Brigestone vs Pirelli

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen220378
  • 23 comments
  • 7,522 views

Pirelli, Bridgestone or your opinion

  • Total voters
    39
Stephen220378

Stephen220378

Messages
1,532
Scotland
Scotland
Messages
Stephen220378
So we're 3 races into the 2011 F1 season and the tyre effect in this seasons racing obviously has a massive effect on the race results. With out a doubt the RB7 is the fastest car, but does the obvious emphasis on who's got a better pitstop strategy take something away from the race winner?

Is it no longer a straight out race on the track because if drivers look after their tyres they'll be up there regardless?

Admittedly, the new Pirellis make for some great racing but in my opinion it's false. When Lewis caught Seb it had nothing to do with driving skill, the same lack of skill applies when Mark caught Jenson.

I know an F1 season is usually dominated by the top teams who try to outdo each other with smart inovations (Red Bull "flexi wing", the "F" Duct, the BGP double diffuser) etc, but that's due to the car the team built, not due to the way the tyre manufacturer makes their tyres.

So the poll is;

Pirelli - One of the FIA's ideas to keep races tight and exciting to viewing customers

Bridgestone - Notoriously low tyre wear that placed emphasis on the car and driver

Or

A third option - Your own suggestions
 
Pirelli. Watch the 2010 Chinese Grand Prix. Then watch the 2010 Italian Grand Prix. Then tell me which one you prefer.
 
Stephen220378
Pirelli - One of the FIA's ideas to keep races tight and exciting to viewing customers
Click to expand...

FIA was right to get Pirelli in and actually dictate what Pirelli can and can't do with regards to grip levels and how quickly they go off. In my opinion, the Bridgestones were far too efficient and effective for the race which meant it was less of a challenge for the driver themselves. They don't have to manage the tyre wear so much on the Bridgestones so much and can pretty much just do whatever pace they more or less liked.

The Pirellis, while going off earlier and giving much more of a "peaky" grip levels, meant that instead of drivers just blasting off and staying there, it has now become more of a chess game where strategy and tactics play a big part in the races. This is more akin to the older style racing when you never really knew who exactly would win until the last five laps due to strategy and tyres playing a factor in the decision making of all teams to get their cars to be first.

Plus, it has lead to better and more competitive field for the first three races.
 
Submerged
FIA was right to get Pirelli in and actually dictate what Pirelli can and can't do with regards to grip levels and how quickly they go off. In my opinion, the Bridgestones were far too efficient and effective for the race which meant it was less of a challenge for the driver themselves. They don't have to manage the tyre wear so much on the Bridgestones so much and can pretty much just do whatever pace they more or less liked.

The Pirellis, while going off earlier and giving much more of a "peaky" grip levels, meant that instead of drivers just blasting off and staying there, it has now become more of a chess game where strategy and tactics play a big part in the races. This is more akin to the older style racing when you never really knew who exactly would win until the last five laps due to strategy and tyres playing a factor in the decision making of all teams to get their cars to be first.

Plus, it has lead to better and more competitive field for the first three races.
Click to expand...

Point taken and all comments so far seem to be pro-pirelli and valid reasons too.
 
Actually, it's really much of a muchness.

If refueling was in the regulations, then we wouldn't need the Pirelli degredation.

The Bridgestone tyres did exactly what was required of them they held the car under their fuel weights, with the main difference being fuel weight.

The Pirelli's add the strategy that was lost when we lost refeuling. The 'poor' life span of the new tyres change the dynamic of the racing, bringing multiple stops back into the equation.

My view is that neither tyre is better. Just different. On a side note, how many stops will we see in Montreal 2011?
 
If refuelling was in the regulations, there wouldn't be any passing. Every driver would be in a time trial against himself because it would be easier to pass the others in the pits than on the circuit.
 
Pirelli hands down.

The tyres are doing a far better job than the DRS or KERS at actually improving overtaking, IMHO.
 
granturismite
If refueling was in the regulations, then we wouldn't need the Pirelli degredation.
Click to expand...

Tyres particularly of multiple compounds put drivers on track at different speeds during the race, out of position drivers on different tyres (thus different speeds) is what produces the on track action. Re-fuelling could never hope to achieve that.
 
Definitely the Pirellis. They've really livened up F1. Although it creates a few "FUUUU-" moments for the teams and the drivers, it creates truly exciting racing.
 
At first I was a firm opponent of the deliberately weak Pirellis, but now I'm not so sure. We knew that the idea was to artificially mix things up, and they've unquestionably done that, but the problem that many purists and myself had with this is that it was indeed very fake and deliberate, and we don't like fakeness.

However, in a way I suppose one can defend the weaker tires by arguing that having to contend with and manage more delicate tires requires its own driver skill and strategy, which can be just as important and useful to being a top driver as other skills already emphasized in the sport. In previous seasons on the outstanding Bridgestones, a driver could push them as hard as he wanted and they just kept on going strong. Being able to push the car while not destroying tires can be a valuable skill of its own and can now come into play in races.
 
Its only fake if you feel that F1 must be pure technology perfection. But considering the cars are already limited in that they can't use fans, 6 wheels, different engine configurations, etc, its really a moot point. Quite clearly, F1 cars are not the ultimate in technology at purist a level. So why is it fake for the tyres to also be limited?
Again, a debate of what the definition of Formula 1 is, is it technology or is it pure driving? If its pure driving why not just give them all manual shift, terrible tyres and less downforce? If its pure technology, why not ditch the drivers entirely and watch computers race?
And what of the excitement factor? Should F1 ignore the action on track and focus purely on ultimate laptimes?

Personally I feel it was a good move by all involved to stop the "perfection" of tyres, this isn't like spec-formula where we are making the cars less and less different, its quite a simple change that merely takes away the impressive tyre technology...and who cares about that? Its not like F1 tyres were better wearing or faster than other series or road cars, so its not some "cool" part thats been taken off like a V12 engine or something. Maybe it sounds silly to some people that F1 has to purposefully provide terrible tyres, but eh, its better than having to explain DRS to the non-F1 fan.

Another way of thinking about this is, imagine this as a "tyre war" without the rival tyre company ;). Before Michelin buggered off, Bridgestone weren't so durable and we had a similar kind of interest, though with that it was more the different strengths of the different tyre companies.

I say thank you Pirelli for having the balls to try this! It must seem like terribly negative publicity for the tyres to wear so quickly and having the drivers complaining about them on TV, but they have enhanced the interest in the sport and that can only be a positive, more interest = more publicity. There's also an element of bad publicity is good publicity, as people keep talking about their company name..as we are doing now.
 
Last edited:
IceMan PJN
At first I was a firm opponent of the deliberately weak Pirellis, but now I'm not so sure. We knew that the idea was to artificially mix things up, and they've unquestionably done that, but the problem that many purists and myself had with this is that it was indeed very fake and deliberate, and we don't like fakeness.

However, in a way I suppose one can defend the weaker tires by arguing that having to contend with and manage more delicate tires requires its own driver skill and strategy, which can be just as important and useful to being a top driver as other skills already emphasized in the sport. In previous seasons on the outstanding Bridgestones, a driver could push them as hard as he wanted and they just kept on going strong. Being able to push the car while not destroying tires can be a valuable skill of its own and can now come into play in races.
Click to expand...

I think that it was even more fake to enforce pitstops last season when the hard tyres were clearly durable enough to last the race distance on a few occasions. Clearly that was a bad situation. Taking a step back in technology has only helped make things more interesting.

Currently, f1 is no longer about being the peak of technology, but I think we could be in the beginning of a new golden age of racing. We certainly will if we keep having races like this with the likes of Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Webber, Button, Rosberg, Schumi, (a reborn) Massa, Kobayashi and (hoping they come back) Raikkonen and a fit and healthy Kubica. Not to mention the others who look set to join them(don't let me down Vitaly). Thank you Pirelli, goodbye Bridgestone.
 
I quite agree that the "use both sets of tires or else" rule is even worse of an artificial impediment than degrading tires are.

I personally would like to see the absolute best tires possible in terms of grip and longevity used on the cars, but this is one "artificial" limitation I'm happy with... tires that have a short shelf life require more skill to nurse and drive. Small mistakes like flat-spotting tires in a corner can have huge effects on the rest of the race... and with this rule, more than ever, a driver has to be a complete all-arounder to get to the top spot of the podium. Blinding speed alone won't suffice... the ability to balance the car on the edge of destruction is key.

And it proves something about the top-flight drivers... before this formula, you could declare that Lewis Hamilton can't drive at anything less than 110%, that he uses up his tires too fast... or that Vettel can't overtake or defend... he did a lot of that this race, and Lewis did a lot of tire preservation on those long stints.

Got to give them credit... those boys aren't as one-dimensional as their detractors claim them to be.
 
Pirelli. From what we've seen in the last 3 races, the racing has been a lot tighter and more actions on the track than ever before. Surely there are some other factors that contribute to the increase of overtaking but so far it has fullfil what some spectators would love to see when they watch Formula 1.

On the other side, it does give some hard times for the teams and drivers as they have to work quite a lot this season to get the strategies, tactics and driving characteristics correct to ensure they can get to the end at the top spot. Overall, Pirelli tyres may degrade faster than Bridgestones but it does give a lot of entertainment on the track. Forget about the complaints and bla bla bla, they may have created a new F1.
 
Pirelli.

This isn't the first time we've seen downgraded tyres, I'm sure you guys remember not so many years ago when the dry tyres had mandated grooves in them to reduce grip. This is just the first time that they've actually specifically designed a tyre to "enhance" the racing at the cost of it actually being a good tyre.

I think it's fine. It only works if you only have a single tyre supplier, which has been a fairly recent state of affairs. We know full well from Bridgestone that tyre technology is capable of making a grippy tyre that can last race distances, but that's just not that interesting. What's more interesting is Pirelli taking a step back in order to let the drivers and the cars shine. When everyone is on the same tyres anyway, it's by far the best choice for an interesting race.

F1 hasn't been about pushing the boundaries of being the absolute fastest cars possible for quite some time now. Any number of go-faster technologies are banned in F1 for the sake of the racing. It's about being the world's premier motorsport class, and if something like this is what is needed to keep it relevant then I'm all for it.
 
Artificial or not, the Pirelli tyres are making this season much more enjoyable and entertaining. Sure the new tyres may be a 'fake' way of mixing up the competition but the action on track is real regardless of the cause.

It's taken nothing away from the drivers or cars (IMO as suggested in the OP) they all have the same rules to adhere by and it gives them another dimension to think about, yes in the situations mentioned the drivers had clearly better performance at the times they caught their rival (e.g. Webber V Button, Webber had to make the most of using the hard compound to begin with, damage limitation, and then use his softs at the end and get overtakes done efficiently to have a chance) but were they all to run the same strategy we're back to 90 minute time trials after the first portion of the race where you get far fewer drivers in close proximity.

Put another way if a certain entrant can't maintain their tires as well as another, how is that not down to the driver or car?
 
niky
I quite agree that the "use both sets of tires or else" rule is even worse of an artificial impediment than degrading tires are.
Click to expand...

I don't actually mind this rule, but it was ridiculous last season when the hard tyres could comfortably make the distance sometimes.
 
It must be a nightmare for the drivers having to endure such fragile tyres but it makes the racing SO GOOD! :D
 
All those whiney drivers that say the Pirelli's don't last long enough, shame on you. Its just a shame that F1 can't be good without unreliable tyres, or other things which are too artificial such as KERS and DRS. Why can't F1 produce good races naturally? Its such a shame...
 
These tires are brilliant. They provide overtaking on the track and in the pits.:D Monaco qualifying used to provide the most spectacular onboards with drivers at 110% inches away from the wall, wait until the race when they will be able to overtake for the first time in years.:D Also the tyres for that race will be supersoft and soft, so stupidly fast qualifying times and lots of tyre degredarion in the race.

You know what? I haven't even wished for rain yet this season. That's how it should be, we don't need rain to make F1 interesting , it should be the formula itself.
 

Latest Posts

Back