Answering the brief?

[langwadt]

I remember the days Schumacher used to get a call over the radio saying they needed 25 straight qualifying laps...those were the days

I'm sure Pirelli (and everyone else) wish they could make tires where there was a real choice of strategy
Pushing to the limit doing "qualifying" laps and a few more stops of the softer tire or
a more "normal" race pace and less stops on the harder tire

[Cam]

I remember the days Schumacher used to get a call over the radio saying they needed 25 straight qualifying laps...those were the days

I'm sure Pirelli (and everyone else) wish they could make tires where there was a real choice of strategy
Pushing to the limit doing "qualifying" laps and a few more stops of the softer tire or
a more "normal" race pace and less stops on the harder tire

Pirelli know the teams will conquer the tyres through a season - then they're left with no option but altering compounds/construction for the next year to bring back the 'spice' - which they complain is difficult to achieve because they can't test. So they supply bad tyres (bad as in they can't control the tyre reaction effectively). Bad tyres have consequences. It seems a vicious circle, one which is arguably completely obvious to any planner and one that has no clear benefit to anyone.

What Canada 2010 did was introduce a scenario no team, nor tyre manufacturer, considered before hand. Bridgestone didn't fully factor in the new surface nor the effect it would have on the tyres - so not only were the teams surprised, Bridgestone were too. Sure it mixed up the event and as a one off, that's what made it appealing.

Taking the magic of a random event - for every event - makes the magic worthless?

[Cam]

Another point of difference - Qualifying:

After some fairly good researching, I cannot find any pre-Pirelli occurrences of competitors deliberately sitting out Qualifying - to save tyres. Certainly Canada 2010 did not show an example of this.

[Sulman]

Another point of difference - Qualifying:

After some fairly good researching, I cannot find any pre-Pirelli occurrences of competitors deliberately sitting out Qualifying - to save tyres. Certainly Canada 2010 did not show an example of this.

Cars don't get bottled any more - I think as long as a car is top ten (unless it's Monaco or somewhere similar) and they believe they have a workable degradation rate vs grip it's possible to drive around opponents. Ferrari appear to have fallen back on this trick a few times. Pole just isn't so important now.

Edit: I should say it only works if a team knows it has the faster car, time spent preparing for Sunday is worth more than pushing for P1 on the Saturday.

[Cam]

Another point of difference - Qualifying:

After some fairly good researching, I cannot find any pre-Pirelli occurrences of competitors deliberately sitting out Qualifying - to save tyres. Certainly Canada 2010 did not show an example of this.

Cars don't get bottled any more - I think as long as a car is top ten (unless it's Monaco or somewhere similar) and they believe they have a workable degradation rate vs grip it's possible to drive around opponents. Ferrari appear to have fallen back on this trick a few times. Pole just isn't so important now.

Yes - but does that fall under than banner of "answering the brief" of replicating Canada? No one sat out qualifying to save heavily degrading tyres did they? And qualifying well for Canada 2010 was a priority for all the teams was it not?

So has what Pirelli introduced taken us away from that, or closely replicated that?

[Sulman]

Another point of difference - Qualifying:

After some fairly good researching, I cannot find any pre-Pirelli occurrences of competitors deliberately sitting out Qualifying - to save tyres. Certainly Canada 2010 did not show an example of this.

Cars don't get bottled any more - I think as long as a car is top ten (unless it's Monaco or somewhere similar) and they believe they have a workable degradation rate vs grip it's possible to drive around opponents. Ferrari appear to have fallen back on this trick a few times. Pole just isn't so important now.

Yes - but does that fall under than banner of "answering the brief" of replicating Canada? No one sat out qualifying to save heavily degrading tyres did they? And qualifying well for Canada 2010 was a priority for all the teams was it not?

So has what Pirelli introduced taken us away from that, or closely replicated that?

I suppose stretching the question a little bit, you could say they recognised that it's possible for a driver to start from further back and it not be a big deal.

I'd be surprised if that was a planned thing, though. I doubt you could bottle lightning so easily.

[Cam]

Yes - but does that fall under than banner of "answering the brief" of replicating Canada? No one sat out qualifying to save heavily degrading tyres did they? And qualifying well for Canada 2010 was a priority for all the teams was it not?

So has what Pirelli introduced taken us away from that, or closely replicated that?

I suppose stretching the question a little bit, you could say they recognised that it's possible for a driver to start from further back and it not be a big deal.

I'd be surprised if that was a planned thing, though. I doubt you could bottle lightning so easily.

Altering the degree of importance on qualifying is a critical component of F1 and a lot of discussion goes on before changing anything. Remember when the rules changed for 2010 and the emphasis was on qualifying?

The hour-long session will still be split into three segments, but will now see the slowest eight dropped in the opening 20-minute Q1 session, and another eight in Q2 to allow for 10 drivers to contest the shoot-out over 10 minutes. Moreover, in a move that will please fans, Q3 will now be run in low-fuel configuration with the regulations taking into account the re-fuelling ban for 2010.

I have no issues (in principal) with the FIA and teams deciding to change qualifying - but when a supplier product changes it outside of a direct regulation stipulating it - that's another thing isn't it? Was this really what was requested?

[Stradivarius]

I don't think that Pirelli has been able to replicate Canada 2010 very accurately, if that is the question. But I don't think that the goal was to replicate Canada 2010 accurately in every aspect.

I think the reason why Canada 2010 is mentioned so often is that it was the only dry race of 2010 where the winner made more than one stop. The combination of Bridgestone tyres and no refueling gave some pretty uninteresting races, where everyone went for the same strategy; one early stop, and then went to the end without much happening. If you look at the lap charts form 2010, for example the graphic illustrations seen in the live timing at f1.com, you see a lot of long, straight lines, indicating that nothing happened in terms of changes in position. If you look at Canada 2010, you see something very different, drivers changing positions very often, and that is not so different from what we have today with the Pirelli tyres.

The message that SectorOne refers to, where Schumacher is asked for 25 qualifying laps, makes me think about the changes that have been made to formula 1. It is very different from what it used to be. Of course, the fact that they had to ask for qualifying laps indicates that they were not pushing 100% at the same time. But when they were not at 100% they were always very close anyway. No more than a few tenths away in lap time. I guess Vettel showed us in Monaco just how far off the limit the drivers are these days. They were driving around 1:18 to 1:19 towards the end when Vettel suddenly put in a 1:16.577 lap. His team immediately came to him on the radio saying that he wouldn't gain anything from that, as if it was something they would prefer not to see. Vettel's response was that it at least gave him some satisfaction. It's a big contrast between consistently being 2 seconds off the ultimate pace like they do now, and to be asked for 25 qualifying laps as they did before.

But in the end, there is nothing artficial about this. In the olympics they have the 400 m competition, where the world record is 43.18 s held by Michael Johnson. They also have a 4x100 m relay competition, where the world record is 36.84 s on the same distance. But I have never heard anyone say that 400 m is an artificial competition because the runner isn't going flat out from the start until the finish, as they do on 100 m. So going slower than what could be possible at the moment is not something strange in a sport. On the contrary, most sports, and formula 1 in particular, are about optimization. Even on a qualifying lap, the drivers need to think ahead and adjust the speed on the entry of a corner, so they don't loose time at the exit. They could actually gain a temporary advantage by braking a bit later than the ideal braking point, but no one tries to do this (except when overtaking) because it will cost them later (i.e. at the exit of the corner if they even make it through).

[SectorOne]

But I have never heard anyone say that 400 m is an artificial competition because the runner isn't going flat out from the start until the finish,

Well first of all it´s quite a strange comparison but you better believe that the 400m runners are giving everything they possibly can for 400m, if they weren´t the world record would be easy to break.

A better comparison is telling the runner that if he runs too fast in the beginning his shoes might start to fall of during the last couple of meters.

All in the name of "the show". And possibly we might see the third fastest driver win the sprint instead because he puts less energy into the shoes.

[Pierce89]

But I have never heard anyone say that 400 m is an artificial competition because the runner isn't going flat out from the start until the finish,

Well first of all it´s quite a strange comparison but you better believe that the 400m runners are giving everything they possibly can for 400m, if they weren´t the world record would be easy to break.

A better comparison is telling the runner that if he runs too fast in the beginning his shoes might start to fall of during the last couple of meters.

All in the name of "the show". And possibly we might see the third fastest driver win the sprint instead because he puts less energy into the shoes.

He's saying that a 400m is run at a slower speed than a 100m, because if a runner took off at 100m speed, he would slown down too much. He never said the runners weren't trying.
Can anyone tell me why you people didn't complain about Pirelli in 2011-12? The drivers were already below the absolute limit to preserve tires even in 2010 , actually.

[Stradivarius]

But I have never heard anyone say that 400 m is an artificial competition because the runner isn't going flat out from the start until the finish,

Well first of all it´s quite a strange comparison but you better believe that the 400m runners are giving everything they possibly can for 400m, if they weren´t the world record would be easy to break.

I guess you should aim for the 400 m world record, then. Here's a quote from Michael Johnson on his race thoughts:

The race itself is certainly intellectual. You’re always thinking about something every step of the way. For the 400, it’s even more so, because it’s so much more of a strategic race. The 400 is much harder to pace since nobody can go out and run 400 meters full-speed from the gun. So there’s a strategy and it’s all based on pace and energy output. And then you throw into that mix what your competitors are doing. I may feel like I’m running a good race, but I’m 10 meters behind, so maybe the internal clock isn’t working. So there’s a lot of strategy involved in the 400-meter race. http://speedendurance.com/2007/06/27/mi ... 00-meters/

A better comparison is telling the runner that if he runs too fast in the beginning his shoes might start to fall of during the last couple of meters.

All in the name of "the show". And possibly we might see the third fastest driver win the sprint instead because he puts less energy into the shoes.

The whole point of this comparison was to find a real-life example that illustrates the effect that a pitstop has. If you push your tires too hard on the first stint, the effect of worn tyres will be eliminated as soon as you change the tires. Just as when the first guy running the relay hands the stick to the second guy, his condition doesn't matter any more. So he can go flat out without worrying about fatigue after 100 m, because then he is done and it doesn't matter if he is too tried to keep running. His job is to gain as much ground as possible for the first quarter of the race only.

On the 400 m, however, you can't go flat out, simply because you need to make sure you don't loose too much towards the end of the race. The speed drops significantly during a 400 m race, so it is necessary to think ahead a the start, to make sure the speed doesn't drop more than it has to.

Of course the shoe-example illustrates the same thing, but that could be claimed to be artificial, as there is never an issue during a sprint race that the shoes are wearing out. Tyres wearing out in formula 1, however, is nothing new, and my point that it isn't artificial just because they can't go flat out at all times. If you prefer, you could take 10 000 as an example instead. Clearly the first 400 meters of a 10 000 m race is not run at runner's maximum pace, as that would destroy the performance of the runner for the remaining 24 laps. Actually, you often see the lap times of the final lap of a 10 000 m race being a lot quicker than the lap times in the middle of the race. But no one complains that the competitors aren't doing their best, or that the competition is artificial.

[turbof1]

We've also had occurences during qualfying where drivers at certain points held back during their hot lap. This was the case in Barcelona, where the tyre would overheat in the fast corners if you pushed to hard, reducing the performance in the last, slow sector. So drivers held a bit back in those fast corners, just to get the best possible lap.

Like Cam found out (I realised the same a while ago, seems like a revelation eh Cam?) is that the Canada situation was caused by graining. F1 cars didn't drove there for 2 years, besides F1 there are only a few other series driving there, and before the race started what little rubber that was down, was washed away by rain. Combine that with cold temperatures, and the tyres could not get into the proper temperature window. So they grained. Let's take a look what effect that has on the driving style:

-Driving too hard while the tyre is not in its working range will scorch the surface of the tyre, ripping off chunks of rubber.

-Driving too slow will get you into a downwards spiralling position: cold tyres, which lead to the driver holding back to spare the tyres, which leads again to even colder tyres.

-The best way to deal with the situation is gradually going faster until you get in the optimal range (in which case you don't have to hold back anymore). The tires will still grain until that point, but if you managed the situation well you'll drive off the grained spots on the tyres once they have enough heat in them.

With Pirelli tyres, the situation is different and certainly does not end up with drivers getting to pushing the limit. So yeah, they did not replicated what happened in Canada 2010.

[SectorOne]

I guess you should aim for the 400 m world record, then. Here's a quote from Michael Johnson on his race thoughts:

The race itself is certainly intellectual. You’re always thinking about something every step of the way. For the 400, it’s even more so, because it’s so much more of a strategic race. The 400 is much harder to pace since nobody can go out and run 400 meters full-speed from the gun. So there’s a strategy and it’s all based on pace and energy output. And then you throw into that mix what your competitors are doing. I may feel like I’m running a good race, but I’m 10 meters behind, so maybe the internal clock isn’t working. So there’s a lot of strategy involved in the 400-meter race. http://speedendurance.com/2007/06/27/mi ... 00-meters/

But he´s still going at the peak of what his body can do for 400m. They are all trying to do the 400m as quickly as possible.
In todays F1 you are trying to win at the slowest rate possible. As if Johnson would only do enough so that he´s 1m ahead of his opponent. Which he´s not, he´s trying to do the 400m as quickly as he possibly can and break the world record.
Pushing his body to the absolute limit for 400m.

It´s the same as a marathon. You can´t run at your highest top speed but you are still pushing yourself to the absolute maximum every single step.

It´s not a valid comparison to Formula 1. imo.

[turbof1]

Hmmm, I find it a good comparison actually. Just like Pirelli tyres, your muscles will overheat if you go too long for peak performance. You have more then enough energy to do that, but the muscles simply cannot handle that, just like pirelli tyres.

[Cam]

I don't think that Pirelli has been able to replicate Canada 2010 very accurately, if that is the question. But I don't think that the goal was to replicate Canada 2010 accurately in every aspect.

This is finally the crux (I was awaiting for someone else to give it - thanks) and where Pirelli have failed hugely in their communication (among other recent glaring examples). All this time they've always had a very short, sharp answer as to what they we're asked to do - Canada 2010. If based solely on that, then Pirelli get a C, maybe even a D+, depending on how harsh you are.

But, as Stradivarius points out - was it to replicate in every respect? Who knows! We've never been told, have we? At no stage has anyone ever come out and stated, for example "close to Canada 2010 - we liked the way the tyres went off, but we're going to approach it from another direction, and ensure that any gains made by the teams are reset each year" - I sure as heck have not heard or seen anything to that extent. Even more - if Pirelli actually said that from the start - how many teams would have actually subscribed? If the Teams, FOM and the FIA were told to that level of what to expect - why weren't we? No one ever mentioned anything about changes tyres each year - for example.

So this is about setting expectations, managing expectations, transparency, communication and generally being seen as trustworthy.

When it comes to answering a brief - ambiguity, round numbers and grey areas only open you up to criticism. Until we see the exact brief - all we're left with to compare with is "Canada 2010".

Edit: typos