- 16 Nov 07, 11:38#24597
Ferrari & McL are the ones that spend most time at the front, and that is not only because of the tyres, its because of the package. One tyre may suit one circuit but not another, that applies to the rest of the package - wheelbase, straight line speed, traction etc. Tyres are not THE sole factor to make a difference albeit that they are an essential component.
To continue with your previous point, no I dont want a car to win because it has more gadgets than another, there should be rules, and there are. The Ferrari floor that was banned for example, and cost is a serious issue also. For the good of the sport costs must be controlled so that the smaller teams can still be somewhere in the mix. Indeed, I feel that more should be done to allow the lower budget teams to compete. The uneveness in the sport is more to do with bank accounts than tyres.
It is said that having a single tyre supplier reduces cost - I am not sure why. If tyre deveolpment was restricted then costs could be controlled that way.
I understand where you are coming from 8B but a major difference between F1 and most other classes of motor racing, is that the cars are not 'even'. In other classes (including A1GP) it is really just a drivers competition with only a few choices for the team, but I see F1 as a team competition. not a drivers. It is interesting to compare drivers but it is the whole package from design, engine performance, Aero, chassis, trackside performance, strategys and tactics. There are so many variables that that ia what is so great about F! for me, and multiple tyre suppliers is just another variable in the pot.
i know but i'd but it has to be kept at a level where a driver isn't winning races because his car has more gadgets on it that assist his driving. I say one tyre supplier is a good thing but we should also allow teams to try to out-develop each other with engines, aerodynamics etc
In many ways the tyre is the most important part of the car. Everything else works through it, and engines, transmission, aero etc can only work well if the tyre allows it to. All the more reason, I think for allowing choice here. Ferrari is a good example, they made the B/stone work where other teams struggled with it.
but do you want a situation where one set of tyres suit a particular track making getting near the front a lot easier compared to a driver on another set of tyres? I was all for choice but seeing how well that last season went with one tyre supplier i think f1 should stick to it. It makes the race more competitive
Ferrari & McL are the ones that spend most time at the front, and that is not only because of the tyres, its because of the package. One tyre may suit one circuit but not another, that applies to the rest of the package - wheelbase, straight line speed, traction etc. Tyres are not THE sole factor to make a difference albeit that they are an essential component.
To continue with your previous point, no I dont want a car to win because it has more gadgets than another, there should be rules, and there are. The Ferrari floor that was banned for example, and cost is a serious issue also. For the good of the sport costs must be controlled so that the smaller teams can still be somewhere in the mix. Indeed, I feel that more should be done to allow the lower budget teams to compete. The uneveness in the sport is more to do with bank accounts than tyres.
It is said that having a single tyre supplier reduces cost - I am not sure why. If tyre deveolpment was restricted then costs could be controlled that way.
Strive to be fast, strive to be first but, above all, strive to be alive.
Martin
Martin
I've asked that before but no one answered. I guess she must be. 
And yes she can be a bit abusive if you dont like Ferrari 
