it's official today. Their last go-round was weak, but they've certainly had plenty of F1 success in other eras.
How would you define the word "best"? I'm trying to think of a scenario in F1 in which everyone -- each and every team -- would agree that the tire supplier is providing the "best" tire. I can't do it. Can you?
If you're instructed to build a tire that degrades within a dozen laps when you're capable of building one that will last most of the race at lap record pace, then yes, that's a pretty good definition. We're not talking here about a custom tire that works only with one car (Schmacher and Ferrari). It seems reasonable to have a control tire to average out across all teams. But it shouldn't be one where we have the risible formulation that the fastest slow team won.
It isn't the "fastest slow team". It's the team which can best manage tires and speed. Or in the case of Ferrari, the team with the largest man-bits willing to do as many stops as possible. The team which appears to be whining the most is acting the role of a spoiled, petulant child that isn't having it so easy. Remember the "flexi-wing" incident? Karma can be a bitch!
The high rate of tire degradation is putting a heavier layer of marbles off the line. It makes it harder to pass. This won't be much of a problem at Monaco, though. After the last pit stop, the leader can still hold his lead even with 4 delaminated tires.
It's impossible to build a tire that can last most of a race at lap record pace. A tire which lasts is always going to be firmer and therefore provide less grip. A tire which produces he best times will be softer and will degrade faster. It's not possible to build the tire you would like to see. And therein lies my point. All tires are a compromise. Nobody has even been or will ever be completely satisfied. So all we're left to discuss is the degree of degradation. Myself, I very much like what they're doing right now. I know, I'm a Philistine. So be it. At least I'm a contented Philistine.
Nobody asked them to build a "shit tire." They asked them to build tires which degraded within certain windows. Yes, for the "show." And it's working. Also, it's working while overall times are not suffering. So it's hard to see what the problem is.
To my knowledge (I watch Prac 2, qualy and the race each weekend) in the 5 races so far, only two tires -- out of hundreds -- have delaminated. And one of those was presumed to be the result of contact. So, only 1 delamination in 15 race days. Not bad, if my numbers are right.
The "fastest slow team" has won the championship in the last three seasons. Newey realised a while ago that even with DRS and KERS, the way to win was to design a car that wasn't top speed fast. His designs are optimised around corner speed even to the extent that they select lower gear ratios to improve acceleration out of the corners. That's why the Red Bull's rarely register in the top speed tables and why they struggle in the DRS zones bouncing off the rev limiter. Their predilection for high corner speeds (whether aided by a blown diffuser or not) stresses the rubber more. It has been a Red Bull strategy to sacrifice top speed for corner speed and thereby set faster lap times in qualifying so that they can control the race from the front. The tyre specification affects this strategy. I'm not so naive as to believe that it's not intentional - no-one (outside Red Bull) wants to see another Ferrari/Schumacher/Todt/Brawn style domination. Arguably, that period did more harm than having iffy tyres is doing now.
Except your numbers aren't right. Max Chilton Hamilton Massa x 2 Di Resta This is a huge increase compared to normal. Only a rate of 0 delaminations is acceptable. Pirelli claims all instances of delamination were caused by debris. Debris is a given in F1. So, what to do about it? I understand the argument against changing tire specs up to the point where it becomes a safety issue. Then something must be done. Pirelli will be making some changes, so hopefully there won't be any more delaminations.
I really see no difference at all this year from any other year with regard to equipment and rules. The "F" in F1 stands for Formula and by design, the formula changes periodically. While the tire specifically isn't set in the Formula it obviously plays a role. Its just another kink to work around. F1 isn't NASCAR. The fastest car doesn't always win. If it did, Force India would have a dozen wins to its credit already. The game planning IS a part of the race and the tires are a new unpredictable part of it. While this year hasn't been my favorite, I have still very much enjoyed the show and other than MotoGP, F1 continues to be the only racing I look forward to every race. Make no mistake, Red Bull will figure it out eventually. Until then, Ferrari is going to burn the hides as quickly as they can, try to gap the field, and repeat often. While that won't work at Monte Carlo, I bet it will be pretty successful at a majority of the Euro tracks. I'm not a Ferrari fan, but I love the 'catch me if you can' mentality.
While the former may be true, it is almost certainly possible to build a tire with identical characteristics to the current ones, but increase durability. These tires have been designed to wear quickly by altering the chemical compound. I am pretty sure they could make changes to only affect durability. Much like the grooved tires, I think this is a silly way to control racing.
Fantastic. I wonder why there's so much nostalgia for races which were won on Saturday? Races which bored us to tears on Sunday. Races with no passing. Races with no tension. Races with preordained outcomes. Races where they might as well have left the cars in the trailers. Do people really understand what it is they want to return to? It's crazy.
Maybe McLaren should have a word with Honda. Since IndyCar changed formats, Honda has sucked. This weekend, they could only manage 11th position in 500 qualy.