http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/04/25/p ... e-durable/
Get everything you have on Vettel.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
The supersoft has only had a few laps in pre-season with teams saying data gained was negligible on all tyres so they can be easily tweaked before Monaco without the need for mass discussion and publicity IMO.Juzh wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that they're leaving the rest of compounds the same. The problem this year is more in supersoft and soft tyres with mediums not far off.
What makes you say that? Both australia and malaysia were entirely reasonable on tyre wear.Juzh wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that they're leaving the rest of compounds the same. The problem this year is more in supersoft and soft tyres with mediums not far off.
Well, not really. Supersoft lasted a couple of laps in australia if you wanted to push harder, and the only reason medium lasted as long as it did in malaysia (still to short imo) was because teams were nursing them all the time. As webber said - 8/10.beelsebob wrote:What makes you say that? Both australia and malaysia were entirely reasonable on tyre wear.Juzh wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that they're leaving the rest of compounds the same. The problem this year is more in supersoft and soft tyres with mediums not far off.
Why not? Assuming a 55 lap race (about average), you're talking about 8 + 15 + 16 + 17 == race distance, or 10 + 22 + 23 == race distance. That is, the softer tyre for the weekend has to last 8-10 laps if you're designing for a 2 or 3 stopper.turbof1 wrote:I wouldn't call an average of 8 laps on super softs reasonable.
I think we aren't going to see the super softs and softs often. Monaco and Singapore probably, but after that I can't think of a different circuit where any of those tyres would give a decent amount of laps.
That's an exaggeration – the supersofts lasted plenty long enough to make a 2 stopper an entirely reasonable strategy. That means they're absolutely bang on in the window. If anything, they were a little too hard – it turned out that a 2 stop was fairly substantially faster than a 3 stop.Well, not really. Supersoft lasted a couple of laps in australia if you wanted to push harder, and the only reason medium lasted as long as it did in malaysia (still to short imo) was because teams were nursing them all the time. As webber said - 8/10.
The bottom line is that lotus were able to 2 stop and win – that means that 2 stop was the superior strategy to 3 stopping. The ideal is that 2 stopping and 3 stopping are about as fast as each other (because that gets us split strategies). Mercedes were also aiming at a 2 stop, and decided mid race 3 would be faster, i.e. they were absolutely on the border of which strategy would be quicker. That means pirelli judged it absolutely perfectly.Juzh wrote:Only lotus managed a 2 stop. Vettel on the other hand who was pushing supersofts hard was quickest in first 2 or 3 laps, but then ferraris started to catch up to him as his tyres were gone. This is simply ridicioulus, no matter which team suffers from it. 2 stop should always be a fastest way to finish the race without stupid tyre nursing. Just as it was in some 2011 races, and late 2012 which then also gave us some of the best races when tyres were no longer such an issue. 3 stops is exactly 1 to many imo.
No, lotus designed a car that was kind on its tyres, having been shown the tyres last year in Brazil. Don't diminish their achievement in designing a car to suit the situation.Juzh wrote:I can understand your point, but do not agree with it. lotus lucked in with their car being good on tyres from the get go
Yes RBR would be out of sight on the 2010 bridgestones – they should have designed their car to the 2013 Pirellis, not the 2010 bridgestones. It was dumb of them not to.which shouldnt be possible. no magic involved here. I'll repeat what i said before; with 2010 bridgestones, rb would be out of sight and thats why some people want to keep the tyres as they are and others dont.
As I understand it it's still a step towards more conservative compound choices and more flexibility. The can now get rid of softs (like in Bahrain) but create bigger gap between medium and hard. Last season's hard-soft combination:Redragon wrote:It is not a big change as BBC is reporting.
They only will change the hard compound with the especifications of the experimental tyre used on Brazil. That it was a Hard Tyre a bit softer than the one from 2012. They are not going back to the 2012 especifications.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22290968
I am happy with that. They shouldn't change the compound at all. All the teams had same tyres at the beginning of the year and the development of the car it should be around them. If Redbull got it wrong, it is their own problem.
Heh, as I've said many times before, the "pirellottery" doesn't exist – only people who aren't capable of spotting patterns in tyre behaviour.iotar__ wrote:It's funny to hear how Lotus "lucked in" with car + tyres. Not only did they do it second season in a row but also the first time it happened it was all a "lottery" every race. Remarkable luck.