Pirelli's F1 chief Mario Isola says that the 2017 tyres were conservative for a reason in wake of the revamp of regulations. Pirelli was tasked with producing wider, fatter and more durable tyres to go alongside the shake-up of aerodynamic regulations.
While the tyres allowed drivers to push for longer, many race strategies were simple one-stops, which saw complaints from fans who believed it to be too boring. However, Isola claims that minimising risk amid new regulations was a priority for the Italian company.
"Last year’s tyres in my opinion were working quite well with the target to develop tyres that are less conservative," Isola told Crash.net. "Last year we were conservative but for a number of reasons; new tyres, new sizes, new demands and the expected performance was quite quick. So that is why we decided to be a bit conservative.
"We also used a completely new compound because in 2016 we were developing tyres in two compounds, the old family tried to develop the older concept of compounds and the new family of compounds was completely new in terms of materials, ingredients and processes. This new family has a huge potential but we had limited information so I think we were quite brave to introduce the new family of compounds.
"We’ve been conservative, it is true, and now we know we can move softer and have more flexibility with what compounds are available and I’m sure we’re going in the right direction."
2018 sees two new compounds being introduced, the Super Hard and the Hyper Soft. It is expected that the use of softer compounds will allow for varied strategies to add to the excitement of a Grand Prix. Isola thinks that between the softer tyres and car development, lap times could be up by 1.5 seconds from 2017.
"The total lap time will be more or less one second or a bit more quicker than last year but there is always contributions from the development of the cars," he said. "We are moving all ranges one step softer and expect to have quick lap times from that, this is normal.
"Teams are estimating the development of the cars in the range of one second so putting the two together we should be one second to one-and-a-half second quicker. We’ll see during the pre-season testing in Barcelona but this is our current estimation."
Fergal Walsh
1
Replies (10)
Login to replycalle.itw
Posts: 8,527
See my earlier comments regarding Pirelli and a horse in a wedding dress for my stance on this.
f1dave
Posts: 782
The high wear tires are made way to important in F1. Two or maybe three compounds with the choices left up to the teams would make for better racing.
ajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
I still think all the talk about tyres is window dressing. Artifically making tyres wear out faster than they should/could is worse than DRS. It has ruined so many potential battles because drivers worried about destroying the tyres. Last year was a substantial improvement, but we're still talking about it, and then adding a ridiculous and confusing amount of compounds. Meanwhile, we have done absolutely nothing about the real problem: too much aero. We have further complicated things by limiting the engine allotment.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Oh yeah, Way worse than DRS. I mean, this year I'd dare say the DRS actively benefitted the show, but the tyre quality is just abysmal. Give us better tyre regulations and give the supply to someone else than Pirelli.
ajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
But is it really Pirelli's fault? I tend to think that tyre suppliers are all about the same, the difference is (a) what the organizers ask of them and (b) hoe they execute on those requests. Pirelli is perfectly capable of making tyres that last an entire race and that perform very well. But it has always seemed to me that they don't do it because the organizers wanted to spice-up the show. I think this is a regulation problem rather than a supplier problem.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
I think that at the end of the day, Pirelli has to take some blame for this. Their task was to create tyres that provided fun racing for the while they lasted, but they created tyres that were too hard to efficiently race and too fragile to boot. Looking at the past, we definitely had suppliers that performed better than others. This is why Michelin and Bridgestone were so longlived in F1. And we see a similar trend in other series. I dont necessarily hold an as hard stance as I first stated, but I'd like to see Pirelli get some competition.
RogerF1
Posts: 501
Calle “Horse in a wedding dress” - not familiar with phrase, can you explain? I do however carry your exact same opinion on tyres and Pirelli
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
It was a comment I posted on another article regarding Pirelli and their tyres. It sorta went like this "You (Pirelli) can say whatever you please. You can stick a horse in a wedding dress all you like, but both you and the horse know that you are shagging a horse".
RogerF1
Posts: 501
Thanks Calle, perhaps explains why the phrase didn’t come up on google Ha ha.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Heheh no worries. :)