score them about 8.5 / 10 this year to date.
Daniel
10th May 2011, 15:34
I personally don't rate the Pirelli's either this year.
I think it's a cop out to say that they've merely done what's been asked of them. Were they asked to make hard tyres and softs which last the same length of time?
I'll admit that Pirelli have done better than I expected so far, but IMHO they've not done a good job.
Bagwan
10th May 2011, 16:09
Ioan , are you happy with the softs ?
Before they raced , all and sundry were criticizing how fast they wore , but come race day , they were happy with the results .
It was fixed , apparently .
Now , the criticism is with the short durability of the hards .
Pirelli do have race experience , so isn't it likely they will get on top of this problem soon as well ?
The tires being issued are of two compounds , causing the teams to strategize with this compromise in mind .
It certainly makes sense to have two compounds that are radically different , to cause different strategies , but the idea is mooted by the fact they are required to use both .
Your point would hold more weight if there was no such rule .
And , while I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that they should last longer , to give us a more "natural" show , the reality is that even a couple of degrees of track temperature can make the difference between whether a tire is junk or jewel , so the requirement to use both makes the most sense , in my opinion .
I am confident they will become more durable , just as I was confident they would create much better racing .
Daniel
10th May 2011, 16:13
The softs do seem fine, but to not have hards which are actually longer lasting is pretty silly don't you agree?
The tires being issued are of two compounds , causing the teams to strategize with this compromise in mind .
It certainly makes sense to have two compounds that are radically different , to cause different strategies , but the idea is mooted by the fact they are required to use both .
Your point would hold more weight if there was no such rule .
I can't agree. The point is right now the difference between the hards and softs is ~1 second per lap, that's it.
With no durability difference there is no sense in using them unless you're just killing laps to get to the end.
If there was no rule regarding the use of both compounds (and quantity, of course) no one in their right mind would use current hard tyres. There is just no benefit either way.
Ioan , are you happy with the softs ?
Before they raced , all and sundry were criticizing how fast they wore , but come race day , they were happy with the results .
It was fixed , apparently .
Only their tune changed, nothing was fixed when hey need to change tires after 9 laps.
The tires being issued are of two compounds , causing the teams to strategize with this compromise in mind .
It certainly makes sense to have two compounds that are radically different , to cause different strategies , but the idea is mooted by the fact they are required to use both .
What strategy? As long as the hard compound last only as long as the soft one there is no strategy involved they only need to observe the compulsory use of the harder compound given that otherwise they would only use the softer one.
I am confident they will become more durable , just as I was confident they would create much better racing.
They started testing one year ago and still didn't get it right, I won't hold my breath for Pirelli ever making consistent tires, not even consistently slow ones or consistently high degradation ones.
I can't agree. The point is right now the difference between the hards and softs is ~1 second per lap, that's it.
With no durability difference there is no sense in using them unless you're just killing laps to get to the end.
If there was no rule regarding the use of both compounds (and quantity, of course) no one in their right mind would use current hard tyres. There is just no benefit either way.
Exactly.
Looking forward to the use of super soft in Canada where Pirelli will break the world record of F1 tire marbles produced during one race! :D
Bagwan
10th May 2011, 17:34
The softs do seem fine, but to not have hards which are actually longer lasting is pretty silly don't you agree?
I do agree , to a point , but as things are set up , they force the teams to compromise , whether they last longer or not , due to being required to use both .
Essentially , the only reason , with the rules in place requiring tires of both specifications to be used , to have the hard tires last longer than the softs , is to harken back to a time when there were , many times , more than two specifications available .
Then , you had cars running slow , compromised by the tires , and cars pitting often , compromised also by the tires .
And , that's kinda what we have now , isn't it ?
Once they lengthen the durability of the hard , and they will , you will have almost exactly the same as in the past , with the two different strategies seemingly making more sense to those who feel they must .
There were mountains of tires left over , before this two compound requirement .
And , that's the best improvement about this rule .
Sonic
10th May 2011, 17:50
They started testing one year ago and still didn't get it right, I won't hold my breath for Pirelli ever making consistent tires, not even consistently slow ones or consistently high degradation ones.
And how long before entering did Bridgestone test? I recall them starting in '95, racing in '97. I also remember those first BStone's being seriously fast but also suffering from blisters and high wear rates.
They got better, so will Pirelli. Have faith.
Daniel
10th May 2011, 17:58
There were mountains of tires left over , before this two compound requirement ..
This is part of motorsport.
Bagwan
10th May 2011, 19:03
This is part of motorsport.
Maybe I should have put it differently .
There are mountains less wasted tires since the two compound rule was put in effect .
Daniel
10th May 2011, 19:15
Maybe I should have put it differently .
There are mountains less wasted tires since the two compound rule was put in effect .
Why don't we make the cars out of recyclable materials as well......
555-04Q2
11th May 2011, 10:48
^^^ Yeah, use recycled bog paper for the tub :laugh:
wedge
11th May 2011, 15:12
The FIA should have never given them the sole supplier contract. F1 isn't supposed to be a playground for testing crappy tires. They should have toyed around in lower single seater formulas and get some knowledge first.
It's nothing to do with who should supply tyres. FIA wanted softer tires. Any other company would have had the same problem.
The problem is the stupid race-both-compounds rule.
Perhaps we could go towards V8SC/Indycar where there is a 'proper' race tyre and a joker soft Sprint/Red tyre.
Developing tyres requires R&D and money. Unfortunately B'stones were too tight fisted to do anything with their tyres to improve the show.
On balance I loathe to go to a tyre war. It further complicates the competition and too much onus on tyres. Just look at MotoGP when Rossi and then Pedrosa spat out their dummies and desperately wanted B'stones.
Daniel
11th May 2011, 15:21
It's nothing to do with who should supply tyres. FIA wanted softer tires. Any other company would have had the same problem.
Bullplop. Regardless of whether tyre tyres are softer than last year overall, a hard should last longer than a soft.
Bullplop. Regardless of whether tyre tyres are softer than last year overall, a hard should last longer than a soft.
^ This.
Retro Formula 1
12th May 2011, 08:58
Bullplop. Regardless of whether tyre tyres are softer than last year overall, a hard should last longer than a soft.
It SHOULD unless you have been asked to manufacture a tyre that lasts as long as a soft but is a second a lap slower. You might be asked to do this if the FIA want to mix things up a bit by having a mandatory change of tyres from hard to soft.
If the FIA want to allow tteamsto develop whatever strategy they want, they would let them use whatever Pirelli tyres they decided were the optimum strategy. If the FIA wanted to increase overtaking, they might demand Pirelli make a hard and a soft that last the same time and ensure teams use at least one of each so different cars are faster at different stages.
Simples.
Daniel
12th May 2011, 09:02
So Pirelli make the tyres THEN we decide what they were asked to do based on what the Tues do? :rotflmao:
Mia 01
12th May 2011, 12:04
All drivers have to adapt to them, i like races with four or moore stops.
wedge
12th May 2011, 12:46
I think it's a cop out to say that they've merely done what's been asked of them.
FIA asked Pirelli to make softer tyre for the show, is it any different to being asked how long is a piece of string?
Were they asked to make hard tyres and softs which last the same length of time?
Tyre technology and the relationship with asphalt is a black art (pun unintended).
The harder Pirellis were fine in Melbourne, arguably too in Malaysia and Shanghai.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/05/why-the-turkish-gp-turned-out-as-it-did-strategy-analysis/
Teams are also still finding surprises on race day, despite gathering tyre data on Fridays. In China the surprise was that the wear on the hard tyre in the final stint was bad because the track hadn’t rubbered in. In Turkey the traack did rubber in and the surprise was that the lap time difference between the soft and hard was only 3/10ths of a second, much less than at any race so far and less than the 1 second/lap it looked like on Friday.
It SHOULD unless you have been asked to manufacture a tyre that lasts as long as a soft but is a second a lap slower.
I am looking forward to you providing us the proof that this request was ever made. Not claims, proof.
FIA asked Pirelli to make softer tyre for the show, is it any different to being asked how long is a piece of string?
Proof?
This explanation was only presented to the public after the first pre-season test where the drivers and teams publicly criticized Pirelli. Not a mention of it during last season.
Sonic
12th May 2011, 20:51
Proof?
This explanation was only presented to the public after the first pre-season test where the drivers and teams publicly criticized Pirelli. Not a mention of it during last season.
Hmm. Selective memory Ioan?
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/11/11558.html
They sound pretty happy to me!
Sonic
12th May 2011, 21:06
And just because I have so little else to do ;) ;
“We have been asked to produce tyres to improve the show,” he told Finnish newspaper Turun Sanomat, “but if we are criticised by the teams or the drivers, yes, we will be able to bring to the next race very durable tyres.” nov '10
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/165284/1/pirelli_vows_to_improve_the_show_in_f1.html
But as the paddock response to the tyres is almost 100% positive I do not see them having to follow up on their promise.
Hmm. Selective memory Ioan?
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/11/11558.html
They sound pretty happy to me!
Check the first test in February, that's what preseason testing is.
And just because I have so little else to do ;) ;
“We have been asked to produce tyres to improve the show,” he told Finnish newspaper Turun Sanomat, “but if we are criticised by the teams or the drivers, yes, we will be able to bring to the next race very durable tyres.” nov '10
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/165284/1/pirelli_vows_to_improve_the_show_in_f1.html
But as the paddock response to the tyres is almost 100% positive I do not see them having to follow up on their promise.
And where are those very durable tires?
Sonic
12th May 2011, 21:39
And where are those very durable tires?
No one (other than you) has asked for them.
Post season/pre-season. Potatoes/potAtoes. ;)
Retro Formula 1
12th May 2011, 23:31
I am looking forward to you providing us the proof that this request was ever made. Not claims, proof.
I was just making a suggestion. You're like a scratched record going on and on about something with no basis apart from your warped view of reality.
Personally, I don't give a crap about pirelli but they seem to be doing the job they were asked to do. Get over it sonny.
Are we still going on about how Pirelli's are crap because they don't last long enough?! The FIA asked them to produce tyres which don't last as long - I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that. It's really a very very simple concept, if you can't grasp that how do you remember where you live?
Daniel
13th May 2011, 11:01
Are we still going on about how Pirelli's are crap because they don't last long enough?! The FIA asked them to produce tyres which don't last as long - I really don't get what's so difficult to understand about that. It's really a very very simple concept, if you can't grasp that how do you remember where you live?
Yeah, but hards only lasting as long as softs? :confused:
Sonic
13th May 2011, 12:22
Yeah, but hards only lasting as long as softs? :confused:
ANNNNNNDDD, as has already been discussed elsewhere Pirelli have have a new 'hard' tested and ratified by the teams, which appears to put a bigger gap in pace between the compounds and increase the durability of the hards - win/win?
Daniel
13th May 2011, 12:38
ANNNNNNDDD, as has already been discussed elsewhere Pirelli have have a new 'hard' tested and ratified by the teams, which appears to put a bigger gap in pace between the compounds and increase the durability of the hards - win/win?
I'll believe it when I see it ;)
Sonic
13th May 2011, 12:41
I'll believe it when I see it ;)
Fair enough.
I do have a couple of questions for you Daniel if you don't mind;
1) are you enjoying the racing this year?
2) do you acknowledge that Pirelli's tyres have created some of that?
3) do you see Pirelli's as dangerous or substandard (currently. We know your views on WRC)
Just interested is all...
Daniel
13th May 2011, 13:19
Fair enough.
I do have a couple of questions for you Daniel if you don't mind;
1) are you enjoying the racing this year?
2) do you acknowledge that Pirelli's tyres have created some of that?
3) do you see Pirelli's as dangerous or substandard (currently. We know your views on WRC)
Just interested is all...
1) I am.
2) Some possibly, but I think DRS is also helping.
3) Not yet, but unlike the people in the DRS thread, I'm not going to make a judgement one way or another based of just a few races :) The wet performance didn't seem all that good in Turkey :s
Sonic
13th May 2011, 13:55
1) I am.
2) Some possibly, but I think DRS is also helping.
3) Not yet, but unlike the people in the DRS thread, I'm not going to make a judgement one way or another based of just a few races :) The wet performance didn't seem all that good in Turkey :s
1) I'm glad :)
2) magnanimous of you.
3) I didn't see the wet laps so I can't comment.
wedge
13th May 2011, 14:25
3) Not yet, but unlike the people in the DRS thread, I'm not going to make a judgement one way or another based of just a few races :)
The crap hard tyres, so far, was only a significant problem in Istanbul. They were fine in the first 3 races.
The thing with DRS is that it is evident you need a long straightaway. Tweaking DRS further is making the gimmick even more absurd. Tweaking DRS is like asking a tyre manufacturer to come up with funny shaped tyres.
Daniel
13th May 2011, 14:36
Tweaking DRS is like asking a tyre manufacturer to come up with funny shaped tyres.
And saying what you've said is like Morris dancing. Oh wait, no it's not!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.