myurr wrote:SilverArrow wrote: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?
