Quote from N I K I :

ah shit, Ferrari on a plus stop... It's gonna be interesting I'd say.

P.S. 4 stopper winning comfortably. If my memory serves me right, it's the first time in history and I guess Pirelli has just hit the limit. I don't mind a 4 stopper race, the whole race is very interesting so far. Just don't push it any further Pirelli.

At last a brave and smart strategy at the same time for Ferrari. I'm loving this.

That was during the race. And btw you're the fanboy spotter here. Funny. You gotta be naive if you think Ferrari would issue the same "clear opinion of the situation" if they were half a second off in race trim...

Most of the people here are against a mid-season change. Saying the tires are shit doesn't mean we want them changed now. Regardless of the RBR whining and the politics and who gains and who loses, you were admitting that 4 stops is borderline. Why is it boderline to you?

Here's a secret...the number of stops doesn't really matter. Pushing hard means higher degradation... That's perfect. That means 4 stops? It's allright...doesn't matter. Who cares? The problem is, right now, there is ZERO opportunity to push hard. NONE.

I don't get why you refuse to accept that for some people, F1 should NOT be 20 cars cruising on a track. Lotus is easy on tires? Cool. Lotus gets the most of "the package" in a race ? Cool. The fact is : Lotus are still cruising. Driving your car at 80% is how you get the most of the package in a race. That is wrong.

In any racing series, a driver should have the opportunity to take the risk of pushing himself and his machine to each their limits if he feels like it. They won't do it all the time. Some will do it better & more often than others, some will break their car, some will crash. That's racing.

You have enough knowledge to appreciate the amount of work and the compromises required to make any package work at its best and it's fine. Most fans don't even get close of seeing that. But all this work and all this balance act is still present and you can still admire it on decent tires. If you have a deeper level of understanding of the sport you should know that. The FIA doesn't need to the get racing fundamentals wrong in order to improve the show. There are solutions out there other than what we have.

I'm watching every race admiring the effort that is put out there and I'm every weekend enjoying every bit I can. But when I hear a driver say "I can't go any slower" and I see so many undisputed overtakes and I see the best drivers in the world being told "this pace is fine" when it is in fact 2 seconds off what the car is capable of. I know that under all of this something is off.

Sometimes complaining comes with the fact that people put you in the same basket as the ones that are always complaining and not appreciating the positive bits. You should know that the most of the LFS crowd has more perspective than the semi-interested fans complaining just because their team hasn't figured out the proper balance.

You should take a look at onboards a little bit and see how drivers are not pushing mate.

What's really interesting is how when Ferrari was a lap down because of tire degradation when RedBull won with 4 stops, there was no whining. Ferrari simply said we need to improve our car and so they did.

Onboards can be misleading. Laptimes don't lie. Not bothering defending your position says a lot. I'm not saying the drivers are not using any of their skill at the moment. Thay are just using a specific set that I think should stay only a little part of what makes a racing car/driver a great one. Tire preservation is a skill to have but it should stay only one in all the arsenal that a racing driver should have. Not the only one. That's an opinion...nobody has to agree on that.

The timing of the whining...well...it is what it is...it kinda sparks the debate when Hemberey himself says ok we got it wrong we will change them. Personally I've been saying the tires are shit for a while. I initially thought the tires were great, then that they were not so great but it'd be ok. I thought for a while the teams would eventually figure out a way to give themselves the oppurtunity to stay in the operating window while running the car at the limit if they wanted to. Turns out the window is just too thin. There is nothing you can do other than running slow.

I remember in the early Pirelli days I thought the drivers that were not so great at tire preservation still had a decent shot. All they had to do was save brand new sets for the race and after each pitstop they could fly for 2 laps on the demolding agent then run them a tiny bit harder than scrubbed ones. It was working for a bunch of races...until more data came in. The teams figured out that the only good option to have a shot was to run slow. The number of stops don't matter. How hard you can push between them matters. To me.

Laptimes don't lie eh? Then you won't be able to argue against this...

Quote :

I have compared data from the last four Spanish Grands Prix, including 2010. It gives an interesting result.
Although the cars were out-and-out faster on Bridgestones, there is very little difference in the offset from pole to fastest lap - even less if you use the data of the offset from the race winner's fastest lap and his qualifying time - or from pole to average race lap.
This would seem to undermine two key complaints being levelled at F1 at the moment - that the Pirelli tyres have dramatically affected the ability for drivers to push hard in races, and that this has markedly worsened in 2013.
It also rather undermines Pirelli's claim that the cars are three seconds a lap faster this year and that this is overworking the tyres.

From Gary Anderson, who should know what he's talking about...http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22543884

Yet he fails to Mention the 4 min Gap in total race time from 2010 to all the pirelli Seasons, not even 5 extra pitstops take that long.

Which obviously means he doesnt seem to understand the difference between setting a fast lap time and keeping pace with that time(as evidenced by the increased gap from Pole time to Average Race Lap).

Also it should also be noted that there is now 3 extra seasons of development on the 2013 season which these days is pretty much focused on Race Pace.

All the evidence is in that article that they are infact crawling.

Quote from Mustafur :

Yet he fails to Mention the 4 min Gap in total race time from 2010 to all the pirelli Seasons, not even 5 extra pitstops take that long.

Which obviously means he doesnt seem to understand the difference between setting a fast lap time and keeping pace with that time(as evidenced by the increased gap from Pole time to Average Race Lap).

All the evidence is in that article that they are infact crawling.

Are you blind? "Although the cars were out-and-out faster on Bridgestones"

Although I do agree that the comparison to 2010 isnt really accurate about pole to fastest lap, because theyre doing less laps on 1 set of tyres during a race now due to increased pitstops, when you compare to say 2011 it does show its not really that different. Its the same old story that individual teams try to take the circumstances to fit them better. And you say that teams arent pushing flat out but I remember in Malaysia the Mercedes being told to push flat out at points of that race, its just after the grand prix thats usually 1 of the hardest on tyres people complain

I don't think the 2011, 2012 Pirellis were as horrible as this year so I'll compare 2012 and 2013

2013 : Alonso
Race winner Q time : 1.21.218
Fastest lap : 1.26.217 (+5.0)
Race winner fastest lap : 1.26.681 (+5.4)

2012 : Maldonado
Race winner Q time : 1.22.285
Fastest lap : 1.26.250 (+4.0)
Race winner fastest lap : 1.27.9 (+5.7)

Gary is comparing the 5.4 vs 5.7 and saying they are quite close but something is missing...

Maldonado did his fastest lap on LAP 26. Fernando did his at a normal time which is a couple laps after his last stop. (lap 53). 30 laps worth of fuel is missing in Gary's comparison. If Maldonado had 4 stopped and made his fastest lap around lap 53 it would have been close to 1.26.4. Now it would be +5.4 vs +4.2. More than one second of raw race pace gone in one year.

Just to be clear...I don't think it means a lot. Average race pace excluding the pitstop would tell a lot more. I just wanted to point out that Gary messed up, at least on the fastest lap part. It makes it hard to take his word on average laptime offset comparison if he ****ed up that bad on the fastest laptime interpretation.

My rules would be thus:

Type manufacturer brings two compounds to a race. An option and a prime.
The harder tyre can last all race pushing hard, but is a slower harder tyre overall.
The softer tyre can accept being punished, but has a life (either wear or degradation, I don't mind which at this stage) that means two or three pitstops will be required.

Drivers are required to use either hard or soft but not both compounds. Not sure if they should be forced to qualify on the race tyre or a free choice. Probably free.

The compounds are carefully selected so that the overall race time of either tyre is roughly the same. As such, some will go for the qualifying laps on soft tyres all race, and others will go for a non-stop hard. Different strategies then result, which might lead to passing without being too contrived or required an artificially 'poor' tyre.

But I haven't really thought it through.

I don't think there's ever going to be a magic formula that somehow equalises car performance disparity to make for great racing. Either you let them run flat out and make designers seek outright pace above all, or you shake things up like Pirelli have. I don't mind it as it is, but I would like to see the margin between maximum attack and tyre conservation mode be a bit smaller. I want drivers to be able to use the tyres not be afraid to use them.

Quote from tristancliffe :

My rules would be thus:

Type manufacturer brings two compounds to a race. An option and a prime.
The harder tyre can last all race pushing hard, but is a slower harder tyre overall.
The softer tyre can accept being punished, but has a life (either wear or degradation, I don't mind which at this stage) that means two or three pitstops will be required.

Drivers are required to use either hard or soft but not both compounds. Not sure if they should be forced to qualify on the race tyre or a free choice. Probably free.

The compounds are carefully selected so that the overall race time of either tyre is roughly the same. As such, some will go for the qualifying laps on soft tyres all race, and others will go for a non-stop hard. Different strategies then result, which might lead to passing without being too contrived or required an artificially 'poor' tyre.

But I haven't really thought it through.

Bit like the 1980s then. A B C and D compounds. D were like Pirellis now but A and B could do the whole race depending on the track. Mansell changed his tyres and got Piquet at Silverstone in 86 or 87 but he did the same thing at Jerez and didn't get Senna by the width of his foreskin. Senna and Piquet didn't stop in those races.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Onboards can be misleading. Laptimes don't lie.

I never said how great the tires are. Or how fast the cars are on those tires. I'm just saying that drivers are pushing 100%. Some are pushing even more. I tell you, take a look onboard and you'll see for yourself. Not all of the drivers were pushing. Rosberg was on margin of not pushing, but he did push slightly. Webber was slightly cautions with throttle, whilst Vettel was pushing everywhere, using all sort of lines to adopt to situation and obviously he did better still. Hamilton was the only one who was really taking it easy and we saw how it payed off, or how it didn't. Ferrari was razor sharp and Kimi has adjusted his style for perfect Prosting. Torro Rosso, or Ricciardo was also racing normally as well as were Button and Perez. Just as well was di Resta. So, pretty much all of the drivers were pushing their cars.

What you're talking about is something completely different, where some driver are on different strategy of number of stops where common sense prevails of not defending like pretty much noone ever defended in 80's with defensive lines. Still, this is not majority of case and this is of none concern. It gives a nice new way to the race with everything else that we already have.

Quote from N I K I :

where common sense prevails of not defending like pretty much noone ever defended in 80's with defensive lines.

That was more to do with etiquette. It was considered unsportsmanlike to weave, change lines and defend in the modern sense.

I think that was 'better', but it's something we can never go back to.

Quote from N I K I :

...where common sense prevails of not defending like pretty much noone ever defended in 80's with defensive lines.

We have this kind of events these days - they are called trackdays.

Quote from N I K I :

Rosberg was on margin of not pushing, but he did push slightly. Webber was slightly cautions with throttle, whilst Vettel was pushing everywhere, using all sort of lines to adopt to situation and obviously he did better still. Hamilton was the only one who was really taking it easy and we saw how it payed off, or how it didn't. Ferrari was razor sharp and Kimi has adjusted his style for perfect Prosting. Torro Rosso, or Ricciardo was also racing normally as well as were Button and Perez. Just as well was di Resta. So, pretty much all of the drivers were pushing their cars.

Total Opinion, of course to get the true statistics we would need to compare telemetry data from previous seasons compared to now and since that isn't going to happen its pretty much speculation, also Ricciardo already confirmed he was crawling during that race.

Quote from Ricciardo(also posted on previous page).
"A lot of guys had to make four pit stops on the weekend, including myself.
"It means you have to look after the tyres, you can't really race at full speed. You're playing a bit of a game of chess instead of racing as hard as you can."

Quote from IsaacPrice :

Are you blind? "Although the cars were out-and-out faster on Bridgestones"

Although I do agree that the comparison to 2010 isnt really accurate about pole to fastest lap, because theyre doing less laps on 1 set of tyres during a race now due to increased pitstops, when you compare to say 2011 it does show its not really that different. Its the same old story that individual teams try to take the circumstances to fit them better. And you say that teams arent pushing flat out but I remember in Malaysia the Mercedes being told to push flat out at points of that race, its just after the grand prix thats usually 1 of the hardest on tyres people complain

Yes but the Gap in pole time isn't proportionate to the Total Race time, which is what my point was.

.

I don't know. Everyone defines pushing differently and racing differently. It's obvious that the racing has slightly changed. The direction it has taken years ago, for me as a spectator is good. The only thing I noticed is that it has now reached it's limit of that direction. Some may think that it has to go step back, others may think that would be unfair. The only thing that I was trying to point out is that drivers still have to push when they are racing, although we all think of the term pushing differently. At least they have to put the same or even more effort to the race, concentration, their craft, piloting the vehicle and everything that goes with that.

I personally am delighted with all the provocative strategies that this era provides us with. And I certainly do not see it as the purely strategizing game where pushing has nothing to do with it. This is very difficult to show for some reason. However it is what it is.

P.S. More pushing doesn't necessarily result in faster laptime. You can probably verify that for yourself in LFS thru varios stages of your tire cycle during the race, during the battle with others or simply when you're alone during your concentration.

Quote from N I K I :

I don't know. Everyone defines pushing differently and racing differently. It's obvious that the racing has slightly changed. The direction it has taken years ago, for me as a spectator is good. The only thing I noticed is that it has now reached it's limit of that direction. Some may think that it has to go step back, others may think that would be unfair. The only thing that I was trying to point out is that drivers still have to push when they are racing, although we all think of the term pushing differently. At least they have to put the same or even more effort to the race, concentration, their craft, piloting the vehicle and everything that goes with that.

I personally am delighted with all the provocative strategies that this era provides us with. And I certainly do not see it as the purely strategizing game where pushing has nothing to do with it. This is very difficult to show for some reason. However it is what it is.

P.S. More pushing doesn't necessarily result in faster laptime. You can probably verify that for yourself in LFS thru varios stages of your tire cycle during the race, during the battle with others or simply when you're alone during your concentration.

You got to keep in mind though the way the Pirelli wears is completely different to how a sim tyre model would wear, As the Pirellis would be much more inconsistent and the way they race is unheard of really compared to how you would compare even driving on soft high deg tyres on LFS.

In plenty of cases im hearing of complete over heating of the tyre when pushing and that can be also a element of why they can't go all out.

I heard other people talking about in the 80s how you got a choice of A,B,C and D Compounds with the later being the softer Tyres, and could be another option to look at, you get loads of strategies but the Tyre saving wasn't soo bad as there was still Tyre competition back then so Tyre manufactures were still trying to make their compounds the most durable they could, combine that with the fact the specs of the cars today are much closer and I think that would be a good way of getting good race action whilst getting some real passing.

of course your not going to win at all tracks with race action but the massive strategic element is there, and DRS would need to go.

Quote from Mustafur :

and DRS would need to go.

No, DRS is perfect. Long live DRS.

I'd rather have Pirellis without DRS and KERS personally.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'd rather have Pirellis without DRS and KERS personally.

The trouble is that sometimes it wouldn't be worth getting close enough to attack because of the increased wear rate you get in the dirty air and the reduced chance of actually being able to get past. At least with DRS there is a reward for getting to within a second of the car ahead. I don't like it a lot either, but it serves a purpose.

Fair point, well made.

But I think it would be wrong to make the tyres durable, as we've tried those for many years and the racing wasn't exactly improving year on year. Dodgy tyres (in some way, not neccesarily the current way) are a good thing.

Quote from tristancliffe :

fair point, well made.

But i think it would be wrong to make the tyres durable, as we've tried those for many years and the racing wasn't exactly improving year on year. Dodgy tyres (in some way, not neccesarily the current way) are a good thing.

+1, and I'd love to see a F1 without DRS I dislike that more than the tyres, but it would take us back to the way it was before and that would be a backwards step.

placing my money on Grosjean for Monaco.
Complete odd man out. Second choice is Raikkonen.

With Red Bull apparently having tire issues, I think the other competitors will do ok.

I'm quite convinced that RedBull will have second to none issues with tires in Monaco.