Put a puncture in painful Pirelli tyres

It started off as a place for the fastest cars in the world to race. Innovation was driven by the need to be faster, not the need to innovate. Doesn't matter where the technology comes from, just that it makes the car go faster. I agree about the cost control element. Another element that could be controlled is the fuel supply. You get x litres each. Don't care what engine, what aero, how heavy. 4 wheels, x litres, 1 driver, no driving aids. Or on the other hand, let's just enjoy it as it stands? The lawyers and teams get to have their fun off the track, but for 2 hours every other weekend I get to watch fast cars. The action over the last 2-3 years has been amazing.

But when did Formula One become a technological showcase? Why do we view it as such? The core values which underwrite Formula One are efficiency and engineering innovation. Look at the sports history and the cars we revere; the Mercedes W196, Cooper, Lotus 33, Lotus 79, Williams FW14B, etc. They were innovative though the process to reach that point became increasingly less efficient. The last piece of technology developed in and by Formula One which made it to production cars was electronic fuel injection in the early 80's. Everything else has come from aerospace or related industries, but F1 gets the credit. Fundamentally the regulations are set so as to manage costs. The thesis that are the technical regulations are evidence that F1 has failed at controlling costs and attempts to regulate spending by restricting development avenues. That is to the detriment of the sport. Imagine some legitimate cost controls and an imaginary box in which teams can develop their cars. Give them free reign to do what they please within that box, and with that set financial package.

Not only was Vettel gaining at a massive rate, which was amazing to watch, but the result wasn't even decided by the tyres or strategy, but the ability of the 2 drivers to handle the pressure at the end. Both made mistakes. I think a fast tyre and a slow tyre is a great idea, but the speed of disintegration in the Chinese GP was a little too fast. Case in point being Button who could only manage 1 lap's worth of speed on his tyres, and not even a complete timed lap. Make it 5 laps on average, and I'd be happy. F1 is no longer about being the fastest possible car around a track. The ground effect cars put an end to that, as did the removal of turbos, engine size limits, and all of the other rules that they've put in place. If it was purely a technological showcase, then we'd have 450km/h+ speeds down straights, 1 race per engine, mulitple failures, etc. And 2-3 teams able to win a race at most.

First of all, the call for tyres that spice up racing was not concocted by Formula One Management - it was devised by the teams themselves. Moreover, it's the FIA that does the deals, so if anyone is to be blamed for putting out the brief for such a sensitive tyre, you should be blaming the FIA and FOTA, not Bernie's men. Secondly, I'd argue that viewers aren't really complaining about the tyres at all. Racing like this, no matter how it comes about, attracts casual viewers. They don’t care why Vettel was gaining of Hamilton by three seconds a lap, only that they ended up side-by-side over the line. As for the hardcore viewers like you or I, what does it matter? We’re going to tune in week after week. We’re the sort who slugged it through the Schumacher era, and we’re going to keep watching regardless of the tyres. The teams complain all the time. Red Bull’s model of dominance has been based on downforce, and now that advantage is being negated because too much downforce is detrimental. Formula One has a history of regulating against dominance, it’s part of the purpose of the regulations – think the ban on double diffusers, or go way back to the banning of electronic aids in the early 90s. Finally, as Mat said, it's just another aspect of racing. The tyres ought to be considered as part of the car rather than some extraneous influence. Pirelli has produced a driving and engineering challenge – car designers that incorporate the tyres get better results, and drivers that can incorporate tyre management into their style (just as they do, say fuel management) will similarly find themselves rewarded. I hope Pirelli maintains its tyre compounds after Bahrain. Giving in to the top teams is exactly what they’ve said they won’t do – especially after they made a big point about staying consistent in the heat of the Championship battle last year. Changing now will be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction that’ll be detrimental to the sport.

This is something we spoke about in depth in our recent podcast. I don't have such an issue with the tyres because I believe it generates better racing than we would have without the current artificial regulations. I am a purist. I do no like what the sport has become but am prepared to embrace its changes to keep it exciting and relevant. But only if it remains exciting and relevant. Managing all aspects of the car is a core part of Grand Prix racing. It always has been and the modern era is no different. We are witnessing the most complete driver, not just the fastest, and that I believe is what Formula One is about. The period from 1994 when we had fuel stops was artificial. DRS is artificial. KERS and the current two compound tyre rules are artificial. The core question is what does Formula One see itself as; a sport, or entertainment? At the moment it wants its cake and to eat it too; and charging the general punter for it.

Sorry but which teams are complaining about the tyres? Mercedes and Red Bull. The two teams who's car aren't designed correctly to handle the 2013 tyres. Ferrari, Lotus and McLaren handle the guess better.