Tire debate goes on

[Irisado]

OK, perhaps I should have said, the only way to pass Alonso at the end was to put on fresh tires. Either way they decided that to win, they needed 4 stops, they weren't just amusing themselves.

They still could have won without adopting a four stop strategy, they just felt that four stops increased their chances of winning.  If I were at home, I'd dig out the relevant race report, and quote the salient sections word for word, but you'll have to wait until December for that .

The key fact though is this: they were only able to win with a four stop strategy because they had such a dominant race package in the first place.  Had the field spread been closer, it would not have worked.

[John S]

OK, perhaps I should have said, the only way to pass Alonso at the end was to put on fresh tires. Either way they decided that to win, they needed 4 stops, they weren't just amusing themselves.

They still could have won without adopting a four stop strategy, they just felt that four stops increased their chances of winning.  If I were at home, I'd dig out the relevant race report, and quote the salient sections word for word, but you'll have to wait until December for that .

The key fact though is this: they were only able to win with a four stop strategy because they had such a dominant race package in the first place.  Had the field spread been closer, it would not have worked.

Hold on a minute Ferrari are not the ones complaining now, or then for that matter, about 4 stops - so to me it's irrelevant whether they really needed to take an extra stop way back when. Ferrari did take 4 and won, it was their choice, other teams are similarly free to stop as often should they wish.

The real issue is Red Bulls moaning and whining that 4 stops is too many when they clearly didn't mind taking 4 stops when winning. So Christian, Marko, Vettel & Mateschitz; if 4's OK when you win then be grown up about it when you don't. 

 

[Irisado]

I'm not sticking up for Red Bull .  My point about Ferrari's win in 2004 isn't related to the present debate about whether four pit stops is a good thing, it's just about highlighting that if you've got a very good car, you'll win more often than not.  This rather suggests that Red Bull need to get their own house in order.

[Scott]

Force India thinks the new rear tires should be tested at the Canadian GP before they are official. 

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107618

Only problem I see with that is that Pirelli's shipping costs would then double, as they would have to have the old spec tires on hand in case the new ones aren't up to snuff?  Or, they could bring a couple sets for each team to test, and postpone the implementation of the new tire to the following race. 

[lkjohnson1950]

I thought the FIA said no new tires?

[Scott]

I thought they said the only changes will be made on safety grounds...to prevent the tires from delaminating.  I don't think they will allow any compound changes, just a tweak in construction. 

[cosworth151]

So Montreal 2013 could turn into Indy 2005, and all to please RBR & Vettel.

[Alianora La Canta]

Only problem I see with that is that Pirelli's shipping costs would then double, as they would have to have the old spec tires on hand in case the new ones aren't up to snuff?  Or, they could bring a couple sets for each team to test, and postpone the implementation of the new tire to the following race.

The rules have provision for Pirelli to bring test compounds to practice sessions, which they've considered using more than once before. All they have to do is add a 12th set of tyres (of the experimental type) to the normal allocation for teams in Canada and they're laughing. If it works, they look wise and can apply the newer, safer tyres from the next race. If the test conditions don't work out, they have a good excuse to delay until a safe test can be arranged, allowing the controversy to be turned down a few notches. If the tyres turn out not to fix the problem, they have a good reason not to change compounds.