Will F1 lose its crown as the pinnacle of motorsport?

[strad]

If Pirelli wanted to make an grippy F1 tyre that lasted 80 laps, I'm sure they could do that. But of what benefit would this be to the sport?

This is why I call it a half truth, because if they wanted to come into the sport with a "grippy tire that could last 80 laps" or comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin, I don't think they could have come remotely close.

I don't see how you make that massive leap..pure specualation and I feel a fair bit of bias on your part JT

[Jersey Tom]

If Pirelli wanted to make an grippy F1 tyre that lasted 80 laps, I'm sure they could do that. But of what benefit would this be to the sport?

This is why I call it a half truth, because if they wanted to come into the sport with a "grippy tire that could last 80 laps" or comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin, I don't think they could have come remotely close.

I don't see how you make that massive leap..pure specualation and I feel a fair bit of bias on your part JT

I don't think it's a leap or speculation. Nor do I see myself as biased. I give credit where due, and certainly give credit to both Michelin and Bridgestone in producing generally quite good consumer and race tires as part of the "big three" leaders in tire families (Goodyear/Dunlop, Bridgestone/Firestone, Michelin/BFG).

For one, the timetable Pirelli were on granted them no favors - less than a year to develop from scratch a full line of tires for the series. That's an insanely aggressively timeline to be able to get what you want done. By comparison it took Bridgestone (a much larger company) several years of development to come in and produce an exceptional product in the late 90's.

On that note, to no fault of their own, Pirelli are just not on the same order of magnitude in development know-how as the larger companies. Not that throwing money at a problem is the only answer - but it helps. Just like Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren, and Lotus are in a tier above Mercedes, Sauber, and Force India, the same can be said of any number of suppliers.

Beyond that, when was the last time Pirelli did something of note? Impression I have is that their involvement in Stock Car Brazil was sub par even as a single supplier, and their last foray into F1 in open competition was less than spectacular. For the above reasons, even their initial single supplier product in the current series wasn't just a tire with some give-up to make for interesting strategy... it was horrendous. Tires just disintegrating scattering an absurd amount of marbles or dust everywhere.

For a variety of reasons, had Pirelli come into open competition I think they would have been crushed, and at the very least if they had been asked to come in and produce a product comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin I don't see how they would have been able to come anywhere close.

Not trying to be an ass or undermine their efforts, but the undue praise and half truth of "Pirelli are delivering exactly what F1 wanted" drives me nuts. Even more so, several years ago another tire company in another series inadvertently delivered a "Pirelli-esque" tire to two races. In one case the tires wore quickly in dusty fashion (as Pirelli have shown at times) forcing a lot of pit stops. In the other case the performance give-up was extreme, forcing drivers to go into defensive and conservation mode trying not to wreck rather than being able to attack for position. In both cases, the reaction by the drivers (who are much more free in giving their opinion than F1) and fans was that the product delivered was piss poor - and they were correct. Unacceptably poor performance. Yet the same delivery in F1 is spun and praised to be the best thing since sliced bread. That gets under my skin.

Personally I like to compete and be successful or win. Whether I'm at a tire company or race team or wherever, I want to be the best I can and continually move myself and my organization forward. As such, to have the goal of delivering a junk product and to be proud of or happy with it just does not sit well with me. It may have been an improvement to the "spectacle" of F1 racing, but IMO it is nothing more than a crutch.

[DaveKillens]

In engineering and the sciences, we always move forward. The next product is always lighter, stronger, cheaper, it just has better performance. So for decades that's what we saw in tires, they got more grip, were more consistent, performed better. But it wasn't science that dictated the current generation of Pirelli tires, it was marketing and TV revenue. So the customer asked the supplier to deliver a product that had limits.

Maybe Pirelli could have done a better job, maybe Bridgestone and/or Michelin cloud have done a better job, maybe Pirelli is blowing smoke up my skirt in a well-executed marketing BS campaign, but all I know is that they delivered the product the customer asked for.

The way I see it, if I asked for a fuse of 60 amps, and the supplier told me, "We went overboard on this product, we made it much better than you asked for, it's now rated at 80 amps", I would send the product back because at times you want a product with limits built in.

Sadly, it's been a very long time since Formula One was wide-open in allowing any new technologies. We have restrictions on materials used, layout and configuration of engines, width of tires, just about every part of a Formula One car is restricted in one way or another.

And for that reason I agree that Formula One is the pinnacle of marketing and exposure, but when it comes to technology, I defer on that issue.

[Jersey Tom]

F1 has become a series propped up with crutches, be they junk tires, DRS, KERS, multiple tire usage rules, steward rulings and penalties, or whatever else.

Doesn't qualify as "pinnacle" in my book.

[DaveKillens]

I can't disagree on that issue. I guess it may come down to our personal definition. For technology and innovations, it's easily debatable that other series ar eon par, or even do better at that game. But as far as marketing, cash flow, and worldwode "fan base", Formula One is on top.

But then again, more people watch "Jersey Shore" than National Geographic shows.

[Pierce89]

F1 has become a series propped up with crutches, be they junk tires, DRS, KERS, multiple tire usage rules, steward rulings and penalties, or whatever else.

Doesn't qualify as "pinnacle" in my book.

They're still the fastest cars around any given road course.

[Jersey Tom]

F1 has become a series propped up with crutches, be they junk tires, DRS, KERS, multiple tire usage rules, steward rulings and penalties, or whatever else.

Doesn't qualify as "pinnacle" in my book.

They're still the fastest cars around any given road course.

So what though? Raw speed does not necessarily equate to good racing.

[strad]

F1 has become a series propped up with crutches, be they junk tires, DRS, KERS, multiple tire usage rules, steward rulings and penalties, or whatever else.

Doesn't qualify as "pinnacle" in my book.

I agree with that JT..but

but the undue praise and half truth of "Pirelli are delivering exactly what F1 wanted" drives me nuts.

How can you say that??
Every knowledgeable person in F1 says they delivered what was asked of them.
I see no basis for your continual bashing of Pirelli as anything but personal.

[Nando]

I don't think it's a leap or speculation. Nor do I see myself as biased. I give credit where due, and certainly give credit to both Michelin and Bridgestone in producing generally quite good consumer and race tires as part of the "big three" leaders in tire families (Goodyear/Dunlop, Bridgestone/Firestone, Michelin/BFG).

For one, the timetable Pirelli were on granted them no favors - less than a year to develop from scratch a full line of tires for the series. That's an insanely aggressively timeline to be able to get what you want done. By comparison it took Bridgestone (a much larger company) several years of development to come in and produce an exceptional product in the late 90's.

On that note, to no fault of their own, Pirelli are just not on the same order of magnitude in development know-how as the larger companies. Not that throwing money at a problem is the only answer - but it helps. Just like Red Bull, Ferrari, Mclaren, and Lotus are in a tier above Mercedes, Sauber, and Force India, the same can be said of any number of suppliers.

Beyond that, when was the last time Pirelli did something of note? Impression I have is that their involvement in Stock Car Brazil was sub par even as a single supplier, and their last foray into F1 in open competition was less than spectacular. For the above reasons, even their initial single supplier product in the current series wasn't just a tire with some give-up to make for interesting strategy... it was horrendous. Tires just disintegrating scattering an absurd amount of marbles or dust everywhere.

For a variety of reasons, had Pirelli come into open competition I think they would have been crushed, and at the very least if they had been asked to come in and produce a product comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin I don't see how they would have been able to come anywhere close.

Not trying to be an ass or undermine their efforts, but the undue praise and half truth of "Pirelli are delivering exactly what F1 wanted" drives me nuts. Even more so, several years ago another tire company in another series inadvertently delivered a "Pirelli-esque" tire to two races. In one case the tires wore quickly in dusty fashion (as Pirelli have shown at times) forcing a lot of pit stops. In the other case the performance give-up was extreme, forcing drivers to go into defensive and conservation mode trying not to wreck rather than being able to attack for position. In both cases, the reaction by the drivers (who are much more free in giving their opinion than F1) and fans was that the product delivered was piss poor - and they were correct. Unacceptably poor performance. Yet the same delivery in F1 is spun and praised to be the best thing since sliced bread. That gets under my skin.

Personally I like to compete and be successful or win. Whether I'm at a tire company or race team or wherever, I want to be the best I can and continually move myself and my organization forward. As such, to have the goal of delivering a junk product and to be proud of or happy with it just does not sit well with me. It may have been an improvement to the "spectacle" of F1 racing, but IMO it is nothing more than a crutch.

But it is just a speculation, "at best".

F1 wanted tires with shitty tire life. What tires sparked this idea? Bridgestones....
They did exactly what they were asked to do, sometimes they did a bad job because the damn tires lasted longer then they anticipated or wanted.

I honestly can´t see how you can fault Pirelli in all of this, they have done nothing wrong and assuming that they can´t build a tire that can last as long as a Bridgestone is a guess at best.

[strad]

I wouldn't pursue this except I have run Pirellis on my SVT Cobra for years.
They out perform Goodyear Eagle F1s that are total crap and like ice in the rain..they out perform the Michelins that were total crap all around..I have not tested them against Hankook or Yokohamas but nothing stacks up against them for dry and wet perfromance under the duress of well over 400 hp.
In racing I have always rated the Goodyears and Dunlops I have run as top notch, but on the street nothing touches my P-Zeros..now the old P7s I had on the Vette were very sticky, but you couldn't touch a curb or pothole.

[Jersey Tom]

Guess? Is it my speculative guess that Pirelli would not have been able to come into the series "cold" as it were and produce a tire comparable to a Bridgestone or Michelin? Absolutely. It's a guess in as much that I can't go back in time and prove it.

Pretty reasonable guess though, IMO. It's also my guess that Tata Motors or Kia wouldn't be able to come out with a model year 2014 car with comparable performance to a Ferrari 599. That's pure speculation, is it not? But to most people here that would probably be called "common sense" based on your collective experiences... just like it's common sense to me to say that what Pirelli came into the series with was probably about the best they could do.

In '89 Pirelli entered F1 in open competition rather than as a single supplier, after presumably preparing in earnest for at least one year. They won no races, had no poles, nor any fastest laps. In 1990 they were back, with another year of experience and development under their belts. No race wins, no poles, no fastest lap. In 1991, back yet again with two full race seasons under their belts. No race wins, no poles, and one fastest lap at Spa. Three years going all out in competition, with not a single win or pole to show for it out of 108 events. Then in '92 they were out.

Coming into F1 more recently.. they're still a relatively smaller company than BS/FS or Michelin.. had a very aggressive timetable.. had no experience in the sport in 20 years.. and their previous outing in it didn't amount to much. So how then is it unreasonable for me to "speculate" that what Pirelli brought to the table this go around was about the best they could do, and in all likelihood couldn't have approached the previous suppliers' performance if they had tried? (Bearing in mind also that Michelin and Bridgestone on the other hand could come into the sport in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s and win races - championships even - in open competition... and by the time Bridgestone left had amassed years of experience and development)

F1 wanted tires with shitty tire life. What tires sparked this idea? Bridgestones...

F1 may have indeed wanted junk tires, but I'd say that was sparked by a desperate want to randomize or shake up the race results. I would not say that "Bridgestone" sparked it. Just another in the list of crutches for the race series. There was the "overtaking working group" or what have you... there were multiple tread compound rules... DRS... KERS... all desperately needed attempts to put a bandage over the core problem of at times uneventful, uninteresting, or otherwise predictable racing.

Are the team principles on target in saying that the sport needed this? Yes, F1 has been in need of it and have been trying gimmicks with limited success for some time. But I just can't bring myself to get excited about or praise a poor product, just like I can't call a crutched racing series a "pinnacle" of sport, even though as has been stated it may be the top dog in terms of revenue.

[Jersey Tom]

And as for consumer tire performance... even though it's not really on topic, I will leave you with this and this.

P-Zero's are OK.. nothing particularly epic. Lot of very good products out there - though sometimes a bit $$$. Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar indeed not particularly good, I'll give you that. Eagle F1 Supercar G2 on the other hand you'd probably be quite impressed with, or a variety of Michelin or Bridgestones, or Dunlop Z1 Star Spec (which I personally have on my car).

But we digress...

[strad]

Dunlop don't make a tire for the Mustang,,and btw...I damn sure ain't gonna take the word of a customer survey when I am very cognizant of the tire ignorance of the buying public.

[Nando]

F1 may have indeed wanted junk tires, but I'd say that was sparked by a desperate want to randomize or shake up the race results.

So you think Brawn the guys are lying when they reference the shitty tire life Bridgestone had in Canada?

You said in the beginning of the year "ohh it´s a lottery, the tires are inconsistent"
Turned out that was false. Also a guess at best.

[flynfrog]

F1 may have indeed wanted junk tires, but I'd say that was sparked by a desperate want to randomize or shake up the race results.

So you think Brawn the guys are lying when they reference the shitty tire life Bridgestone had in Canada?

You said in the beginning of the year "ohh it´s a lottery, the tires are inconsistent"
Turned out that was false. Also a guess at best.

so you pick a single race from the many years Bridgestone was in F1 and go with that. What about they year the outlawed tire changes I guess those tires are short lived too