Pirelli testing at Abu Dhabi

[Shizuka]

So, the first day of Pirelli's test has ended at Abu Dhabi and here are the times.

1. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:40.170, 94 laps
2. Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, 1:40.500, 78 laps
3. Gary Paffett, McLaren, 1:40.874, 94
4. Kamui Kobayashi, BMW Sauber, 1:40.950, 83
5. Robert Kubica, Renault, 1:41.032, 39
6. Rubens Barrichello, Williams, 1:41.425, 91
7. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.615, 21
8. Nico Rosberg, Mercedes GP, 1:41.778, 81
9. Jaime Alguersuari, Toro Rosso, 1:42.019, 71
10. Adrian Sutil, Force India, 1:42.859, 20
11. Timo Glock, Virgin, 1:44.124, 78
12. Heikki Kovalainen, Lotus, 1:44.686, 88
13. Pastor Maldonado, HRT, 1:45.728, 83

It's not very different than from this year's team order, but Massa being faster than Vettel and Kobayashi finishing fourth is good. Rosberg only 8th.
I know it's only testing, but it's good to see that Virgin beat Lotus with a half a second!

[Myrvold]

And interesting to see that the Pastor is that far behind, when he totally outpaced the Lotus' young drivers .

[Aerond]

And interesting to see that the Pastor is that far behind, when he totally outpaced the Lotus' young drivers .

I also noted that Maldonado is about as far from the Lotus as Senna and Klien were during the GP last week

[mario]

Interesting that we have some very strongly differing opinions from the drivers, who have had the chance to sample the soft and medium compounds today (Pirelli are still working on the super soft and hard compounds, hence why they are not available to the teams).

Massa says that he felt at ease with the new tyres right from the off, saying that he didn't experience any nasty surprises or unexpected problems with the tyres during his stints. However, on the whole Massa seems a touch disappointed with the harder compounds, which he feels degrade a bit too quickly, but quite impressed with the softer compounds. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88419

Similarly, Kovalainen said that he was 'very comfortable' with the balance of his car on the new tyres on varying fuel loads and compounds, whilst Kobayashi said that he was pleased with the consistency of the new tyres.

However, not everybody has been quite as enthusiastic about the new tyres - although Vettel has said that the new tyres were 'better than expected' given that they have not had that long to work on the tyres, he seems to have found that the new front tyres offered more grip than Bridgestone's offerings, but less grip at the rear, causing the rear to slide.

More dramatic though has been Rosberg's assessment, which is also at odds with Vettel's analysis. Rosberg has said that he thought that the front tyres are weaker than Bridgestone's, along with severe degradation and performance issues. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88413
In fact, Rosberg has gone as far as suggesting that the new Pirelli tyres will be about 1.5 - 2.0 seconds slower compared to Bridgestone - although Barrichello, who was quite pleased with the tyres, reckons that the gap may be quite a bit smaller.

[F1000X]

A bit off topic, but am I the only one who wishes the FIA didn't choose to narrow the front tires after the 2009 season? I like that the cars were more prone to sliding last year, and I think making the cars easier to drive was a poor choice. I really hope Vettel is right and these tires are prone to sliding at the rear.

[TomWazzleshaw]

A bit off topic, but am I the only one who wishes the FIA didn't choose to narrow the front tires after the 2009 season?

You're not the only one who thinks the FIA made a mistake narrowing the front tyres.

[Bleu]

I think it was Bridgestone who wanted narrower tyres, and that was because front tyres had got more extra grip after slicks replaced grooved tyres. There were four grooves in the front and rear, and as front tyres were narrower than rears (even before the change for 2010) the situation wasn't as stable as Bridgestone wanted.

[Shizuka]

Day 2 results:

1. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:40.529, 105 laps
2. Michael Schumacher, Mercedes GP, 1:40.685, 74
3. Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, 1:40.825, 66
4. Rubens Barrichello, Williams, 1:41.294, 101
5. Robert Kubica, Renault, 1:41.614, 90
6. Gary Paffett, McLaren, 1:41.622, 46
7. Oliver Turvey, McLaren, 1:41.740, 30
8. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.869, 35
9. Kamui Kobayashi, BMW Sauber, 1:42.110, 43
10. Sebastien Buemi, Toro Rosso, 1:42.145, 98
11. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:42.416, 46
12. Sergio Perez, BMW Sauber, 1:42.777, 46
13. Jarno Trulli, Lotus, 1:44.521, 83
14. Pastor Maldonado, HRT, 1:44.768, 65
15. Timo Glock, Virgin, 1:44.783, 82

Maldonado beat Glock?

[TomWazzleshaw]

...8. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.869, 35...
...11. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:42.416, 46...

Tonio's career is now officially over.

[the Masked Lapwing]

...8. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.869, 35...
...11. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:42.416, 46...

Tonio's career is now officially over.

Poor Liuzzi...

[Shizuka]

...8. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.869, 35...
...11. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:42.416, 46...

Tonio's career is now officially over.

Yeah. I was thinking the same when I saw the times. I think this was part of selecting one of them for next year.

[ADx_Wales]

1. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:40.170, 94 laps

1. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:40.529, 105 laps

Dear Rob.

No he isnt.

[TomWazzleshaw]

1. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:40.170, 94 laps

1. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:40.529, 105 laps

Dear Rob.

No he isnt.

[noisebox]

1. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:40.170, 94 laps

1. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:40.529, 105 laps

Dear Rob.

No he isnt.

Alonso was stuck behind Petrov.

[ANZ_TF110]

...8. Paul di Resta, Force India, 1:41.869, 35...
...11. Vitantonio Liuzzi, Force India, 1:42.416, 46...

Tonio's career is now officially over.

Poor Liuzzi...

His fault. Tonio does not deserve a drive if his No.3 driver kicks his ass in a test

[tommykl]

1. Felipe Massa, Ferrari, 1:40.170, 94 laps

1. Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, 1:40.529, 105 laps

Dear Rob.

No he isnt.

Alonso was stuck behind Petrov.

No excuse. Petrov wasn't part of the test...

[pher38]

As Alonso showed in Abu Dhabi, the idea of having long term tyres which can last with no problems over 60 laps is a recipe for terrible races. It just means drivers are stuck in position after the early round of stops with no threat of the driver in front loosing tyre performance. The idea that F1 2010 has been one of the best seasons ever is a complete joke. Most of the races this season have descended into a situation where drivers are fixed in the postions they emerge from after their only tyre stop at the beginning of the race! I hope F1 rejects point this out in their season analysis. Refuelling should be brought back with two very soft tyre options which last no longer than 10-15 laps, as happened in the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. This recipe, as in the examples, produced action packed races with positions changing regularly both in the pits and the track as drivers struggled to maintain consistent performance. The point is we should be watching the Pirelli tests very closely to make sure they are producing short term tyres. They MUST at least produce two very soft tyre options for races next season. PLEASE PIRELLI!

[AndreaModa]

As Alonso showed in Abu Dhabi, the idea of having long term tyres which can last with no problems over 60 laps is a recipe for terrible races. It just means drivers are stuck in position after the early round of stops with no threat of the driver in front loosing tyre performance. The idea that F1 2010 has been one of the best seasons ever is a complete joke. Most of the races this season have descended into a situation where drivers are fixed in the postions they emerge from after their only tyre stop at the beginning of the race! I hope F1 rejects point this out in their season analysis. Refuelling should be brought back with two very soft tyre options which last no longer than 10-15 laps, as happened in the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. This recipe, as in the examples, produced action packed races with positions changing regularly both in the pits and the track as drivers struggled to maintain consistent performance. The point is we should be watching the Pirelli tests very closely to make sure they are producing short term tyres. They MUST at least produce two very soft tyre options for races next season. PLEASE PIRELLI!

That's a fair point, particularly about this year's tyre strategy, but I wouldn't call for a return of re-fuelling. What we need is the removal of the current 'must use both compounds' rule, and for a much larger step between the tyre performances, so that Driver A could opt for the soft option, a tyre that offers 0.5 to 1 second per lap faster, but wears at twice the rate of the hard tyre, chosen by Driver B which would be slower, but would (only just) last the race distance. Driver A would naturally blast away at the start, but face tyre management issues later on as Driver B came back into the race, assuming the position of Driver A as A stopped for new tyres. You would then have a situation where drivers on fresher tyres could make up positions in the field against drivers trying to make it through without stopping. In order to help this situation, re-introduce multiple tyre manufacturers, and limit the spending they make on tyre development over the year.

My whole opinion on 'improving the F1 show' is to introduce many more variables into the race. Variables mean changes, inconsistency and reward drivers with intelligence and good race craft. The tyre situation above is just one way of introducing variables into it, there are many more ways that will doubtless be discussed over the winter as we run out of things to talk about!

[Aerond]

As Alonso showed in Abu Dhabi, the idea of having long term tyres which can last with no problems over 60 laps is a recipe for terrible races. It just means drivers are stuck in position after the early round of stops with no threat of the driver in front loosing tyre performance. The idea that F1 2010 has been one of the best seasons ever is a complete joke. Most of the races this season have descended into a situation where drivers are fixed in the postions they emerge from after their only tyre stop at the beginning of the race! I hope F1 rejects point this out in their season analysis. Refuelling should be brought back with two very soft tyre options which last no longer than 10-15 laps, as happened in the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. This recipe, as in the examples, produced action packed races with positions changing regularly both in the pits and the track as drivers struggled to maintain consistent performance. The point is we should be watching the Pirelli tests very closely to make sure they are producing short term tyres. They MUST at least produce two very soft tyre options for races next season. PLEASE PIRELLI!

That's a fair point, particularly about this year's tyre strategy, but I wouldn't call for a return of re-fuelling. What we need is the removal of the current 'must use both compounds' rule, and for a much larger step between the tyre performances, so that Driver A could opt for the soft option, a tyre that offers 0.5 to 1 second per lap faster, but wears at twice the rate of the hard tyre, chosen by Driver B which would be slower, but would (only just) last the race distance. Driver A would naturally blast away at the start, but face tyre management issues later on as Driver B came back into the race, assuming the position of Driver A as A stopped for new tyres. You would then have a situation where drivers on fresher tyres could make up positions in the field against drivers trying to make it through without stopping. In order to help this situation, re-introduce multiple tyre manufacturers, and limit the spending they make on tyre development over the year.

My whole opinion on 'improving the F1 show' is to introduce many more variables into the race. Variables mean changes, inconsistency and reward drivers with intelligence and good race craft. The tyre situation above is just one way of introducing variables into it, there are many more ways that will doubtless be discussed over the winter as we run out of things to talk about!

I agree with that. Maybe even make available the whole compound set at each GP. i would say that any tyre manufacturer should develop just 4 or 5 types of tyres for the whole year, making those types completely available for the weekend. And another important call to increase creativity regarding strategies: Dramatically increase the pitlane speed limit.

[Phoenix]

And another important call to increase creativity regarding strategies: Dramatically increase the pitlane speed limit.

The pit lane speed limit is there for safety reasons. Imagine if someone would try to re-enact Max Papis entering the pitlane at high speeds and lost control...About the tyres, fot me the only gripe is the ultra-durability of the hard compound. Make them softer so cars will lap faster and you make sure they will have to change tyres some way before the race is over.

[Peter]

One Massa's problems all year has been tyres. Now that the Pirelli's seem to suit him, he may do a lot better next year. Massa does have a way of doing good whenever he has the yellow T cam on his car.

[Aerond]

And another important call to increase creativity regarding strategies: Dramatically increase the pitlane speed limit.

The pit lane speed limit is there for safety reasons. Imagine if someone would try to re-enact Max Papis entering the pitlane at high speeds and lost control...About the tyres, fot me the only gripe is the ultra-durability of the hard compound. Make them softer so cars will lap faster and you make sure they will have to change tyres some way before the race is over.

mmmh... yeah, I know safety... blah blah blah... Oh, come on, Today´s F1 is really, really safe. I don´t think anything at all would happen if you let drivers go through the pits at 180 or 200kph during the race.

[F1000X]

And another important call to increase creativity regarding strategies: Dramatically increase the pitlane speed limit.

The pit lane speed limit is there for safety reasons. Imagine if someone would try to re-enact Max Papis entering the pitlane at high speeds and lost control...About the tyres, fot me the only gripe is the ultra-durability of the hard compound. Make them softer so cars will lap faster and you make sure they will have to change tyres some way before the race is over.

mmmh... yeah, I know safety... blah blah blah... Oh, come on, Today´s F1 is really, really safe. I don´t think anything at all would happen if you let drivers go through the pits at 180 or 200kph during the race.

YOU'S TROLLIN

[Nuppiz]

And another important call to increase creativity regarding strategies: Dramatically increase the pitlane speed limit.

The pit lane speed limit is there for safety reasons. Imagine if someone would try to re-enact Max Papis entering the pitlane at high speeds and lost control...About the tyres, fot me the only gripe is the ultra-durability of the hard compound. Make them softer so cars will lap faster and you make sure they will have to change tyres some way before the race is over.

mmmh... yeah, I know safety... blah blah blah... Oh, come on, Today´s F1 is really, really safe. I don´t think anything at all would happen if you let drivers go through the pits at 180 or 200kph during the race.

While the modern cars are extremely durable, it's impossible to make the people working on the pitlane any more durable than what they were 50 years ago.

[pher38]

That's a fair point, particularly about this year's tyre strategy, but I wouldn't call for a return of re-fuelling. What we need is the removal of the current 'must use both compounds' rule, and for a much larger step between the tyre performances, so that Driver A could opt for the soft option, a tyre that offers 0.5 to 1 second per lap faster, but wears at twice the rate of the hard tyre, chosen by Driver B which would be slower, but would (only just) last the race distance. Driver A would naturally blast away at the start, but face tyre management issues later on as Driver B came back into the race, assuming the position of Driver A as A stopped for new tyres. You would then have a situation where drivers on fresher tyres could make up positions in the field against drivers trying to make it through without stopping. In order to help this situation, re-introduce multiple tyre manufacturers, and limit the spending they make on tyre development over the year.

My whole opinion on 'improving the F1 show' is to introduce many more variables into the race. Variables mean changes, inconsistency and reward drivers with intelligence and good race craft. The tyre situation above is just one way of introducing variables into it, there are many more ways that will doubtless be discussed over the winter as we run out of things to talk about!

An interesting point and if you had asked my opinion last year I would have agreed with you on larger steps in tyre strategy. However, as we have learned with this season's regulations the incentives in the harder tyre for driver B far outweigh the incentives for the softer option with Driver A. Therefore, based on the evidence of F1 2010 all the drivers would simply race on the harder tyre and just run it to the end. Rosberg and Petrov were rewarded in Abu Dhabi because they could not wait to get onto the harder tyre. The idea of the larger step was also attempted by Bridgestone at the 2010 German grand prix, where the harder tyre was three steps away from the softer option. However the harder tyre offered consistent performance and the softer tyre just lasted for 15 laps at Hockenheim. The time spent in the pits is just too great (the point was mentioned about the speed limit) and runs the risk of getting 'stuck' down the field. At the moment the rewards for ‘conservative’ race strategy are just too great and it leads to rigid stagnant races of similar strategy with little overtaking on the track or in the pits.

Now, the 2010 Canadian grand Prix was a fantastic race because the harder tyre did not last either. However what people do not realise is we could just have two tyre's which wear out quickly, resulting in an inconstant performance for most drivers in the race, with different pit stop times and overtaking! I mentioned bringing refuelling back to because the idea of qualifying with race fuel disadvantaged the pole sitter. This meant the field was closer together because the driver on pole was lighter and had to pit sooner. Therefore his disadvantage closed up the race. In F1 2010 the pole sitter in normal circumstances nearly always had the faster car, which meant the race would result in the same equation, aka he would stay at the front. However, with refuelling a slower car could still get in front and car performance was not the ‘be all and end all’. We also had alternative strategies and more pit stops. Pit stops were an exciting part of the race to.

My point is with refuelling and two tyre options which wear quickly we could have the best of both theories for exciting races. Again, I base this on the evidence of the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. These were all potentially boring races which resulted in mixed strategies from 1 to 3 stops, with plenty of overtaking in the pits and the track. There was also tyre management and the excitement of the 'sprints' till the stops which I always personally liked about refuelling. A tyre war also only favours the top teams and drove costs up, pricing out the independent F1 teams as we saw in the Michelin and Bridgestone days. Tyre manufactures only ever wanted to produce the best tyres to the best teams and creates more inequality in the competition. We can have equal tyre's on the 'edge' without a tyre war.

[AndreaModa]

An interesting point and if you had asked my opinion last year I would have agreed with you on larger steps in tyre strategy. However, as we have learned with this season's regulations the incentives for the harder tyre on driver B far outweigh the incentives for the softer option for Driver A. Therefore, based on the evidence of F1 2010 all the drivers would all put on the harder tyre and just run it to the end. Rosberg and Petrov were rewarded in Abu Dhabi because they could not wait to get onto the harder tyre. The idea of the larger step was also attempted by Bridgestone at the 2010 German grand prix, where harder tyre was three steps away from the softer option. However the harder tyre offered consistent performance and the softer tyre lasted for 15 laps at Hockenheim. The time spent in the pits is just too great at the moment (the point was mentioned about the speed limit) and runs the risk of getting stuck down the field. At the moment the rewards for ‘conservative’ strategy are just too great and leads to fewer pit stops and stagnant rigid races of similar strategy with little overtaking on the track or in the pits.

Now, the 2010 Canadian grand Prix was a fantastic race because the harder tyre did not last either. However what people do not realise is we could just have two tyre's which wear out quickly, resulting in an inconstant performance for most drivers in the race, with in different pit stop times and overtaking! I mentioned bringing refuelling back to because I the idea of qualifying with race fuel disadvantaged the pole sitter. This meant the field was closer together because the driver on pole was lighter and had to pit sooner. Therefore his disadvantage closed up the race. In F1 2010 the pole sitter in normal circumstances nearly always had the faster car, which meant the race would result in the same equation, aka he would stay at the front. However, with refuelling a slower car could still get in front and car performance was not the ‘be all and end all’. We also had alternative strategies and more pit stops. Pit stops were an exciting part of the race to. Now with refuelling and two tyre options which wear quickly we could have the best of both theories for exciting races. Again I base this on the evidence of the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. These were all potentially boring races which resulted in mixed strategies from 1 to 3 stops, with overtaking in the pits and the track. There was also tyre management and the excitement of the 'sprints' till the stops which I always personally liked about refuelling. A tyre war also only favours the top teams and drove costs up, pricing out the independent F1 teams as we saw in the Michelin and Bridgestone day. Tyre manufactures only ever wanted to produce the best tyres to the best teams. We can have equal tyre's on the 'edge' without a tyre war.

Yeah, you're right about the harder tyre this year certainly. When I was writing my initial idea I had it down that F1 would have entirely new compounds, but you've put it better when saying we could just have two that wear out faster, albeit obviously one would wear down slower than the other, my point being originally that the softer option needs to have some sort of advantage for it's use, else teams will exclusively use the harder compound, no matter how quickly it wears out (which as you said, has been the case this year).

Whilst I agree that the refuelling offers a further variable and an interesting part to the race, the costs are astronomical for such a benefit. There was massive opposition to it in 1993 before it came in, particularly from the lower teams with smaller budgets (I seem to recall Jackie Oliver of Arrows had a rant about it and how Bernie was forcing them to do it). The fuel rigs are so large and cumbersome, in terms of freight travel, with cost-saving a big initiative now in F1, I don't think it's viable. Plus it's a further factor that may put off potential new teams lodging an entry for the sport. You could also argue that the reduced size of the pit crew working on the cars during stops and obviously the safety that brings is another advantage.

Handily that leads nicely onto the pit lane debate, and I've just now thought of something that may be of a compromise. The only instances we've seen this season of multiple crews being out in the pits, and it being all congested, is during safety car periods when everyone dives in for a stop. So how about a mandatory speed limit, only in effect during safety car periods? For the remainder of the race, either raise the limit to something like 150-180kph (I think 200 is too much Aerond ) or just remove the limit entirely. Such is the length of most pitlanes, and the corners at either end, that I doubt many cars would reach those speeds anyway. By removing the obstacle of slow tours down the pit lane, it makes tyre stops much more viable, as they were during the mid to late 80s (sorry I was watching the '86 season review a couple of nights back so it's fresh in my mind!) and thus the need for fuel stops as well would probably be negated.

Something else finally to bear in mind about fuel stops, I think I'm right in assuming that there was a general consensus that refuelling removed a large part of the tactical, 'thinking' aspect of driving a Formula 1 car when trying to balance fuel weight and usage, as well as tyre condition. Races simply turned into full throttle blasts in between stops which in my opinion removes a large part of the skill required. We've seen this season the rookies by and large struggle to fully get to grips with F1 and score points on a regular basis. Petrov had his shunts and off-days, and Hulkenberg took time to get up to speed, whilst in the new teams, Di Grassi was completely outpaced by Glock, and the HRTs hardly set the world alight! My point is, that perhaps we're witnessing for the first time in a long time how much of a step F1 without fuel stops is compared to the feeder classes. In GP2 there is no refuelling, and the races are comparatively short in relation to F1 races, so the experience required to be able to master a full tank of fuel and then manage it over a race distance is vastly more important now than it was even one year ago. This is merely an assumption made by myself, but perhaps it's something to consider alongside other explanations to the performances of this year's rookies. Perhaps, in an almost implicit, hidden manner, F1's skill level and requirement has risen in this past year without us fully realising it.

Anyway I digress from the discussion which believe it or not is about tyres, not rookies and skill levels! But I hope you understand my reasoning behind my view on refuelling pher38. It's an excellent discussion nonetheless, I've really enjoyed it!

[Phoenix]

Something else finally to bear in mind about fuel stops, I think I'm right in assuming that there was a general consensus that refuelling removed a large part of the tactical, 'thinking' aspect of driving a Formula 1 car when trying to balance fuel weight and usage, as well as tyre condition. Races simply turned into full throttle blasts in between stops which in my opinion removes a large part of the skill required. We've seen this season the rookies by and large struggle to fully get to grips with F1 and score points on a regular basis. Petrov had his shunts and off-days, and Hulkenberg took time to get up to speed, whilst in the new teams, Di Grassi was completely outpaced by Glock, and the HRTs hardly set the world alight! My point is, that perhaps we're witnessing for the first time in a long time how much of a step F1 without fuel stops is compared to the feeder classes. In GP2 there is no refuelling, and the races are comparatively short in relation to F1 races, so the experience required to be able to master a full tank of fuel and then manage it over a race distance is vastly more important now than it was even one year ago. This is merely an assumption made by myself, but perhaps it's something to consider alongside other explanations to the performances of this year's rookies. Perhaps, in an almost implicit, hidden manner, F1's skill level and requirement has risen in this past year without us fully realising it.

Rookies' lack of pace/ability has surely got something to do with lack of testing, I'd say. What about Ayrton Senna and 1984, when cars were thirstier, for example? And don't say he had otherwordly abilities. Or, take someone more average like Jean Alesi.

[AndreaModa]

Something else finally to bear in mind about fuel stops, I think I'm right in assuming that there was a general consensus that refuelling removed a large part of the tactical, 'thinking' aspect of driving a Formula 1 car when trying to balance fuel weight and usage, as well as tyre condition. Races simply turned into full throttle blasts in between stops which in my opinion removes a large part of the skill required. We've seen this season the rookies by and large struggle to fully get to grips with F1 and score points on a regular basis. Petrov had his shunts and off-days, and Hulkenberg took time to get up to speed, whilst in the new teams, Di Grassi was completely outpaced by Glock, and the HRTs hardly set the world alight! My point is, that perhaps we're witnessing for the first time in a long time how much of a step F1 without fuel stops is compared to the feeder classes. In GP2 there is no refuelling, and the races are comparatively short in relation to F1 races, so the experience required to be able to master a full tank of fuel and then manage it over a race distance is vastly more important now than it was even one year ago. This is merely an assumption made by myself, but perhaps it's something to consider alongside other explanations to the performances of this year's rookies. Perhaps, in an almost implicit, hidden manner, F1's skill level and requirement has risen in this past year without us fully realising it.

Rookies' lack of pace/ability has surely got something to do with lack of testing, I'd say. What about Ayrton Senna and 1984, when cars were thirstier, for example? And don't say he had otherwordly abilities. Or, take someone more average like Jean Alesi.

Of course, it has everything to do with a lack of testing, I'm merely suggesting a possible other factor that might need to be considered this season, and future seasons. There's no point analysing seasons from 25 years ago though, times have changed so much, everything about F1 now is unrecognisable to how it was then. For anyone to come to a proper conclusion about the effect of no refuelling on the pace of the rookie drivers this year, much more needs to be researched about it. It's just a casual assumption that I came up with whilst writing that post.

[Phoenix]

Something else finally to bear in mind about fuel stops, I think I'm right in assuming that there was a general consensus that refuelling removed a large part of the tactical, 'thinking' aspect of driving a Formula 1 car when trying to balance fuel weight and usage, as well as tyre condition. Races simply turned into full throttle blasts in between stops which in my opinion removes a large part of the skill required. We've seen this season the rookies by and large struggle to fully get to grips with F1 and score points on a regular basis. Petrov had his shunts and off-days, and Hulkenberg took time to get up to speed, whilst in the new teams, Di Grassi was completely outpaced by Glock, and the HRTs hardly set the world alight! My point is, that perhaps we're witnessing for the first time in a long time how much of a step F1 without fuel stops is compared to the feeder classes. In GP2 there is no refuelling, and the races are comparatively short in relation to F1 races, so the experience required to be able to master a full tank of fuel and then manage it over a race distance is vastly more important now than it was even one year ago. This is merely an assumption made by myself, but perhaps it's something to consider alongside other explanations to the performances of this year's rookies. Perhaps, in an almost implicit, hidden manner, F1's skill level and requirement has risen in this past year without us fully realising it.

Rookies' lack of pace/ability has surely got something to do with lack of testing, I'd say. What about Ayrton Senna and 1984, when cars were thirstier, for example? And don't say he had otherwordly abilities. Or, take someone more average like Jean Alesi.

Of course, it has everything to do with a lack of testing, I'm merely suggesting a possible other factor that might need to be considered this season, and future seasons. There's no point analysing seasons from 25 years ago though, times have changed so much, everything about F1 now is unrecognisable to how it was then. For anyone to come to a proper conclusion about the effect of no refuelling on the pace of the rookie drivers this year, much more needs to be researched about it. It's just a casual assumption that I came up with whilst writing that post.

I'm tempted to say it doesn't have that much effect. For a more accurate comparison, Sebastian Buemi's form was not really better than that showed by Vitaly Petrov or Nico Hülkenberg, with refuelling.

[mario]

As Alonso showed in Abu Dhabi, the idea of having long term tyres which can last with no problems over 60 laps is a recipe for terrible races. It just means drivers are stuck in position after the early round of stops with no threat of the driver in front loosing tyre performance. The idea that F1 2010 has been one of the best seasons ever is a complete joke. Most of the races this season have descended into a situation where drivers are fixed in the postions they emerge from after their only tyre stop at the beginning of the race! I hope F1 rejects point this out in their season analysis. Refuelling should be brought back with two very soft tyre options which last no longer than 10-15 laps, as happened in the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian GP's. This recipe, as in the examples, produced action packed races with positions changing regularly both in the pits and the track as drivers struggled to maintain consistent performance. The point is we should be watching the Pirelli tests very closely to make sure they are producing short term tyres. They MUST at least produce two very soft tyre options for races next season. PLEASE PIRELLI!

Whilst Pirelli have said that they want to increase the difference between tyres, and increase the wear rate (and the drivers have noted that the wear rate has increased), whether they will be able to is another matter.

For a start, there have been two recent schools of thought about which direction the tyre compounds and construction should go. Some have suggested that the tyres should be much softer and wear out more quickly, because that might encourage a bolder driver like Hamilton, Kubica or Kobayashi to gamble on a fresh set of tyres to make up places (particularly the latter with Sauber's long first stint on hard tyres followed by a short but aggressive stint on softer tyres). Certainly, most of the recent overtaking we have seen these days have occured when the chasing driver has had a sizeable performance advantage (literally seconds a lap) - even in those hacylon days of the 1980's which people hark back to, you'd need a pretty substantial difference in performance to pass.

However, there is no such thing as a free lunch - past evidence, particularly during the tyre war era, suggests that making the tyres too soft will encourage the formation of marbles, making it less attractive to move off the racing line. There is an alternative school of thought that suggests that the tyres should be harder, which would reduce the amount of marbles forming, whilst reducing the total mechanical grip would elongate the braking zones and potentially make passing possible.

So, two completely different approaches to solving the same problem, although current evidence suggests that Pirelli are going down the first route.
Next, there is the issue of adverse publicity, and the harm that will do to Pirelli's public image. I'm not talking just of incidents like Indianapolis 2005, when Michelin took a hammering in the press (although they responded well, they took quite a bit of pain in the short term). And in 2009, Bridgestone initially started out with the same strategy as Pirelli - remember the super soft tyre that they brough to Australia, where you had to be really careful to avoid burning them out (Rosberg, for example, setting two incredibly quick laps only to tear his tyres up and fall back immediately).

The thing is, the teams went into overdrive, accusing Bridgestone of bringing unsafe tyres and attacking them quite vigorously. As far as the teams are concerned, they might say that they want edgier tyres to spice up the racing, but their previous action suggested that they wanted what Bridgestone produced this year - consistent and predictable tyres, with limited wear and performance loss.
Pirelli have made it clear that they will only make the tyres more aggressive if the teams support them in their move. Ultimately, the teams are the final customers, and if they are constantly bad mouthing your products in the press, sooner or later that will start to hurt your image, regardless of actual relevance to road going tyres (i.e. pretty much none whatsoever). This is especially true at a time when Pirelli are pushing quite agressively into the high performance tyre market (sports cars and super cars), and are likely to be trading on the new image that they will get from F1.

So, although Pirelli might be trying to make the races more exciting, there is no guarantee that they will succeed - the teams are likely to complain vociferously if the tyres wear out quickly, and also work on their suspension settings etc to "work" the tyres less. Besides, the thing that changes the situation most dramatically is when the grip is changing and it is unpredictable, as in wet-dry races or at Canada this year through the track rubbering in unpredictably.

[pher38]

Whilst I agree that the refuelling offers a further variable and an interesting part to the race, the costs are astronomical for such a benefit. There was massive opposition to it in 1993 before it came in, particularly from the lower teams with smaller budgets (I seem to recall Jackie Oliver of Arrows had a rant about it and how Bernie was forcing them to do it). The fuel rigs are so large and cumbersome, in terms of freight travel, with cost-saving a big initiative now in F1, I don't think it's viable. Plus it's a further factor that may put off potential new teams lodging an entry for the sport. You could also argue that the reduced size of the pit crew working on the cars during stops and obviously the safety that brings is another advantage.
.......

Something else finally to bear in mind about fuel stops, I think I'm right in assuming that there was a general consensus that refuelling removed a large part of the tactical, 'thinking' aspect of driving a Formula 1 car when trying to balance fuel weight and usage, as well as tyre condition. Races simply turned into full throttle blasts in between stops which in my opinion removes a large part of the skill required. We've seen this season the rookies by and large struggle to fully get to grips with F1 and score points on a regular basis. Petrov had his shunts and off-days, and Hulkenberg took time to get up to speed, whilst in the new teams, Di Grassi was completely outpaced by Glock, and the HRTs hardly set the world alight! My point is, that perhaps we're witnessing for the first time in a long time how much of a step F1 without fuel stops is compared to the feeder classes. In GP2 there is no refuelling, and the races are comparatively short in relation to F1 races, so the experience required to be able to master a full tank of fuel and then manage it over a race distance is vastly more important now than it was even one year ago. This is merely an assumption made by myself, but perhaps it's something to consider alongside other explanations to the performances of this year's rookies. Perhaps, in an almost implicit, hidden manner, F1's skill level and requirement has risen in this past year without us fully realising it.


Anyway I digress from the discussion which believe it or not is about tyres, not rookies and skill levels! But I hope you understand my reasoning behind my view on refuelling pher38. It's an excellent discussion nonetheless, I've really enjoyed it!

lol yeah I was worried about digressing from the point about Pirelli tyre testing as well, but I tried to connect it (barely) by mentioning we should keep an eye out for the wear rates on Pirelli tyres! It just pains me how flawed some of the racing in F1 2010 has been but the championship battle this year has 'masked' so many of the problems. I never really believed in banning refuelling from F1 in the first place, so it was annoying when poll after poll of F1 fans showed they wanted it banned. With fewer stops life is just made so much easier for the teams and drivers and causes boring races. Remember all the complaints after Bahrain? In my humble opinion the races in Germany and Japan were even more boring but there was no uproar then because we have seemed to have now got used to the boredom.

I take the point about driver tactics to, but without refuelling the incentives are increasingly there for a driver to 'nurse' the car till the end of the race with a difficult set of tyres. If refuelling is allowed however the incentives for an aggressive 3 stop strategy (for example) are greatly increased and a driver would not worry so much about wearing the tyres as their pit stop would not be too far away anyway. The people who complained about drivers waiting till the pitstops to do their overtaking to must realise a driver would always take a chance to overtake if it is there. Drivers would still have to use "tactical thinking" as well because they would have to decide when to make the most of their short term tyres, on potentially four different sets in three different refuelling sprints! This results in an inconstant speed performance during the race for all the drivers in so many different situations and plenty of overtaking and action in the pits and on the track!..And that is all without a safety car or rain!

I am confident in this theory every F1 wins and I do base the idea on the evidence of previous races.

I was not aware of the political opposition to refuelling in 1993 btw to so thanks for mentioning the point!

[Phoenix]

I take the point about driver tactics to, but without refuelling the incentives are increasingly there for a driver to 'nurse' the car till the end of the race with a difficult set of tyres. If refuelling is allowed however the incentives for an aggressive 3 stop strategy (for example) are greatly increased and a driver would not worry so much about wearing the tyres as their pit stop would not be too far away anyway. The people who complained about drivers waiting till the pitstops to do their overtaking to must realise a driver would always take a chance to overtake if it is there. Drivers would still have to use "tactical thinking" as well because they would have to decide when to make the most of their short term tyres, on potentially four different sets in three different refuelling sprints! This results in an inconstant speed performance during the race for all the drivers in so many different situations and plenty of overtaking and action in the pits and on the track!..And that is all without a safety car or rain!

I don't see why no refuelling discourages the drivers to take more risks. Races during the refuelling era weren't that much exciting, remember? So I, for one, defend the ban of refuelling, not because it has that much effect in the races, but because it keeps qualifying where it has to be - a contest in which the fastest drivers take the cake, without any influence from fuel loads for the race playing a part in that.