I agree with Schumacher !!!

The Pirelli tyres have been one of the best things to happen to F1 in years, they have transformed the dull procession of the Bridgestone ere into constant exciting racing. Schumacher is just a old grumpy has-been who is only still in F1 because of past glories. I think Pirelli have got the tyres pretty spot on this year and when teams get on top of them like they did last year then I think races will stabilise into mostly 2 stop races.

Funny that Schumacher has all of a sudden decided he does not like the new tyres.

 

Yea, the very real racers who can give it some welly are restricted by these silly tyre regulations. Its a bit like giving Tiger Woods a ping pong ball to play golf with !!

 

Michael has got the ball rolling so lets hope it has a snowball effect, coz tyres are not supposed to do 8 laps.

 

Yea, about 25 miles how f**king crazy is that, oh, yes I almost forgot, it improves the entertainment value.

I don't want to be entertained, I want see a real motor race with real drivers.

We've got enough gimmic's with DRS and KERs without silly tyres

 

If you make the tyres more durable so that the less management-oriented drivers can push more all you will find is that those who can manage them well will still have an advantage and that the racing drifts apart again.

 

The whole point is, the racing is contrived and is not real, its almost virtual racing, it does not reflect the maximum driving capability of each individual driver, these tyres provide an unfair equalizer. Whether the racing drifts apart or not is irrelevant, at least it would be real and the fastest driver car combination would prevail.

 

So Vettel, who did 3 laps in qualifying and 11 laps in the race is 8 laps? And alot of them are when he was pushing too. I would much rather see this year than 2010. Everyone and their grandma were moaning about having no overtaking back then.. Its pretty much people everywhere..Moan they havent got something then moan when they get it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/17816565

He wasn't complaining then.

 

Also I was watching Schumacher's Bahrain pole lap from 2004 last week and it was an absolute pig. He had two huge lock ups and missed pretty much every apex. Montoya's lap was miles better, he was probably good for a second over Schumacher but his Michelins left him a tenth shy. And you call the Pirellis an unfair equaliser Ernie? Bizarre...

Edit: Just watched them back and it wasn't as bad as I thought, Montoya's lap was easily better though.

 

I am also detecting an underlying feeling of 'Grass is always greener'. For my part, I remember having a lengthy discussion with Cosi in 2010 about the advent of the Pirellis and the likelihood of fast degrading tyres. I was sceptical that it was going to improve the sport as I thought it would lessen the intensity of the racing. In 2011 I was pleasantly surprised although I felt that it left little room for changing the strategy. Remember that this is still a relatively new venture for Pirelli and I have no doubt that they will be always looking for ways to improve how well they do their job.

I would imagine if Schumacher was performing well, he wouldn't have made his comments. Perhaps he feels that by stating his opinion so publically, things are more likely to be changed in his favour? Perhaps he voiced his concerns in private and was rebuffed, hence his decision to speak up after the race?

 

I'm finding it bizarre that apparently the solution to some drivers not being able to utilise their talent is to try and level the playing field by reducing an advantage that is gained by another talent.

EDIT: The other issue is that what a few people seem to be taking umbrage with is overly-conservative strategising by teams, which is just a natural part of F1 and has been for years and would definitely not improve with more durable tyres based on my experiences in the 2000s era of F1.

 

Sometimes I just think people are just getting annoyed by the results, not the tyres and they just have to direct that anger at what their driver considers the problem.

Nobody was complaining when Jenson won, nobody was complaining when Alonso won and nobody sure as hell complained when Nico won. Yet after Bahrain this has all become an issue again.

4 different winners in 4 races, close racing, plenty of overtakes. Racing is a form of perspective on what it is, I consider it a variety of talents needed to win, not because how agressive you can go around the track. The phrase float like a butterfly and sting like a bee comes to mind with F1 nowadays. You need to know when to attack and know when to preserve yourself for the next best chance.

There are those who can drive fast and there are those who can make the car do what ever they want and still win no matter what the rules. Vettel is an example, Kimi is an example, Alonso is an example, Jenson is an example these 4 were strong in the Bridestone era and they are still strong even with the Pirelli's, others must learn how to do this or face a short career in F1.

 

The tyres just help the drivers who are softer on their cars. If we still had the proper Bridgestones, then sergio Perez would be a nobody.

 

From reading this thread it seems mostly to be people who have a declared allegiance to a particular driver (e.g. Schumacher who 'can't win without an unfair advantage', or Hamilton who 'can't drive fast without trashing his tyres') who have a problem with the Pirellis. It's of no consequence. Ambient conditions and track characteristics have played as big a part in race results this season but I guess we need simplified arguments to be able to wrap our heads around what's actually happening. New tyres provide a convenient scapegoat and a cheerleader who's lost in a competitive environment has provided a rallying call.

Some people seem to think Formula 1 should be about mindlessly bombing round the circuit at 100% all the time. It's not. Until refuelling was introduced, it never was. Formula 1 should test the drivers and car designers in all sorts of conditions and on different kinds of tracks and it should test many different skills, not just one. Qualifying reflects the driver's ultimate pace. The race reflects how he compares to other drivers in the same conditions. It's important to remember that F1 does not give points for qualifying and outright speed is only one of many abilities required to win a race.

It's amusing that Schumacher's complaint was made at the end of the race in which the two drivers who hit the cliff and dropped back in the previous race finished first and second. If there was a worse scenario in which to make his case I can't imagine it.

As I said elsewhere, Schumacher should first apologise and then shut up. Pirelli have been commissioned to provide a particular solution and they risk reputational damage for producing tyres that don't last. Everyone involved in the sport has a duty to protect them from criticism for providing exactly what FOM, the FIA, FOTA and the fans asked them to provide.

Finally, whose preference on tyre longevity should hold sway? All tyres and tyre lifespans are artificial and tyres are always the key factor in transferring the car's power to the circuit. Tyre management has always been one of the main factors in winning F1 races. As long as all competitors use the same compounds then this is not even worth debating.

 

The most frustrating thing is that all the drivers have an optimum level they can hit in their lifetime, and some drivers are being punished for the fans' sake.
I would love to see Hamilton to win a few more races, I would also enjoy seeing Raikkonen win a race in his comeback, but there are so many variables in racing now, the whole point of DRIVER+CAR VS. TRACK is disappearing.

Why are the tyres used to level the playing field with drivers that do not have the speed capable for F1?
Just bring re-fuelling back, simple. No-one complained then - at least then drivers could keep their foot on the metal between stints, instead of pussy footing around for 20 odd laps to conserve rubber.

 

No drivers are being punished or all are. The tyres are the same for everyone, unlike in the past.

Refuelling. The dark days of Formula 1 when it wasn't so much the pinnacle of motorsport as the premier karting championship.

If you think "DRIVER+CAR vs. TRACK" is "the whole point" of F1 then do you think they shouldn't race if it's raining, or windy, or too hot or too cold?

 

All I want is a happy medium where out and out speed and conservation could be two equal strategies. I know its unlikely that Pirelli could ever get it perfect but having tyres where a flat out 4 stop could match a conserved 2 stop would in my eyes be brilliant. They would need to bring more tyres to each race to truely make it work but I can dream.

If F1 is supposed to show who has the best skills in all departments then its unfair to make one (conserving tyres) so important. There should be alternative ways to go about things which in theory could give a equal overall time.

 

But you see that will never happen for reasons that go way beyond the tyres. The reason that you'll never see someone go all out on a 4-stopper is because the teams have mathematicians to overthink their strategy so much. Plus, you'd be looking at trying to gain some 40 seconds. If you want tyres that can last at their "sweet spot" for longer, then you'll end up with the people who are on two stoppers managing to eke out a good enough pace for longer as well. See where this is going?

 

I have to agree with you, Michael Schumacher is using the tyre issue to camoflage his poor performances, having said that I do firmly believe the Pirelli era is having a detrimental effect on F1, I wonder what Ayrton Senna would have thought of such a silly idea.

 

Well that's another story aint it, Montoya was always going to be the man to shaft Schumacher, I was really pissed when Montoya left F1 for various spurious reasons.