[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Why can't they just have 3 compounds; soft, medium, hard and be done with it?

I suspect because we the fans would complain when the three compounds would somehow not work well at specific tracks. With the result being some type of fiasco on track with tires and cars being damaged and favorite drivers not finishing races.

I think fans have come to expect 100% reliability and anything else is something that is ruining the show (i.e. randomly impacting the results). That when given compromise solutions (such as three compounds that should cover all bases), we don't like them.

I could be wrong. I say the above about half serious, half tongue in cheek.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I suspect because we the fans would complain when the three compounds would somehow not work well at specific tracks. With the result being some type of fiasco on track with tires and cars being damaged and favorite drivers not finishing races.

I think fans have come to expect 100% reliability and anything else is something that is ruining the show (i.e. randomly impacting the results). That when given compromise solutions (such as three compounds that should cover all bases), we don't like them.

I could be wrong. I say the above about half serious, half tongue in cheek.

Richard

Tongue in cheek or not, they only have two compounds in IndyCar and no one is complaining. Last weekend's Dual at Detroit was great for tyre strategy.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I suspect because we the fans would complain when the three compounds would somehow not work well at specific tracks. With the result being some type of fiasco on track with tires and cars being damaged and favorite drivers not finishing races.

I think fans have come to expect 100% reliability and anything else is something that is ruining the show (i.e. randomly impacting the results). That when given compromise solutions (such as three compounds that should cover all bases), we don't like them.

I could be wrong. I say the above about half serious, half tongue in cheek.

Richard

And yet they like wet races, mixed wet and dry races better, and action spiced up by random safety cars.

The two tyre choices available to Indy cars would seem to be a good way of introducing a non artificial randomness.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

...there are rumours that low profile 18 inch tyres are also back on the menu for 2021 onwards (or maybe even as soon as 2020).

Confirmed. 18" tyres from 2021. Tyres warmers banned. Narrower front tyres also confirmed.

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Will this entice Michelin back into F1?

Not sure if Michelin is in the frame as of yet. F1 has invited bids from any interested tyre manufacturers. Tenders due by 31st August 2018.

Maybe Hankook could be interested??

[chillibowl]

question about the tire blankets...

if the warmers are gone then presumably they would have to come up with a tire construction that has a much wider operating range and/or are far more durable.

does F1 benefit from more durable tires?

[S griffin]

Well it’s supposed to be technically advanced, so having more durable tyres would benefit IMHO

[bjohnsonsmith]

"The next single-supplier contract will cover the four seasons from 2020-23, the first of which will be run with current tyre sizes and blankets."

Here's the rub, no pun intended:

"That means if anyone other than Pirelli wins the bid they will have to develop tyres from scratch that will be used for only one year before the major package of rule changes comes on stream in 2021."

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/137532

As for no more tyre warmers, they don't use them in IndyCar.

[S griffin]

They don’t use them in F2 either

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Pirelli going back to naming the tyres as soft, medium and hard from next year

Confirmed. Soft, medium and hard back in 2019.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...-names-in-2019

[S griffin]

Good, we don't need multiple tyre compounds to confuse us

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Good, we don't need multiple tyre compounds to confuse us

The compounds are staying, it's just that they will be re-named at each race.

So, for example, one weekend the medium compound may be called a medium because it is between a softer and harder tyre, However, the next weekend it may be called a hard because the other two tyres are softer, so the less soft of the two becomes the medium.

More importantly, it will make absolutely no difference to the racing! In some ways, it is also more confusing.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The compounds are staying, it's just that they will be re-named at each race.

So, for example, one weekend the medium compound may be called a medium because it is between a softer and harder tyre, However, the next weekend it may be called a hard because the other two tyres are softer, so the less soft of the two becomes the medium.

More importantly, it will make absolutely no difference to the racing! In some ways, it is also more confusing.

It will increase the length of tyre discussion as they then tell you how this week's X is last week's Y because of where it sits in the range of options. Seems to be a solution to a problem no one had and with ZERO thought of how it will be viewed other than it's better because we said so

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The compounds are staying, it's just that they will be re-named at each race.

So, for example, one weekend the medium compound may be called a medium because it is between a softer and harder tyre, However, the next weekend it may be called a hard because the other two tyres are softer, so the less soft of the two becomes the medium.

More importantly, it will make absolutely no difference to the racing! In some ways, it is also more confusing.

I think it's a good idea. I really don't care if Pirelli have 20 different compounds in the warehouse. On any GP weekend the teams have three compoundss at their disposal, so let's name them in the simplest and most descriptive way possible.

[Adam43]

Why are they doing this and not addressing the real problems with F1?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Why are they doing this and not addressing the real problems with F1?

Because F1 has no deck chairs to organize?

[Adam43]

What kind of spectator sport is watching a ship sink? What is wrong with everyone?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Irrespective of what you call them on any race weekend, why so many compounds?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Irrespective of what you call them on any race weekend, why so many compounds?

To cope with different circuits. Since F1 likes to mandate tyres to wear at a specific rate, you need lots of different compounds to create that. Otherwise, you'd build your tyres to cope with Silverstone, and then go to Monaco and find that your softest tyre can do the entire race with minimal wear.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

To cope with different circuits. Since F1 likes to mandate tyres to wear at a specific rate, you need lots of different compounds to create that. Otherwise, you'd build your tyres to cope with Silverstone, and then go to Monaco and find that your softest tyre can do the entire race with minimal wear.

They have a greater variety of circuits and surfaces in IndyCar and they only use two compounds.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They have a greater variety of circuits and surfaces in IndyCar and they only use two compounds.

Not quite the same thing though. IndyCar uses a one-size-fits-all solution that has quite a simple tyre, relatively hard, and has to work with a single car.

If you want a cheap and easy tyre that just works and you get to forget about it (because it's just quietly doing the same thing every weekend), then the IndyCar solution is perfect. Arguably it's the better solution.

If you want a tyre that wears at specific rates and designed to give you more variables during a race, you're going to need different compounds to do that. F1 tyres also have to deal with lots of different cars, being setup in completely different ways, and have much higher loads.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Not quite the same thing though. IndyCar uses a one-size-fits-all solution that has quite a simple tyre, relatively hard, and has to work with a single car.

If you want a cheap and easy tyre that just works and you get to forget about it (because it's just quietly doing the same thing every weekend), then the IndyCar solution is perfect. Arguably it's the better solution.

If you want a tyre that wears at specific rates and designed to give you more variables during a race, you're going to need different compounds to do that. F1 tyres also have to deal with lots of different cars, being setup in completely different ways, and have much higher loads.

For quite a simple tyre it does very good job, considering all the different surfaces it has to contend with and that's not on a race by race basis. Some individual tracks have a variety of surfaces. With car setup, that's certainly a major factor with a one chassis series, as for much higher loads, one weekend your racing at Detroit and the next at TMS and you still only have the same two compounds.

[Akrapovic]

For sure, the IndyCar tyre is great. It also fails less than the F1 sets have historically done. I'm not saying the F1 tyre is better, but it is being asked to do a different job and produce a different set of results.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

For sure, the IndyCar tyre is great. It also fails less than the F1 sets have historically done. I'm not saying the F1 tyre is better, but it is being asked to do a different job and produce a different set of results.

It seems like they are doing a very similar job.

[Akrapovic]

In that they're round, black and keep the car off the ground, sure. But if you put a set of Pirellis on an IndyCar and asked it to go do the Indy 500, the result would be chaos. If you put a set of Firestones on an F1 car, you'd have people asking why they're much much slower than before. Given that, they must be doing different jobs?

They're doing a similar job in that they rotate around and allow the car to move, but they're solving a different set of problems. The customers (the series) have asked the tyre manufacturers to achieve different things. You yourself say IndyCar go to Detroit and then TMS. The only way to do that without lots of compounds is to make the tyre solid. Yeah they have one tyre that wears more than the other, but not to the dramatic effects F1 does.

Again, I'm not saying F1 tyres are better (they're not), but if you want those speeds and consistent wear rates at each track, you're going to need lots of compounds to achieve it. You could do it with two compounds IndyCar style, but you're not going to corner as quickly.

It's similar to the IMSA argument of Conti v Michelin. They're doing very similar jobs, but they were designed with different goals. The Contis were meant to be dirt cheap. As a result, they were crap. The new Michelins don't have to meet the same price point and will be a lot better for the teams.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

In that they're round, black and keep the car off the ground, sure. But if you put a set of Pirellis on an IndyCar and asked it to go do the Indy 500, the result would be chaos. If you put a set of Firestones on an F1 car, you'd have people asking why they're much much slower than before. Given that, they must be doing different jobs?

They're doing a similar job in that they rotate around and allow the car to move, but they're solving a different set of problems. The customers (the series) have asked the tyre manufacturers to achieve different things. You yourself say IndyCar go to Detroit and then TMS. The only way to do that without lots of compounds is to make the tyre solid. Yeah they have one tyre that wears more than the other, but not to the dramatic effects F1 does.

Again, I'm not saying F1 tyres are better (they're not), but if you want those speeds and consistent wear rates at each track, you're going to need lots of compounds to achieve it. You could do it with two compounds IndyCar style, but you're not going to corner as quickly.

It's similar to the IMSA argument of Conti v Michelin. They're doing very similar jobs, but they were designed with different goals. The Contis were meant to be dirt cheap. As a result, they were crap. The new Michelins don't have to meet the same price point and will be a lot better for the teams.

I agree, I don't think one tyre is better than the other. IndyCar could get Firestone to make a myriad of compounds, like Pirelli do for F1 but haven't found the need, despite the different types of tracks and track surfaces and it keeps costs down. Would a set of Pirellis necessarily result in chaos at the 500? There is no option tyre in the 500, so only one compound is needed.

Maybe there isn't always the dramatic effect, like in F1 but IndyCar has its moments, like at TMS last, with tyre blistering that led to the race being red flagged.