2013 Chinese GP - Shanghai

[motobaleno]

it is clear that the people who support this tyre conservation racing are not Racing fans, in the purist sense of the word.
Clearly the racing drivers themselves agree with me, both in that Autosport article posted above, and with Webber and Hamiltons comments in the press conference after the race in Sepang.

if you like this tyre test racing, then you must clearly disagree with the drivers. Which is fine, if you enjoy it...fine.

hey bro, express freely your opinion but respect others. I am a racing fan on the purist sense of the word (actually I use also to race) and I support this tyre conservation. So feel free to try and convince ecclestone to come back to pipeline races but please don't tell me who I am or what I think.
thank you.

The race era to which you refer there was one good race among at least 5 dead-boring, now each and every race is a thrill. but that's only part of the problem. The other problem is that with respect to just 5 years ago, car reliability and teams simulation power has dramatically evolved while the average technologycal level is so high that a dramatic improvement is impossible. all this thing would result, without this tyre, in a championship whre you would know the winner right after february pre-testing

Last, for what concern the drivers (even if this is not important: what is good when you are INSIDE the car is completely different from what is good if you are OUTSIDE): hamilton and webber are not THE drivers but they are TWO drivers. namely a massivley tyre destroyer one and a massively frustrated one. Of course they are not confortable with this kind of racing

[motobaleno]

I have another stimuli for the nostalgic of pre-pirelli races with a very selective memory.
Do you remember that in that era EACH of us (yes mate, even YOU...try and remember right) did the rain dance to have some wet races because that was one of the very few hope not to sleep during the gp?
now, strangely, many of us, many of YOU, blame the wet because it ruins the race...
...ahhh did you ask yourself WHY?

[andartop]

Sometimes a wound heals better and faster without a bandage..

At the very least I would like to see extra sets of tires allowed just for qualifying, or even just for Q3, so the drivers would be free to push hard throughout the qualifying session(s). Unlike what happened today.

Then I would like to see them allowed to use whichever combination of tires they wanted during the race. One driver might choose to do 4-5 pit stops, use the softer tire in all stints and push 100% throughout the race, and another Button, sorry, driver, might choose to do only 1 or 2 stops, go for the harder tire and drive more conservatively.

As always, the answer to a problem lies somewhere in the middle: a tire that would last the whole race is just as bad for racing as a tire that lasts only a handful of laps.

[SilverArrow]

it is clear that the people who support this tyre conservation racing are not Racing fans, in the purist sense of the word.
Clearly the racing drivers themselves agree with me, both in that Autosport article posted above, and with Webber and Hamiltons comments in the press conference after the race in Sepang.

if you like this tyre test racing, then you must clearly disagree with the drivers. Which is fine, if you enjoy it...fine.

hey bro, express freely your opinion but respect others. I am a racing fan on the purist sense of the word (actually I use also to race) and I support this tyre conservation. So feel free to try and convince ecclestone to come back to pipeline races but please don't tell me who I am or what I think.
thank you.

The race era to which you refer there was one good race among at least 5 dead-boring, now each and every race is a thrill. but that's only part of the problem. The other problem is that car reliability and teams simulation power has dramatically evolved while the average technologycal level is so high that a dramatic improvement is impossible. all this thing would result, without this tyre, in a championship whre you would know the winner right after february pre-testing

Last, for what concern the drivers (even if this is not important: what is good when you are INSIDE the car is completely different from what is good if you are OUTSIDE): hamilton and webber are not THE drivers but they are TWO drivers. namely a massivley tyre destroyer one and a massively frustrated one. Of course they are not confortable with this kind of racing

So what you are suggesting is that Formula1 would be unwatchable without the current tires? Absolutely ridiculous.

This isn't a show, it's supposed to be a sport. A racer and a fan of this formula would not support these tires, and that's not an opinion.

Edit: Do some more research.

[beelsebob]

So what you are suggesting is that Formula1 would be unwatchable without the current tires? Absolutely ridiculous.

As someone who didn't watch F1 for several years due to boring processional races... Yes, that is what I'm suggesting

[SilverArrow]

So what you are suggesting is that Formula1 would be unwatchable without the current tires? Absolutely ridiculous.

As someone who didn't watch F1 for several years due to boring processional races... Yes, that is what I'm suggesting

Formula1.com poll:
Two Grands Prix into the new season, which of 2013's three leading rookies has impressed you most so far?
Valtteri Bottas 25.56%
Esteban Gutierrez 30.00%
Jules Bianchi 44.44%


I would rather lose a few dedicated fans such as yourself and go back to real racing, than watch F1 amongst a flock of sheep.

[motobaleno]

This isn't a show, it's supposed to be a sport. A racer and a fan of this formula would not support these tires, and that's not an opinion.

Edit: Do some more research.

I suggest you to become a soccer fan. that was the right sport for people like you who do not respect others ideas
and, being short of logical arguments, pretend to be god. beacuse only god can define a CLEAR opinion maybe right, maybe wrong as a FACT: INFACT I'm a fan of this formula and I support this tires...now what? To be a REAL fan of this formula we need an arian purity label assigned by a pipeline races fanatic?

[SilverArrow]

This isn't a show, it's supposed to be a sport. A racer and a fan of this formula would not support these tires, and that's not an opinion.

Edit: Do some more research.

I suggest you to become a soccer fan. that was the right sport for people like you who do not respect others ideas
and, being short of logical arguments, pretend to be god. beacuse only god can define a CLEAR opinion maybe right, maybe wirng as yours as a FACT: INFACT I'm a fan of this formula and I support this tires...now what? To be a REAL fan of this formula we need an arian purity label assigned by a pipeline races fanatic?

No, you clearly aren't. These tires are against the spirit of this formula. I take it you're not a soccer fan? How about if we spread the posts so that more goals are scored? Might it interest you then? Save your WWII rant for another day.

[myurr]

No, you clearly aren't. These tires are against the spirit of this formula. I take it you're not a soccer fan? How about if we spread the posts so that more goals are scored? Might it interest you then? Save your WWII rant for another day.

Who appointed you sole arbiter of Formula One all of a sudden? Nine times out of ten those complaining loudest about any aspect of F1, including the tyres, are grumbling because they're perceived to be holding their favoured driver back.

Is F1 perfect? Awww hells no. Would super durable tyres fix everything? Nope, no siree.

F1's problems are many and compounded, mostly stemming from the very essence of F1. It's a super high tec sport with highly optimised and highly strung machinery, that is simultaneously incredibly sophisticated and horrifically restricted, with compromises riddled throughout the car, fighting it out using a concept invented over 100 years ago - putting a man in a machine and telling him to drive round a circuit as fast as he can. Long life tyres won't fix the aero problems, short braking distances, conservatism through long life parts, lining people up on the grid in performance order, etc. They won't even address the one problem you seek to address, that of cars running flat out the entire race distance. With long life parts that is never going to be possible. All drivers at all races will go through a phase of either saving engine life, gear box life, or fuel, no matter what you do with the tyres.

Most people that are defending Pirelli on here are doing so not because they think F1 is perfect, but because they do not believe you have any answers nor that you understand exactly what you are wishing for. Do you want zero degradation, minimal degradation and then the tyres fall off a cliff, minimal degradation and then the tyre runs out of rubber and bursts? What characteristics are you looking for and how do they match with what the rest of the car is capable of? How much fuel do you want to allow the cars to run with in order to be able to push the entire race? Where do you expect the trade off between fuel weight and performance over a race distance to fall? Do you expect race pace to be fast enough with a fuel load capable of running at 100% raw speed for the entire race distance to offset the speed penalty for carrying that weight?

F1 is all about compromise. Every single part on every single car is compromised in some way, where a trade off between the advantages its design brings compare to the disadvantages or an arbitrary rule forces the designers hand. Do you even understand what it is you are asking for whilst so rudely criticising anyone who disagrees?

[turbof1]

It's one thing to have drivers look after their tyres; having tyres that can only be pushed to its limit for one single lap is on a whole other plane and imo, goes too far.

Might I remind everyone on what Pirelli claimed before this race:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc21bYeNFMg[/youtube]

They say the soft tyre would last 16 to 18 laps. When race weekend started, the soft tyre suddenly is a "qualifying tyre", telling they "intended this all along". In other words, they clearly messed up. They brought a tyre that is outright unfit for the track.

[myurr]

I don't disagree with you on that - but mistakes happen. Even during the haloed tyre war we had Indianapolis 2005. Or was it Canada 2009 when the Bridgestones crumbled, those being the tyres some here are saying were ideal. Incidentally that race was held up by the FIA as the template for Pirelli...

[turbof1]

I don't disagree with you on that - but mistakes happen. Even during the haloed tyre war we had Indianapolis 2005. Or was it Canada 2009 when the Bridgestones crumbled, those being the tyres some here are saying were ideal. Incidentally that race was held up by the FIA as the template for Pirelli...

*Canada 2010. And you could hardly pin it on Bridgestone for that matter. The track was barely driven in 2 years, and inbetween qualy and race it faced rain, washing away the little rubber that was put on during the weekend, resulting in a very green track where the tyres grained.

Not with this GP though. Conditions are very normal.

[SilverArrow]

No, you clearly aren't. These tires are against the spirit of this formula. I take it you're not a soccer fan? How about if we spread the posts so that more goals are scored? Might it interest you then? Save your WWII rant for another day.

Who appointed you sole arbiter of Formula One all of a sudden? Nine times out of ten those complaining loudest about any aspect of F1, including the tyres, are grumbling because they're perceived to be holding their favoured driver back.

Is F1 perfect? Awww hells no. Would super durable tyres fix everything? Nope, no siree.

F1's problems are many and compounded, mostly stemming from the very essence of F1. It's a super high tec sport with highly optimised and highly strung machinery, that is simultaneously incredibly sophisticated and horrifically restricted, with compromises riddled throughout the car, fighting it out using a concept invented over 100 years ago - putting a man in a machine and telling him to drive round a circuit as fast as he can. Long life tyres won't fix the aero problems, short braking distances, conservatism through long life parts, lining people up on the grid in performance order, etc. They won't even address the one problem you seek to address, that of cars running flat out the entire race distance. With long life parts that is never going to be possible. All drivers at all races will go through a phase of either saving engine life, gear box life, or fuel, no matter what you do with the tyres.

Most people that are defending Pirelli on here are doing so not because they think F1 is perfect, but because they do not believe you have any answers nor that you understand exactly what you are wishing for. Do you want zero degradation, minimal degradation and then the tyres fall off a cliff, minimal degradation and then the tyre runs out of rubber and bursts? What characteristics are you looking for and how do they match with what the rest of the car is capable of? How much fuel do you want to allow the cars to run with in order to be able to push the entire race? Where do you expect the trade off between fuel weight and performance over a race distance to fall? Do you expect race pace to be fast enough with a fuel load capable of running at 100% raw speed for the entire race distance to offset the speed penalty for carrying that weight?

F1 is all about compromise. Every single part on every single car is compromised in some way, where a trade off between the advantages its design brings compare to the disadvantages or an arbitrary rule forces the designers hand. Do you even understand what it is you are asking for whilst so rudely criticising anyone who disagrees?

Go back a page and read.

I don't disagree with you on that - but mistakes happen. Even during the haloed tyre war we had Indianapolis 2005. Or was it Canada 2009 when the Bridgestones crumbled, those being the tyres some here are saying were ideal. Incidentally that race was held up by the FIA as the template for Pirelli...

You can't even seem to differentiate this year's tires from last year's, which were at least tolerable.

And I'm a fan of all drivers, except one!

[strad]

My friend Tom put it well I thought...
""Manipulated outcomes do not make F1 better. Fake racing is not a better show...That's called NASCAR""

[Just_a_fan]

No, you clearly aren't. These tires are against the spirit of this formula. I take it you're not a soccer fan? How about if we spread the posts so that more goals are scored? Might it interest you then? Save your WWII rant for another day.

Who appointed you sole arbiter of Formula One all of a sudden? Nine times out of ten those complaining loudest about any aspect of F1, including the tyres, are grumbling because they're perceived to be holding their favoured driver back.

Is F1 perfect? Awww hells no. Would super durable tyres fix everything? Nope, no siree.

F1's problems are many and compounded, mostly stemming from the very essence of F1. It's a super high tec sport with highly optimised and highly strung machinery, that is simultaneously incredibly sophisticated and horrifically restricted, with compromises riddled throughout the car, fighting it out using a concept invented over 100 years ago - putting a man in a machine and telling him to drive round a circuit as fast as he can. Long life tyres won't fix the aero problems, short braking distances, conservatism through long life parts, lining people up on the grid in performance order, etc. They won't even address the one problem you seek to address, that of cars running flat out the entire race distance. With long life parts that is never going to be possible. All drivers at all races will go through a phase of either saving engine life, gear box life, or fuel, no matter what you do with the tyres.

Most people that are defending Pirelli on here are doing so not because they think F1 is perfect, but because they do not believe you have any answers nor that you understand exactly what you are wishing for. Do you want zero degradation, minimal degradation and then the tyres fall off a cliff, minimal degradation and then the tyre runs out of rubber and bursts? What characteristics are you looking for and how do they match with what the rest of the car is capable of? How much fuel do you want to allow the cars to run with in order to be able to push the entire race? Where do you expect the trade off between fuel weight and performance over a race distance to fall? Do you expect race pace to be fast enough with a fuel load capable of running at 100% raw speed for the entire race distance to offset the speed penalty for carrying that weight?

F1 is all about compromise. Every single part on every single car is compromised in some way, where a trade off between the advantages its design brings compare to the disadvantages or an arbitrary rule forces the designers hand. Do you even understand what it is you are asking for whilst so rudely criticising anyone who disagrees?

Hear hear! An excellent argument, well formed and, no doubt, it will not be countered other than by straw men and ad hominems... such is the standard of this forum these days.