Purist vs Spectacle?

[myurr]

Rather than a true champ coming forwards, it's now - Tonya Harding (back markers) and Nancy Kerrigan (top teams) and the metal bar is Pirelli.

Errr... what? You seem to have given up on constructive argument and decided that strained symbolism is the better way to make your point.

So which top team is being so badly hindered by the Pirelli tyres that they're not getting the results they deserve? Which dominant car is being crippled so that it's not showing its true form? Which driver is so deserving of a dominant car and gifted championship? To even address a specific complain of yours, which car and driver combination did a better job in Spain than Maldonado / Williams?

In a year where the driver can actually make a difference, why the clamour for a one or two horse race just so that you can clearly see all year long who the championship is going to be gift wrapped for?

[bhall]

You can even look at 2010. You had four drivers going into the last race with a mathematical chance to win the championship.

...without Pirelli tires, no less!

I won't speak for anyone else, but when I rage against the tire, it's not me clamoring for a two-horse race; it's me clamoring for a race in which horseshoes don't make all the difference in the world. Not...

"Good breeding? Not a factor."

"Good training? Doesn't matter."

"Good jockey? Who cares?"

[Cam]

Rather than a true champ coming forwards, it's now - Tonya Harding (back markers) and Nancy Kerrigan (top teams) and the metal bar is Pirelli.

Errr... what? You seem to have given up on constructive argument and decided that strained symbolism is the better way to make your point.

So which top team is being so badly hindered by the Pirelli tyres that they're not getting the results they deserve? Which dominant car is being crippled so that it's not showing its true form? Which driver is so deserving of a dominant car and gifted championship? To even address a specific complain of yours, which car and driver combination did a better job in Spain than Maldonado / Williams?

In a year where the driver can actually make a difference, why the clamour for a one or two horse race just so that you can clearly see all year long who the championship is going to be gift wrapped for?

I thought that analogy was good. I could have gone further likening the husband and bodyguard to regs and associations, but I didn't think it needed it.

To be clear, I don't want a gift wrapped championship or a one horse race - I want the tech and the teams to make the difference not hobbling regulations. If back markers can't step up and compete, bad luck.

Let's take Button. Consistently he's been in a good team, in a good car and he's a good driver who is renowned for looking after his tyres. Agreed? Wet races have been the leveler in the past where the driver usually makes the difference and Button demonstrated his skill in Montreal last year (to name one). The team/car/driver combo hasn't all of sudden forgot how to build a good package and one would expect him to be there or there abouts (yes he won the first race). He's 6 but more importantly, he's no idea why - just as most people have no definitive reason to explain the position they're in. If it was the car, he could say "it's the car, it's not quick in corners, or suspension problems" or whatever - he has no idea why and openly admits it. Just as Williams hasn't all of sudden struck gold and risen with the cream. It's a tampered result to give a better show and it doesn't truly reflect the best of the best.

[Cam]

You can even look at 2010. You had four drivers going into the last race with a mathematical chance to win the championship.

...without Pirelli tires, no less!

I won't speak for anyone else, but when I rage against the tire, it's not me clamoring for a two-horse race; it's me clamoring for a race in which horseshoes don't make all the difference in the world. Not...

"Good breeding? Not a factor."

"Good training? Doesn't matter."

"Good jockey? Who cares?"

Nice analogy. I'll take notes as mine aren't hitting he mark.

[bhall]

I can't take full credit. I had a myuse.

[Just_a_fan]

Funny but I see the driver standings at the moment as showing that the driver can make a difference. No one team or driver is running away with it. The top guys are still up there.

What I'm finding the most interesting about the tyres is that the guy who is held up as being a great tyre driver (Button) is struggling where his team mate who is held up as a tyre killer is doing ok. Hamilton has been quietly building points, as have Vettel and Alonso. Button just keep complaining about the tyres / car. A bit of a reversal from last year it seems in the McLaren garages.

The best teams and drivers will show through in the end. That's what makes them the best - being able to deal with the issues thrown at them.

[bhall]

I don't know. It makes sense to me that a "tire killer" would do well on these tires, because it means he has a ton of experience on worn-out rubber.

[myurr]

Nice analogy, but still flawed. The tyres aren't deliberately hindering anyone, nor are they random or a lottery. They are not making all the difference in the world - the circuit, driver and car combination is having a greater influence.

Look at Q2 in Monaco. You have the positions 2nd to 9th separated by 0.2 seconds, with four drivers posting a 1:15.0x. Finding a tenth in just two corners would be the difference from being at the sharp end of the grid or failing to make it in to the top 10. That's not the tyres - their one lap pace is good and consistent and no one has complained about that. Thermal degradation, the one thing that some are grumbling about, plays no part over a single lap.

Would the field be so close if we still had the EBD, or would McLaren and Red Bull still be way out front? So are the tyres playing a bigger part in closing the field than the banning of the EBD? If you truly think so then please justify your belief.

Good breeding, good training, good jockey, all are still determining the running order. You cannot build a poor car and win this year. We've not seen the true back markers get in to the mid field this year at all, which if everything was down to the tyres we would have seen. Instead, as Q2 shows, we're in the lucky situation that many teams have built really good cars. This is a combination of mostly stable rules but with a big advantage of the top teams being taken away - the EBD.

You can point to individual drivers, but drivers have always had off weekends throughout all of F1's history. Button's struggles in the last couple of races have been down to poor setup and an inability to work with the car and tyre combination. Hamilton in the same car has not had the same issues. Wet races are not the great leveller that many persist in claiming. It helps to a degree, and it can change up the running order depending on the cars characteristics, but you still need a good car under you that can generate heat in its tyres. The change in shape of the tyre can also have a relatively large influence on the aerodynamics of the car, with some teams gaining and others falling back.

Williams hasn't struck gold, they've just had their major weakness (poor EBD) taken away. Why can't you accept that their car has been much stronger all year?

If you still don't believe me about the influence of the EBD just look back to qualifying in Australia. The lead McLaren was 0.6 seconds slower than 2011; the lead Red Bull was 2.1 seconds slower than 2011; the lead Mercedes was 0.3 seconds quicker; the lead Williams 0.8 seconds quicker. Red Bull were getting a huge advantage from the EBD last year that has been taken away. Both Red Bull and McLaren also had to redesign much of their aerodynamics to take the setup changes into account.

Mercedes probably lost a little bit but the year on year gains meant they moved a little bit forward. Williams probably lost next to nothing with the loss of their EBD, with the ban being something they actively campaigned for, and with no other major changes to make to the car they were able to refine everything and take a good step forward.

[myurr]

I don't know. It makes sense to me that a "tire killer" would do well on these tires, because it means he has a ton of experience on worn-out rubber.

You simplify it far too much. Hamilton may, in perfect circumstances for all drivers, wear the tyres more than Button, but if what Pirelli and Button are saying is true then there's a much simpler explanation for why Hamilton is performing better than Button this year. The thermal window for these tyres is slightly higher (hotter). Button has stated that when he's behind other cars he struggles to maintain tyre temperature. Hamilton is known to be very good at generating heat in his tyres.

This combination provides an easy to understand reason for Hamilton fairing better, both in the race when Button isn't in free air and in qualifying where tyre warmup is all important.

[Cam]

• So are the tyres playing a bigger part in closing the field than the banning of the EBD? If you truly think so then please justify your belief.

• This is a combination of mostly stable rules but with a big advantage of the top teams being taken away - the EBD.

• Williams hasn't struck gold, they've just had their major weakness (poor EBD) taken away.

• Red Bull were getting a huge advantage from the EBD last year that has been taken away. Both Red Bull and McLaren also had to redesign much of their aerodynamics to take the setup changes into account.

• Williams probably lost next to nothing with the loss of their EBD, with the ban being something they actively campaigned for, and with no other major changes to make to the car they were able to refine everything and take a good step forward.

Pretty much right on all accounts. To be clear, I'm not stating the cause is the tyres soley (although inside I dislike them somewhat). The mixed race results is a combination of the reg changes (which includes the rubber, EBD plus more) - which you've kindly illustrated very clearly. Purist vs Spectacle - I disagree with what they've done. Fullstop. Banning the EBD was knee jerk reaction as no-one else could catchup. So instead of everyone rising to the occasion and finding new ways of competing, they dumbed the cars down (See your point about Williams and the EBD). That's not how you make F1.

Every point I've been trying to make on behalf of the purists, is that the results should stay as a result of team/driver/car combo striving for excellence and moving the sport forwards - not dumbing down the regs and adding control tyres to 'spice it up'. If a stock car race where anyone can be a winner is what you're after - there's plenty of categories that already offer that. There's currently none that offer 'pinnacle of motorsport and engineering' churning out concept cars with tomorrows technology.

No-one yet has clearly come up with a compelling argument FOR restricting the regs, dumbing down the cars, closing up the field and making it anyone's race - apart from costs - which I agree with to a point.

So, Purist vs Spectacle, do we want to see a close race with a close field and keep regulating every year so it stays that way or do we want to see kick a$$ cars that push the limits of science with face melting speed, grip and performance?


The floor is open.

[bhall]

Would the field be so close if we still had the EBD, or would McLaren and Red Bull still be way out front? So are the tyres playing a bigger part in closing the field than the banning of the EBD? If you truly think so then please justify your belief.

[...]

Instead, as Q2 shows, we're in the lucky situation that many teams have built really good cars. This is a combination of mostly stable rules but with a big advantage of the top teams being taken away - the EBD.

If you still don't believe me about the influence of the EBD just look back to qualifying in Australia.

Red Bull were getting a huge advantage from the EBD last year that has been taken away. Both Red Bull and McLaren also had to redesign much of their aerodynamics to take the setup changes into account.

How exactly do these things not denote added artificiality? You plainly contend that something other than outright merit has bunched the field.

I'm done here. I'm not even going to address anything else.

EDIT: Apologies for the mix-up.

[Cam]

I'm done here. I'm not even going to address anything else.

Bhallg2k - would you prefer a tighter regulated F1 that delivered a 'anyone can win' show or would you prefer state of the art cars, knowing there may only be a close fight between a few teams each year as they innovate new solutions?

[myurr]

@bhallg2k - you've made the mistake of thinking I'm only replying to you. Cam has been more active in this thread than you and raised all those points that I addressed.

Cam - completely understand where you're coming from, and to a degree I agree. Where I disagree with you is that I'd rather see the championship decided by who is the best driver, who makes the biggest difference over the season, rather than who has the best blown diffuser.

[myurr]

Red Bull were getting a huge advantage from the EBD last year that has been taken away. Both Red Bull and McLaren also had to redesign much of their aerodynamics to take the setup changes into account.

How exactly do these things not denote added artificiality? You plainly contend that something other than outright merit has bunched the field.

It's no more artificial than any of the other technical rules that dictate car width, weight, engine designs that are frozen for several years, etc. Basically as soon as you introduce comprehensive rules then you make it artificial. Why pick on this years rules rather than the banning of the mass damper, split brake pedal, active suspension, or the myriad of other technologies banned or regulated over the years? At least this time they removed the technology between seasons rather than in the middle of it.

[bhall]

It's only because I'm tired of seeing this thing go 'round and 'round that I'm going to say the following:

I'm absolutely convinced that you're not paying attention to anyone but yourself in this exchange. There are a considerable number of posts within this thread and elsewhere from people, including me, who have pointed to the banishment of technologies over the years as being bad for F1, even more than the ones you just mentioned. Also included is at least one acknowledgement - mine - that the nature of circuit racing will always be artificial to a degree. It's inescapable.

The complaints you're (supposed to be) reading are coming from people for whom this year is proving to be the proverbial last straw. We're tired of seeing F1 inch further and further away from the sport that grabbed our attention in the first place. We don't feel it's right.

I'm sorry, but this will continue to come up from time to time, because it seems like every race reinforces our views. I promise, this isn't being discussed to spite you or anyone else.

I know you like these tires and the racing they supply. So, relax. Enjoy it. You have what you want, and I'm happy for you. But, there's really no reason in the world for you to continue treating this subject as if it's somehow incumbent upon others to agree with you.

There are no truths here, only opinions.