The wrong formula

If you’re reading this, it’s pretty likely that you’re a Formula 1 fan.  A fan of thrilling racing, overtaking, battles for the lead and the championship.  A fan of motorsport at it’s very best.  That’s what F1 is all about, after all; it’s the pinnacle of motorsport.  Or, at least, that’s what it should be.

Vettel takes the chequered flag at the Circuit of the Americas

Vettel takes the chequered flag
at the Circuit of the Americas

Sadly, Formula 1 has become increasingly dull.  At the weekend we saw the now four time world drivers’ champion, Sebastian Vettel, take his eighth consecutive victory.  As usual, he was pretty much unchallenged at the front and the win was comprehensive and straightforward.  As usual, we heard team radio messages to various drivers urging them to conserve their Pirelli tyres.  Yes, that’s right, team radio telling drivers not to push to the maximum for fear that they might wear out their tyres.  The overtaking that we did see either happened at the start or was largely achieved with the assistance of the Drag Reduction System (DRS) overtaking aid. Is this really what we want racing to be like at the pinnacle of the sport?

I should be clear that none of this is Vettel’s fault.  He’s clearly a great driver, who has the privilege of driving cars that have been the class of the field for the last four years.  Indeed, but for the Brawn double diffuser in 2009, there’s little doubt that Vettel and Red Bull Racing would have won five consecutive world drivers’ and constructors’ championships.  No doubt, future generations will look at the record books and marvel at the German’s achievements.  No doubt, his fans love his complete dominance of Formula 1.  For the rest of us, though, be we supporters of other drivers, or just fans of great racing, Vettel’s dominance is a real turn off.  What’s the point of watching a race when the outcome is all but certain?

An example of a coanda exhuast on Jenson Button's McLaren MP4-27 from 2012

An example of a coanda exhaust on Jenson
Button’s McLaren MP4-27 from 2012

The change in regulations in 2014 brings with it a huge opportunity for F1 to become exciting again.  Non-Vettel/Red Bull fans are living in the hope that other teams and drivers will raise their games for 2014, and that the absence of the exhaust technology that Red Bull has mastered will level the playing field somewhat.  I very much hope that it does, but even then there are other things that need to be addressed, chief among them the Pirelli tyres.

Again, I should preface my comments by saying that I don’t think the Pirelli are solely to blame for the problems that we’re now seeing.  They must, though, shoulder some blame.  When Pirelli entered F1 in 2011 they were asked to make tyres that degraded more rapidly than the Bridgestone rubber that had been used previously.  Typically races run on Bridgestone’s during the time that they were the sole tyre supplier, following the banning of refuelling, were one stop races, lacking in much excitement.  Then the Canadian grand prix of 2010 came along, with multiple tyre stops as the rubber degraded more quickly, we had an exciting and tough to predict race.  “This is the answer” thought the FIA, “faster wearing tyres produce better racing”.  So that’s what Pirelli were asked to produce.

Pirelli's 2013 range of tyres

Pirelli’s 2013 range of tyres

And that’s what Pirelli have produced.  I would argue that they have taken their brief too far, but they have certainly done what the FIA asked them to do, and with very limited testing, too.  What the FIA didn’t consider, though, was that rapidly degrading rubber is fine when it’s not the norm.  When it’s unexpected it will produce racing that’s exciting.  The problem is, though, that everyone knows that the tyres wear out quickly.  So, instead of pushing their cars and themselves to the limits – as they should be doing at the pinnacle of motorsport – they concern themselves with not overstressing their tyres.  They’re not pushing hard.  They’re not driving on the limit.  They are protecting their tyres to try to achieve the optimum race strategy.

As a result, we don’t see much exciting wheel to wheel racing.  There are no race long battles for the lead.  Formula 1 in 2013 has become what the FIA had hoped to avoid – dull and uninteresting.  If the FIA wants races with multiple pit stops it would be far better to have harder wearing tyres – tyres that drivers can really stress and push to the limit on – and mandatory pit stops.  That would be better from a marketing point of view for the tyre manufacturer, and better for the sport.

An example of an open DRS system on the Mercedes

An example of an open DRS system on the Mercedes

F1 is not really helped by DRS, the other big change, along with Pirelli tyres, at the start of 2011.  DRS, to be fair, does help overtaking by reducing drag.  As you probably know, it can only be used at set points at each track and only when a car is within a second of the car ahead of it at a set detection point.  The problem with it is that it’s completely artificial.

We’ve become so used to DRS now, though.  I find myself watching a DRS assisted pass during races and thinking, “great pass” or “good move” when it’s anything more than someone just driving past someone else in the middle of a straight.  These aren’t great passes, though.  They are manufactured and artificial.  A far cry from the truly great overtaking manoeuvres of the past that we now see fewer and fewer of.

As I’ve written about previously, instead of dreaming up devices to artificially boost overtaking, the FIA need to concern themselves with addressing the aerodynamic rules that make it difficult for Formula 1 cars to follow each other closely.  Resolve that, introduce mandatory pit stops and request harder wearing tyres, and we might see Formula 1 racing that’s exciting again.

Of course, not much can be done if one team or driver is just better than the rest, as we’ve seen over the past few seasons with Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull Racing.  As I’ve said, it’s up to others to raise their game to make sure that it doesn’t happen again in 2014.  They need some help from the rule-makers, though.

Young Dane Kevin Magnussen has recently signed to drive for McLaren in 2014

Young Dane Kevin Magnussen has recently signed to drive for McLaren in 2014

At the moment, the FIA have got the balance completely wrong.  And when you add the ridiculousness of the driver market into the equation, the situation looks even bleaker.  Increasingly, teams need drivers to pay their way, rather than earning their drives on the basis of talent alone.  There are a few exceptions to that rule, most notably McLaren’s recent promotion of Kevin Magnussen to a race seat in 2014, but others aren’t as lucky.  The best example at the current time is Nico Hulkenberg.  It looks increasingly likely that the talented German will be overlooked for a leading drive at Lotus because of his lack of sponsorship cash.  Hulkenberg has performed wonders whichever team he has driven for in the past, but that’s not enough nowadays.

Instead it looks likely that the Lotus drive will go to Pastor Maldonado and his bucket-load of PVDSA sponsorship.  The Venezuelan is quick on his day, but crash-prone, erratic and prone to red mist.  As we saw in Austin, he’s also petulant and a poor loser.  Certainly not a driver that’s worthy of  one of the top drives in F1.  Indeed, but for his sponsorship money I doubt he would have ever secured a drive in Formula 1.

I’m not sure what can be done about the rise of the pay driver in F1 but this, together with the lacklustre on track action does not make for a healthy sport.  This is not the right formula for success.  As they’d say in Star Trek, the F1 of 2013 “is Formula 1, Jim, but not as we know it”.  Nor as we want it to be.

Advertisements

Frustration at Ferrari

After losing out on the world drivers’ and constructors championships to Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull Racing in 2012, Fernando Alonso and Ferrari made a strong start to 2013, winning two of the opening five rounds of the season. However, more recently things have been going less well for the Scuderia. The first race after the summer break – at Spa at the end of this month – may well determine how quickly Ferrari shift their resources to their 2014 car.

So, what has gone wrong at Ferrari? I think that there are a number of issues, the biggest of which is that the team seem unable to develop the F138 to keep pace with their rivals. This is not a new problem for Ferrari – we saw the same problems with the development of last year’s car – but it is one that they seem no closer to solving.

Lewis Hamilton at the Singapore Gp in 2009; one of two races he won that year for McLaren

Lewis Hamilton at the Singapore GP in 2009;
one of two races he won that year for McLaren

As teams, drivers, media and fans know, development is vital in F1. Starting the season with an uncompetitive car isn’t the end of the world if you can improve it more rapidly than your competitors. An excellent example of that is McLaren’s 2009 season, during which Lewis Hamilton won two races, despite neither car finishing higher than fourth in the first nine races of the 17 race season. Knowing the importance of development is not the same as being able to develop the car, however.

Alonso revealed at the last race in Hungary that the F138 is currently in the same specification that Alonso drove to victory in Spain, some five races earlier. This isn’t because Ferrari, have been lazy, of course. The team has been bringing new parts to races – like the new diffuser that they brought to the Hungaroring – fitting them to the car, only to find that they fail to bring the expected improvements to performance. Wind tunnel and simulation data are failing to accurately predict real world performance – a massive issue.

Vergne's tyre exploding at the British GP

Vergne’s tyre exploding at the British GP

If their development problems weren’t bad enough, Ferrari seemed to have been affected badly by the change in Pirelli’s tyre construction. Following a number of unsightly and dangerous tyre delaminations earlier in the season, the Italian tyre manufacturer was criticised by a number of teams, but Ferrari were not among them. Despite calls to change the tyre construction, the teams couldn’t agree to the switch. This all changed after the British grand prix, though. The multiple tyre failures that we saw in that race forced an immediate reaction and just a couple of rounds later – at the last race in Budapest – we saw the 2013 tyre compounds paired with the 2012 tyre construction to address the problems. Essentially, this meant a switch from steel belted tyres to tyres with Kevlar belts.

The change in tyre construction means that heat is better dissipated by the tyre, rather than retained in the steel belt. This, of course, will benefit teams that suffer from high thermal degradation of their tyres, most notably Mercedes who won the race through Lewis Hamilton in Hungary. Teams that haven’t struggled to the same extent with tyre degradation issues are likely to be disadvantaged, though. We saw Force India struggle at the Hungaroring, with Ferrari also suffering.

Alonso qualified sixth in Canada, but raced strongly, finishing second

Alonso qualified sixth in Canada,
but raced strongly, finishing second

Ferrari have had issues in qualifying this season and have only had a single front row start in 2013; for Felipe Massa in round two in Malaysia. Conversely, though, their race pace has been extremely strong, with Alonso, in particular, able to move forward rapidly on Sundays. This is likely down to car characteristics, with the F138 struggling to heat its tyres and bring them into ‘the window’ of operating efficiency for a single qualifying lap, but looking after the same tyres well on race day. The change in the construction of the tyres means, though, that the help in heating the rubber that Ferrari would have received from the steel banded tyres has disappeared. As we saw at the Hungaroring, Ferrari’s race pace was disappointing, with Alonso finishing where he started in fifth place – aided by the difficulties suffered by Nico Rosberg and Romain Grosjean – while Massa dropped one place from his starting position to finish eighth in the race.

As we saw from Lotus’s performance in Hungary, though, it is certainly possible for a team that enjoyed the steel belted tyres to perform equally strongly with the Kevlar belted construction. Lotus is a team that have been extremely good on tyre wear, and might have expected to struggle with a tyre that dissipates heat more rapidly. This wasn’t the case in Hungary, though, with Raikkonen benefitting from a two stop strategy to finish second, while Grosjean can count himself unlucky to have finished sixth, after receiving two penalties from the stewards. Some of Lotus’s strong performance on the Kevlar tyres might be attributable to the high heat at the Hungaroring, but Force India and Ferrari suffered in the same conditions, so there’s almost certainly something that these two teams can learn from Lotus.

The second of two almost identical crashes for Massa in Monaco

The second of two almost identical
crashes for Massa in Monaco

The final issue for Ferrari is their drivers. After a strong start to the season Massa is now starting to struggle quite badly. A poor start to 2012 saw heavy speculation that the Brazilian would be replaced at Ferrari for 2013, but a strong end to the season saw him retain his seat and an even stronger start to 2013 seemed to have dispelled any doubts about Massa at Ferrari. A run of five crashes over the course of four grands prix weekends – Monaco (twice), Canada, Britain and Germany, where he spun out on lap four – has reignited the speculation over the 32 year old’s future at Ferrari, though.

Ferrari President Luca Di Montezemolo has gone from being supportive of Massa, saying last month that “Felipe is fully aware he can count on our total confidence in him” to saying more recently “in the past days, we were very clear with him: both he and us need results and points. Then, at some point, we will look one another in the eye and decide what to do”. Fernando Alonso has not been immune from criticism, either. Recent speculation has linked the Spaniard to Mark Webber’s seat at Red Bull Racing, with the reaction from Ferrari being whispers about Alonso failing to get the best out of the car in qualifying and Di Montezemolo publicly rebuking the double world driver’s champion.

As I mentioned at the start of this article, Ferrari’s form at the Belgian grand prix at the iconic Spa-Francorchamps may well prove crucial to determining where the team focuses its resources; the F138 or the 2014 challenger. I expect that a lack of improvements will see 2013 being sacrificed in favour of next year’s car. With James Allison joining Ferrari as technical director next month, this may well be the plan at Maranello in any case.

It is crucial that, whatever they decide to do, the team pulls together and avoids a sustained period of destructive speculation surrounding their drivers. With silly season just getting started that might be easier said than done, however. It looks like it could be a challenging second half of the season for Ferrari.

Tyre-d of F1?

The key discussion point among Formula 1 teams, drivers, fans and media in 2013 seems to be tyres. The debate, which started during the course of the 2012 season, is whether Pirelli have got things right with their rubber. There’s barely an expert out there who hasn’t already expressed an opinion; some argue that “Pirelli have done what they’ve been asked to do”, while others think that “this is not real racing”.

Although it might sound contradictory, I actually agree with both statements. For me, it’s not an either or choice between the two extremes. Indeed, I’d argue that the assumption on which the debate is built on – that we need tyres that degrade more quickly in order to spice up the on track action – is a flawed one. Formula 1 can’t take a simplistic view of a problem, as I believe it has done in the past, because the result is likely to be an imperfect solution that could result in further problems. This is precisely the situation that we now find ourselves in.

Fernando Alonso (Renault, Michelin tyres) leads the 2005 Bahrain GP ahead of Michael Schumacher (Ferrari, Bridgestone tyres)

Fernando Alonso (Renault, Michelin tyres) leads
the 2005 Bahrain GP ahead of Michael
Schumacher (Ferrari, Bridgestone tyres)

To fully understand why we now find Formula 1 in a position where drivers are complaining that they can’t push to the limit of their cars for fear of damaging their fragile tyres we need to look at the recent history of tyres in F1. If we look back to 2005, the penultimate season of the tyre war between Bridgestone and Michelin, we had a situation where tyres had to last the whole race, with no tyre changes allowed during a grand prix (other than because of a puncture, for example). This meant ultra hard and durable tyres and pit-stops only to refuel the car. This resulted in tactical racing driven by fuel strategy.

The one set of tyres per race rule didn’t last beyond the 2005 season, during which we saw the farcical United States Grand Prix at Indianapolis, where only the six cars using Bridgestone tyres were able to start the race due to safety concerns relating to the Michelin tyres at the banked turn 13. Michelin only competed in one further season in Formula 1 before withdrawing from the sport at the end of the 2006 season, leaving Bridgestone as the sport’s sole tyre supplier between 2007 and 2010, when the Japanese firm also withdrew from F1.

Refuelling was banned because of incidents like Felipe Massa driving off with the fuel hose still attached at the Singapore GP in 2008

Refuelling was banned because of incidents like
Felipe Massa driving off with the fuel hose still
attached at the Singapore GP in 2008

With Bridgestone as the sole tyre supplier the teams effectively got what they were given in terms of tyres. Bridgestone, with no competition, were free to continue to supply durable tyres that produced pretty consistent grip and degraded slowly; a good advertising platform for their road tyres. Unsurprisingly, tyre related pit-stops were few and far between, and refuelling continued to drive tactics and strategy until it was banned from 2010.

This meant that, in Bridgestone’s final year in Formula 1, we had durable tyres, no refuelling, with one pit-stop races very much the norm. As overtaking in Formula 1 was extremely difficult because, for aerodynamic reasons, it was hard for drivers to follow each other closely, we had fairly processional racing. Something had to change, and it did with the arrival of Pirelli as the sports role tyre supplier from the 2011 season.

The DRS system on the 2012 Mercedes W03 By Morio, via Wikimedia Commons

The DRS system on the
2012 Mercedes W03

Pirelli entered the sport with a very clear brief: design, build and supply tyres that degrade more quickly and produce more exciting racing. Pirelli have certainly fulfilled that brief, moving the sport away from the situation it experienced with highly durable Bridgestone tyres following the end of the tyre wars. We now generally see two or three pit-stops for all cars during each grand prix and, because of the different car and driver characteristics, tactics and tyre choices, more overtaking. Overtaking was also boosted by the introduction of the Drag Reduction System (DRS) at the start of 2011, which allows drivers who are within a second of the car in front to reduce drag by opening a flap in their rear wing at designated sections of each track, increasing acceleration and top speed.

So, now we find ourselves in a situation where there is overtaking in Formula 1, but that there is criticism that it is too artificial. DRS certainly receives some of this criticism, but the majority of the flack has been aimed at Pirelli. The Italian tyre manufacturer has, in each of the three years it has been supplying F1 tyres, produced rubber with wear characteristics that are more and more extreme, with drivers having to conserve their tyres, not pushing flat-out for fear that the tyres will “fall off the cliff” – a characteristic where the Pirellis simply run out of grip.

What would Michael Schumacher have thought of the 2013 Pirelli tyres?

What would Michael Schumacher
have thought of the 2013 Pirelli tyres?

Last season, seven time world drivers’ champion Michael Schumacher described driving on the Pirelli tyres as like driving on “on raw eggs”. He elaborated on this point, explaining that the tyres were, in his view “playing a much too big effect because they are so peaky and so special that they don’t put our cars or ourselves to the limit…I don’t want to stress the tyres at all. Otherwise you just overdo it and you go nowhere”.

The situation is even worse in 2013, with the Mercedes cars of Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton, in particular, struggling with some extreme tyre wear. Mercedes are by no means alone in struggling, though, with Red Bull Racing being quite vocal in stating that the Pirelli tyre wear left them unable to show the underlying pace of their car. Indeed, some of the “overtaking” which has resulted from the faster wearing Pirelli rubber is, in fact, artificial given that drivers are not fighting each other for fear that they will ruin their tyres and cost themselves time. When one driver is effectively waved through by another it’s not really overtaking.

So, returning to the point that I made in my opening paragraph we are in a situation where Pirelli has delivered what they’ve been asked to deliver, but in doing so has given us more overtaking, but artificial racing. Pirelli have clearly gone too far with their 2013 tyres, but the Italian manufacturer is an easy target for critics. If you look beyond the obvious and remind yourself of the sport’s recent history – as I’ve tried to do in this article – you can see why we have arrived where we are now. The real blame, however, must lie with Formula 1’s governing body, the FIA, which sets the sport’s rules.

Surely it would have been better to continue with more durable tyres and introduce a mandatory number of pit-stops in each race, perhaps during specific parts of the race, as has been done in series like GP2. Drivers could race hard, and there would be a guaranteed number of pit-stops in each race to keep things interesting and create opportunities for strategy to be used to facilitate overtaking through pit stop phases of the race. Although this would address the tyre wear issue, the underlying problem in F1 would be unresolved.

Senior figures like FIA PresidentJean Todt have lots to answer for

Senior figures like FIA President
Jean Todt have lots to answer for

As I’ve already mentioned, the fundamental issue with modern Formula 1 cars: their aerodynamic characteristics do not lend themselves to running closely together, meaning that overtaking is incredibly tough. The FIA has come up with “band aid” solutions like DRS and fast wearing tyres without, in my view, addressing this issue. As a result we have racing that is seen as artificial, Formula 1 drivers that are unable to race and push the limits of their machinery, and ridiculous situations like the Pirelli/Mercedes/Ferrari tyre testing controversy that erupted at the recent Monaco grand prix.

All of this is a turn off for F1 fans. Don’t get me wrong, I still wouldn’t miss a race, but I find myself distinctly underwhelmed by the Formula 1 of 2013. Surely it’s not beyond the technical geniuses of Formula 1 to come up with a properly thought out solution to these issues? In any case, the sport will be undergoing some significant changes in 2014 with the advent of the new turbocharged era. I’m looking forward to the unpredictability that the 2014 regulation change will bring, but I do worry that the underlying issues will remain.

Whatever the case, I can’t help but feel that 2013 will be dominated by tyre controversies. With Pirelli’s contract up for renewal at the end of the season, F1 could find itself in a situation where the Italian manufacturer decides to walk away. The sport would only have itself to blame.

Tyre trouble?

Formula 1 designers and teams spend a lot of time, energy and money designing, building, testing and racing their cars.  They all share the same goal; to produce a car that’s the class of the field, able to blow away the competition and deliver drivers and constructors world championships.  The cycle of design, build, test and race is a continuous one, going round year after year as the teams seek to innovate and maximise the opportunities for speed allowed in the regulations.  There is, however, one element of their cars over which they have very little control:  the tyres.

Before 2007, during the tyre war years, Michelin and Bridgestone battled it out to create the fastest rubber for their respective teams.  Following the controversial 2005 United States Grand Prix – where only six cars (those using Bridgestone tyres) started the race after the teams using Michelin rubber were forced to withdraw due to safety concerns relating to the tyres at the banked turn 13, after an unexplained tyre failure for Ralph Schumacher during practice – Michelin soon withdrew from the sport leaving F1 with a single tyre supplier.  With Bridgestone as the sole tyre supplier between 2007 and 2011 the teams effectively got what they were given in terms of tyres.  Bridgestone, with no competition, were free to produce ultra durable tyres that produced pretty consistent grip and degraded slowly; a good advertising platform for their road tyres.  However, this type of tyre produced highly tactical racing, with little overtaking and fuel strategy often the determining factor until refuelling during races was banned from 2010.

From 2011 Pirelli took over from Bridgestone as Formula 1’s single tyre manufacturer, supplying rubber to all 13 teams.  Pirelli entered the sport with a very clear brief:  design, build and supply tyres that degrade more quickly and produce more exciting racing.  Pirelli have certainly fulfilled that brief, moving the sport away from the situation it experienced with highly durable Bridgestone tyres following the end of the tyre wars.  The tyres are now less predictable and drivers have to conserve their rubber, not pushing flat out for fear that the tyres will “fall off the cliff” – a characteristic where the Pirellis simply run out of grip and need to be changed.  Logically, this will favour drivers with a smoother, less aggressive driving style.  Indeed, as we have seen, Sauber’s Sergio Perez has benefitted by being able to conserve tyres the longest managing fewer stops than other drivers to move himself forward during races. 

Recently, though, the Pirelli tyres have been criticised, by none other the seven time world champion Michael Schumacher, for not allowing drivers to drive flat out and push.  When interviewed recently by CNN Schumacher described driving on the Pirelli tyres as like driving on “on raw eggs”.  He said of the Pirellis “I just think that they’re playing a much too big effect because they are so peaky and so special that they don’t put our cars or ourselves to the limit…I don’t want to stress the tyres at all. Otherwise you just overdo it and you go nowhere”.  Although Schumacher has been very vocal in his criticism he has been very much a lone voice thus far.  You can, though, understand his frustration.  For aggressive drivers like Schumacher and, one would assume, Lewis Hamilton, the Pirelli tyres must be particularly difficult.  Schumacher and Hamilton both like cars that move around a little at the rear, a characteristic that is likely to be harder on tyres, which must compound their frustration when combined with their racer’s desire to push hard.

The problem with the Pirellis, in my view, is that for aggressive drivers, like Schumacher and Hamilton, the extra time that they would pick up by pushing themselves, the car and the tyres to the limit, is insufficient to balance out the time penalty that they would receive because they would need to pit more often.  Now that the teams are fairly used to the Pirelli tyres an element of the unpredictability that made the racing so exciting when they entered the sport has gone.  We’re now into a time management/conservation game which, ironically, could actually make the racing dull if the situation continues over a number of years.

For me, the last thing that we want is for F1 to be about tyre conservation.  Don’t we want to see drivers pushing to the limit, challenging themselves and their machinery?  As Schumacher has said, they’re just not able to do that with the current crop of tyres.  I ask myself how some of the drivers of the past would have managed on these tyres.  If I pick two great drivers from the past: Gilles Villeneuve and Ayrton Senna – both of whom we recently remembered following the anniversaries of their respective deaths – they would almost certainly have hated driving on the Pirelli tyres because of their aggressive and spectacular driving style.  Would we ever have seen great driving displays like the 1988 Monaco Grand Prix where Senna got faster and faster, building up an incredible 55 second lead over his team-mate, Alain Prost, before crashing out on lap 67?  I think the answer is probably “no”, because drivers are not able to push hard enough on the Pirelli tyres to go, as Senna said of his qualifying display at Monaco in 1988, “well beyond my conscious understanding”.  In contrast, drivers like Prost, himself a four time world champion, and famous for his incredibly smooth and precise driving style, would probably have quite liked the Pirellis tyres as they would play to his strengths.  Ultimately, different drivers with differing driving styles will benefit from tyres with characteristics that suit those different driving styles.

I don’t mean to be unfairly critical of Pirelli, who have done what they’ve been asked to do.  Their tyres, along with KERS and DRS have certainly helped to make the racing more exciting in recent times.  I do, however, think that it would be a massive shame to deprive F1 fans of the more aggressive style of driving of Villeneuve, Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton and the sorts of supreme displays of on the edge driving that we saw from Senna at Monaco in 1988.  I hope that Pirelli, and the sport, can get the balance right.