Column: F1's Sad State of Tire Affairs & Sim Racing's Benefit

Leclerc wins 2024 Italian GP.jpg
Image: Ferrari on Lulop
After an exciting Italian Grand Prix, OverTake editor Angus has come to the conclusion that its result shows a sad truth about the sport, a truth sim racing can overcome. Here is what he means.

If you do not get emotional at a Ferrari win at home in front of the Tifosi, are you a real Formula One fan?

Well, last weekend finally made it happen as for the first time since 2019, a sea of red invaded the Monza start-finish straight following the first place arrival of Charles Leclerc aboard his scarlet Ferrari in the 2024 Italian Grand Prix.

A daring overtake by Oscar Piastri around the outside of McLaren teammate Lando Norris set the early tone of what would be a hard-fought GP. But it is not the result that upset me as, as the first sentence shows, watching the Tifosi celebrate a second win of the season for car 16 brought tingles to my spine. What upset me however is the way in which the result came about.

For the first half of the race, with an out-of-position Norris, race pace appeared to be nearing race speed record potential as the entire field attempted to better their positions. But by the halfway point, a strategic decision lead to a sudden drop in lap times. As the McLaren pairing pitted for a second time, Ferrari's duo decided to stay out in a bid to cut a stop from their strategy.


For the remaining 20-odd laps, both Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris would have to catch the time up in the hopes of closing the gap to Carlos Sainz and eventual winner, Leclerc and pass them. Teeing up quite the eventful situation, the slower-running Ferrari of Leclerc managed to keep ahead of McLaren's boys.

There is no denying that this made for an exciting Grand Prix with many fans no-doubt biting their nails away up until the chequered flag. But following the event, all it proves is that Formula One's tyres consistently encourages teams to opt for slower strategies rather than pushing the boat out.

Monza 2024: A Tyre-some Conclusion​

For years now, fans and pundits alike have shown their distaste for the current state of Formula One's tyres. Since the move to a single tyre manufacturer, the push to greater rubber performance and longevity has seen a sharp decline. With no challenge to face, Pirelli is happy to put together a set of compounds offering little ability to push for much more than a lap at most tracks.

Though unlike previous eras in which running a set beyond its life span would result in a sudden loss of pace, otherwise known as the cliff, or an outright tyre failure, modern rubber simply experiences a gradual lap time loss. Grip may disappear, but it is far from a quick process, with failure or a full loss of grip seemingly never coming.

Mercedes and Red Bull fight for the lower points in Monza.

Mercedes and Red Bull fight for the lower points in Monza. Image: Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 on Lulop

It is because of this fact that Formula One's apparent motto nowadays goes along the lines of the winner is the driver spending the least time in the pits. As such, most Grand Prix see teams and drivers coast around a track for an hour and a half in fear of over pushing the tyre. Single-file driving, little strategic variance and lap times a good half-dozen seconds off the ultimate pace is typically the formula to a modern Grand Prix.

With as few pitstops as possible and drivers all seemingly pitting on near-enough the same lap, gone are the days of reckless strategies seeing up to five stops per race, varying tyre life and hard-fought overtakes. To me, that feels like a sad prospect.

Sim Racing: Built Different​

There is a sign of hope however as not every form of racing benefits from this gentile approach to driving. Where Formula One and other top series like IndyCar and, to an extent, endurance racing rarely see cars on the limit outside of qualifying, sim racing rarely sees the opposite.

Sure, the best of the best flying their way through iRacing's top split Special Events will take the time to think about their tyres. But mere mortals like you or I seldom worry about such pitiful issues. In fact, the longest races many of us run may hit the hour-mark. But at a single stint in most sportscars, that is rarely enough to trouble a set.

Tyre wear in sim racing doesn't appear to be as determining as in real life

Tyre wear in sim racing doesn't appear to be as determining as in real life. Image: Reiza Studios

Moreover, the true tyre killer in the real world is dirty air, something I feel is never perfectly simulated in-game. Sure, some titles may see reduced grip when following cars closely. But that loss of grip is rarely particularly troublesome, nor does it spread to multiple seconds behind a leading car.

The result are races in which one can push to the edge of grip, and often times beyond it, in the pursuit of that next position. Indeed, requiring players to hold back for several laps to keep tyre temperatures in-check and perfectly executing a pass before your tyres do fall off the cliff would be a horrendous feature to simulate, even in the most realistic of sims.

Not to mention I probably would not even know what to do when it comes to preserving rubber. Is it really as simple as driving slower?

Some Strategy Nonetheless​

As I can hear you typing away, I admit, there is still a great deal of strategy in sim racing. Fuel burn in longer events and those official iRacing series in which fuel tanks sizes are capped does require drivers to think about a mid-race pitstop.

My 2024 Daytona 24 Cadillac

My 2024 Daytona 24 Cadillac. Image: iRacing.com

But for the most part, few of us think to lift and coast from the get-go in order to reduce pit time. In fact, when an entire pack of cars around you hits pedal to the metal flat-out, it is difficult to remain diligent and continue fuel saving.

In the longer endurance events, you can admittedly cut an entire stop from your strategy if you manage to fuel save enough, something many do. But in my personal opinion, fuel saving does not actually add much time to lap time if you practice enough. In this year's iRacing Daytona 24 Hours, I managed my best run whilst saving extra fuel and adding two laps to the stint.

Therefore, fuel saving does not infuriate me quite as much as tyre preservation.

What do you make of tyre degradation in modern motorsport? Let us know in the comments below.
About author
Angus Martin
Motorsport gets my blood pumping more than anything else. Be it physical or virtual, I'm down to bang doors.

Comments

I disagree with the premise of this article... Not just because Monza was the most positively reviewed race of the season...

Sim racing should emulate real life, not attempt to make real life "better" than it is by making tyres that don't degrade or show thermal issues when pushed too far... Might as well get turtle shells and invincible stars in there as well to "spice it up"...

To me having minimal tyre wear and thermal issues is boring and can easily turn me off of a title... Hotlapping is fun for short periods, but in a race I want strategy not qualy laps...
 
Last edited:
Premium
Unfortunately clocks can be turned back but engineers cannot unlearn things, and given that F1 is projecting the thinking that economy is best won't bring about a tyre war that will cost development money, so they fiddle with the stats to get everyone closer, and tell the fans that things are exciting... and the fans either believe it or they don't, it doesn't matter because F1 is telling them what F1 wants to tell them.
When engineers and designers are given free reign the come up with different viewpoints and designs, which in the past made F1 racing interesting to say the least, however as the FIA and the powers that be put a stop on the bigger buck sponsors (fags and booze) there was a little less money for the smaller teams, so the rules have been tightened to such a degree that spending a tenth of a second longer in the pits can make a difference in the race because the lap times are so close form one end of the field to the other, the tyre wear rate is something magic that only race drivers know how to work and still be quick, the fuel save can be done by the great unwashed with ease and you don't even have to do the lift and coast and wonder if your braking point is right at the end of the straight, the simple way I found was to not ring the neck of the car in every gear... simply short shift, when not in traffic and I've not noticed much of a lap time difference.
I though, am not an iRacer, just an old bloke that loves his racing.
As for is it better in sim than real life... no, it's not those guys are different to most of the world, just a look at some of the old Top Gear driver charts show a great margin in talent from Racers and the guys that think they're good, and until the sim can deal with all the physics that affect a car at speed and indeed different speeds then only a fudge and a wink will exist in the sim world.
That said, they're doing a pritty good job in most of the sim/games now.

The above is only my opinion and may differ from someone with a different outlook and/or more information.
 
Simracing does simulate what's being stated. I Problem is, for having the same impact you need a full grid of very competent drivers on different cars. That never happens.

WRT the real thing, I will borrow Rick Mears words, when talking about Indycar Oval Racing problems some years ago...

"You fix the engine and aero package for better racing first. You may adjust tyres afterwards, but that never solves the problem."

F1 has never recovered from TD39 and raised clearance changes. A whole lot of effort done to improve the racing, which actually worked, destroyed in 6 months. No tyre composition will fix this, the problem is deeper and lies in the rulebook. And 2026 rules don't seem to solve a thing, just making DRS more powerful.
 
This article is written from a very weird perspective that doesnt pay much attention to the past or why F1 has the current Pirelli tyres it runs now.

"It is because of this fact that Formula One's apparent motto nowadays goes along the lines of the winner is the driver spending the least time in the pits. As such, most Grand Prix see teams and drivers coast around a track for an hour and a half in fear of over pushing the tyre. Single-file driving, little strategic variance and lap times a good half-dozen seconds off the ultimate pace is typically the formula to a modern Grand Prix."

The motto is fans want entertaining racing with as many races with drivers on different pit strategies.Then you get one stop drivers saving their tyres defending a lead from someone faster on a two stop strategy.Fans get to see 2 different skills.Driver on old tyres keeping back the driver who is flat out on old tyres.Great racing.This type of racing has been around since the Grand Prix racing has had pit stops back in the 1930s

Anyone who has watched F1 with great tyres used to watch the snorefest that was Monza in the early 2000s with everyone on a one stop strategy,follow my leader,no DRS,nobody could overtake because they all had great tyres and the race was won in the pits or at the start.The type of racing the writer of this article seems to want is the 3 stop stuff that was dished up during the Schumacher era that was basically sprint racing and often Schumacher would ride around behind Hakkinen,not bother overtaking,wait for the pit stops and pass him in the pits.Awful glued to the track racing most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Head scratching article.

We already have qualifying. Don't need 90 minutes of qualifying on Sunday. The premise that softer tires reduce strategic options simply isn't true. Hard tires that could easily last all race, and then some, made for the most boring of eras.

Also Pirelli don't make 'crappy' tires because of lack of competition. A tire company doesn't want to advertise to the world every weekend that their tires fall apart. They had tires that could easily go all race and the governing body had to cajole them into making softer tires which brought strategy back into play.

Tires wars in F1 were costly and made for horrid races. One manufacturer would have an insurmountable advantage on a certain track, or for the whole season.
 
Last edited:
It's not Pirelli's fault if the FIA or Liberty Media (don't remember which one) ask them to produce tires that wear super fast, it gives them constant bad press from misinformed people like in this article. Adding another brand wouldn't change much, they still would have to follow the specs.
 
Last edited:
We already have qualifying. Don't need 90 minutes of qualifying on Sunday. The premise that softer tires reduce strategic options simply isn't true. Hard tires that could easily last all race, and then some, made for the most boring of eras.
Yes but racing at 8+ secs from quali times is even worse. Sprint race are often nice because they can push from start to finish.
 
Head scratching article.

We already have qualifying. Don't need 90 minutes of qualifying on Sunday. The premise that softer tires reduce strategic options simply isn't true. Hard tires that could easily last all race, and then some, made for the most boring of eras.

Also Pirelli don't make 'crappy' tires because of lack of competition. A tire company doesn't want to advertise to the world every weekend that their tires fall apart. They had tires that could easily go all race and the governing body had to cajole them into making softer tires which brought strategy back into play.

Tires wars in F1 were costly and made for horrid races. One manufacturer would have an insurmountable advantage on a certain track, or for the whole season.
I think you have your memories and facts completely mixed up mate.

Tyres lasting a whole race was mostly a thing up to the 70s. Into the 80s, while sometimes completing a race in one set could be done and was the winning strategy from time to time, past half of the decade most races were won with one or two stops. I think there may even be a pattern connected to the widespread use of tyre warmers since 1986.

The tyre wars did not always deliver rubber with perfect durability. While at their inception Bridgestone had a massive advantage on this regard, it quickly evolved in quite the contrary way: teams had super special tyres with great peak performance but that would last maybe 15-20 laps, and it was a matter of juggling with the required fuel loads that would nail that window. Which is why teams usually tested before hand at each circuit before a given GP. What you state started to happen as Bridgestone was left alone in 2007, and was quite prominent between 2008 and 2010.

Were you watching F1 during 2003 season? When Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Renault delivered cars that were more or less on an equal footing, tyres provided an unpredictable dynamic, the pecking order shifting constantly at every venue, and teams even experimenting big swings of performance during the races per se.
 
I think you have your memories and facts completely mixed up mate.

Tyres lasting a whole race was mostly a thing up to the 70s. Into the 80s, while sometimes completing a race in one set could be done and was the winning strategy from time to time, past half of the decade most races were won with one or two stops. I think there may even be a pattern connected to the widespread use of tyre warmers since 1986.

The tyre wars did not always deliver rubber with perfect durability. While at their inception Bridgestone had a massive advantage on this regard, it quickly evolved in quite the contrary way: teams had super special tyres with great peak performance but that would last maybe 15-20 laps, and it was a matter of juggling with the required fuel loads that would nail that window. Which is why teams usually tested before hand at each circuit before a given GP. What you state started to happen as Bridgestone was left alone in 2007, and was quite prominent between 2008 and 2010.

Were you watching F1 during 2003 season? When Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Renault delivered cars that were more or less on an equal footing, tyres provided an unpredictable dynamic, the pecking order shifting constantly at every venue, and teams even experimenting big swings of performance during the races per se.
Aren't you saying the same thing, just with a different opinion about whether it was beneficial or not?
 
Premium
Maybe the teams should pick the tyres for each race at the beginning of the season, obviously allowing for wet and inters as needed, so from the 5/6 compounds they chose to run two per race at season start in a sealed envelope.
Then see how the season goes, I'll bet a few quid it's not predictable.
 
Maybe the teams should pick the tyres for each race at the beginning of the season, obviously allowing for wet and inters as needed, so from the 5/6 compounds they chose to run two per race at season start in a sealed envelope.
Then see how the season goes, I'll bet a few quid it's not predictable.
Unless something changed, I think they pick their 13 sets like 2 months prior each GP.
 
Premium
Unless something changed, I think they pick their 13 sets like 2 months prior each GP.
Pirelli chose what three compounds to provide for the race and (even if it's two months) the teams can use what they want from those, which are in sequence compound wise.
What I suggest is more of a gamble as noone knows the strengths and weaknesses of each compound ahead of the season, so some might go agressive and fast tyres... pole positions and a hope others might go middle and hope... many will be wrong!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pai
I thought not? Or maybe I'm focusing too much on the details? :)
Could be, or perhaps I am misunderstanding (not an uncommon state of affairs ).

Remember the US GP 2005? That was a bad day for the tire wars.

I just meant that the years in which tires were removed from strategic decisions did nothing to improve the racing. Quite the opposite. (i.m.o.)

Anyway, in today's cost conscious racing, we'll never see another tire war.

Personally I prefer the strategic aspect. So few mistakes are made, the fastest cars will always win; different strategies help mix things up.

(I started watching F1 at the end of the 80s, but I lost my F1 mojo after the fia gifted Max his first season. But I really enjoy the variety that tire choice brings to MotoGP.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pai
Could be, or perhaps I am misunderstanding (not an uncommon state of affairs ).

Remember the US GP 2005? That was a bad day for the tire wars.

I just meant that the years in which tires were removed from strategic decisions did nothing to improve the racing. Quite the opposite. (i.m.o.)

Anyway, in today's cost conscious racing, we'll never see another tire war.

Personally I prefer the strategic aspect. So few mistakes are made, the fastest cars will always win; different strategies help mix things up.

(I started watching F1 at the end of the 80s, but I lost my F1 mojo after the fia gifted Max his first season. But I really enjoy the variety that tire choice brings to MotoGP.)
We can debate a very long time about what tyre wars brought to F1 (both good and bad) and we would not agree. To me, besides trying to highlight that not everything was bad and there was some very good stuff, it's not worth spending a lot of energy on it though, because more things changed than just tyres towards the present. If I could revise and overhaul F1, I would go through many other items in the list before even touching the rubber, which IMO is not even nearly as bad as some people want to make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Pirelli chose what three compounds to provide for the race and (even if it's two months) the teams can use what they want from those, which are in sequence compound wise.
What I suggest is more of a gamble as noone knows the strengths and weaknesses of each compound ahead of the season, so some might go agressive and fast tyres... pole positions and a hope others might go middle and hope... many will be wrong!
Can we also throw out the mandatory pitstop and have them run a single compound if they want to? Sign me up.
 
Premium
Can we also throw out the mandatory pitstop and have them run a single compound if they want to? Sign me up.
Yeah, I guess, remember when Mansell was many seconds faster than Piquest at Silverstone in 87 (?) Nelson wished he'd got a faster tyre himself, but, when Mansell was 4 seconds faster than Senna he couldn't get past... that was however 'Monaco'
Again though, it would only work on tracks where the cars were small enough to pass each other.
I'm all for mixing it up and chucking out surprise results
:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: pai
I disagree with the premise of this article... Not just because Monza was the most positively reviewed race of the season...

Sim racing should emulate real life, not attempt to make real life "better" than it is by making tyres that don't degrade or show thermal issues when pushed too far... Might as well get turtle shells and invincible stars in there as well to "spice it up"...

To me having minimal tyre wear and thermal issues is boring and can easily turn me off of a title... Hotlapping is fun for short periods, but in a race I want strategy not qualy laps...
99.999999% of all racing cars in human history do not behave like the tyres in modern and recent Formula 1 do. Loosing a bunch of laptime and/or grip because your tyre reached a slip-angle of 4 degrees instead of 3 degrees or because you got some wheelspin for 0.5 seconds on the exit of a corner is not normal in any era of auto racing in any series in human history besides modern & recent F1.
 
Last edited:
99.999999% of all racing cars in human history do not behave like the tyres in modern and recent Formula 1 do. Loosing a bunch of laptime and/or grip because your tyre reached a slip-angle of 4 degrees instead of 3 degrees or because you got some wheelspin for 0.5 seconds on the exit of a corner is not normal in any era of auto racing in any series in human history besides modern & recent F1.

And yet this isn't the first time a one stop has beaten a 2 stop at Monza... Nor that a softer "option" tyre existed to spice up the show through a quicker wear rate on top of more grip, we've got half a century of that... So the premise is incorrect there...

Just because the modern tyres have been made this way to improve the show doesn't mean that tyre wear and strategy were invented solely for modern formula 1...

In the 80s tyres F1 had special tyres that wouldn't even last that long...

I know a lot of people want to pretend it was different so the easier video games are correct, the only thing that was different was up until the F1 show got stale through the 2000s the tyre manufacturers were trying to create more durable tyres... Then the show got too boring, largely due to aero over the car and tyres that didn't wear enough to cause a disparity...

Thermal issues aren't something that was invented by Pirelli either...
 
And yet this isn't the first time a one stop has beaten a 2 stop at Monza... Nor that a softer "option" tyre existed to spice up the show through a quicker wear rate on top of more grip, we've got half a century of that... So the premise is incorrect there...

Just because the modern tyres have been made this way to improve the show doesn't mean that tyre wear and strategy were invented solely for modern formula 1...

In the 80s tyres F1 had special tyres that wouldn't even last that long...
Exactly.

Modern tyres have not improved the show. You could always get wear on tyres. F1 and many other racing series have had things like super soft, soft, medium, hard, etc. tyres as well as 1, 2, 3, etc. pitstop strategies for many, many decades. The only difference now is the pathetic attributes of the tyres and how it negatively affects pushing the car to it's limits as I explained in my previous message.

I know a lot of people want to pretend it was different so the easier video games are correct
It's arguable which style is more difficult to drive, the style in modern/recent F1 or the style that basically every other car/tyre in human history (including F1) had prior to recent times.

The recent F1 style can be argued to be easier because you basically almost never want to drive the car to it's limit. You want to underdrive. But it can be argued that it's more difficult because, if you do something that's completely normal in 99.999% of every other car and tyre in human autoracing history - like getting some wheelspin, pushing the car hard, etc - then you get severely over-punished for it, and in an incredibly disproportionate manner.

Not only that, but if you're faster than another driver, you can only push and pressure him for a little bit (unless you're wayyy faster) because...you guessed it...the tyres will just overheat and then you'll just slowly start dropping off from the car in front even though you were faster. Go watch Alonso VS Schumacher at Imola 2005 and again at Imola 2006. They were all over eachother lap after lap. You literally cannot do that today because of the tyre characteristics basically prohibiting it and punishing a driver for pressuring a car in front for too long.

It's also not purely a result of Pirelli's design. There are 2 other things that massively contribute to this which most people don't talk about enough. A. The weight of the cars. The cars, due to massive downforce, are cornering at speeds higher than ever before BUT with like 250 or 300 Kg more mass. That puts an incredible amount of strain on the tyres. B. No refuelling. On top of point A, the cars are way heavier still because they have to drive with a single tank of fuel to last the entire race.

Pirelli rejoined F1 in 2011. Yes, by design (or so they say), their tyres had more of the issues/characteristics we're discussing than the previous brand of tyres (Bridgestone) but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is, the characteristics of the Pirelli tyres then - although the same general philosophy as currently - didn't exhibit those issues/characteristics anywhere near as severely as today and that's because of points "A" and "B" (especially "A") I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:

Latest News

Article information

Author
Angus Martin
Article read time
5 min read
Views
1,957
Comments
23
Last update
Back
Top