I'm not blaming them for anything. I just don't see how a track temp that isn't that far above freezing can make the soft tires come apart at the seams and damage their reputation. Their road tires are so wildly and ridiculously overpriced in the US market that I don't see the connection between road sales in a country that doesn't have a very deep Formula 1 fan base. Would having a tire that even degrades slightly in cold temps not benefit overall from having more rubber than slick track to adhere to? I don't see the soft tires lasting any less than the hard tires while adding overall grip from wearing in and depositing at least some rubber on the track. Even the Red Bulls with the most overall downforce were sliding around like it was icy out there, wouldn't at least some rubber stop that and still allow the softer compounds to last a sufficient distance?Jersey Tom wrote:
I have my ideas, sure.
In any event, to me it's a no brainer that there's no grip because the track is brand new and hasn't been run in. But to blame it on Pirelli is dumb, IMO.
I blame them for a lot of things over the past two years, but not this. Besides more to the point this is the lesser of two evils. If Pirelli brought soft tires that ran hot, blistered, and failed... THEN the lot of internet engineers could go up in arms about them being dumb or foolish. The smart move is to err on the side of durability. Then what they learn this year they can creep up on a better solution next time around once the track has been run on a bit.