FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

Not quite the same thing though; we now have two tyres that both degrade very quickly, back in the tyre wars, the tyres lasted longer in general, you could still get away with one stop, two is the minimum now and then that's pushing it, the tyre performance drop off his massive, which is why most won't risk a two stop strategy, we saw that in action during the Chinese GP when Kimi Raikkonen dropped 9 places in one lap before pitting for tyres, which frankly at that point, he might as well driven in the garage because his race was ruined!

In the tyre war era they got softer and softer (and obviously simple compound logic dictates that softer rubber wears quicker), hence why there were so many marbles. Guys were using 4 stop strategies to win races (off the top of my head Schumacher, France '04), so it's not much different now. Strategy has, and always will be defined by the fastest theoretical way from lights to flag right? That is still the same. If a driver pushes the tyres they wear out, same as they have always done and always will do.

What pisses me off most, is guys like Schumacher bleating blatantly because it's not working for them. Or that the bitching has only started now, when really Bridgestone didn't make tyres that just last the distance either, except for rare cases (and even then it was track dependent). Even if Pirelli make harder compound tyres or a different manufacturer came in the end result is the same FFS, there'll come a point where the rubber wears out and a guy starts losing time!

The regulations last year weren't much different KERS, DRS and the Pirellis... all were there. So ask yourself, is the racing this year brilliant because there are four winning team in four races and the cars are so much closer in performance or because of the regulations?

2011 just lacked the championship battle, which obviously comes down to the car. But the on track action is the same - still awesome.

[McLaren]

It's not just Schumi moaning.Rosberg said when he won the other week that not once did he drive the car to the limit.
They really do have to find a better balance than the farce there is this season.Any driver with a bit of flare isn't getting a chance to use it.It's a case of drive like Miss Daisy and safeguard the tyres.It should be pure racing ,with the tyres needing changing once a race.Not 3 or 4 stops it's a joke.

[myownalias]

We still have the issue with tyres, not only degrading, as you point out, Scotty, tyres degrade and lose performance, but there is a difference in losing performance and dropping off a cliff where suddenly 30 - 45 seconds is lost in the space of one lap, I really don't enjoy seeing drivers suffer because the tyre fell off the cliff on the last lap get demoted out of the points because of the extreme tyre wear that is built into modern F1 tyres, seeing a leading car tumble out the top 10 is not my idea of racing, it's not only a racing issue but a safety issue having a car that is suddenly 30 seconds off the pace!

[LewEngBridewell]

At least Kimi didn't loose a whole wheel because of tyre regulations and restrictions, like he did at the Nurburgring in 2005!

[mashed]

In the tyre war era they got softer and softer (and obviously simple compound logic dictates that softer rubber wears quicker), hence why there were so many marbles. Guys were using 4 stop strategies to win races (off the top of my head Schumacher, France '04), so it's not much different now. Strategy has, and always will be defined by the fastest theoretical way from lights to flag right? That is still the same. If a driver pushes the tyres they wear out, same as they have always done and always will do.

No one is complaining about the number of pit stops or the use of strategy to win a race. Its all down to the current tires not being able to handle shorter/fast stints. The tires simply have too much degradation. Everybody has to manage their tires to last a reasonable amount of laps and that's whats leaving Schumi and other drivers unsatisfied. We went from one extreme(tires wars) to another(too much deg). Pirelli just need to tweak the compound to find a good balance. IMHO there is no need for refueling or tire wars.


My first post and just want to say hi.

[LewEngBridewell]

In the tyre war era they got softer and softer (and obviously simple compound logic dictates that softer rubber wears quicker), hence why there were so many marbles. Guys were using 4 stop strategies to win races (off the top of my head Schumacher, France '04), so it's not much different now. Strategy has, and always will be defined by the fastest theoretical way from lights to flag right? That is still the same. If a driver pushes the tyres they wear out, same as they have always done and always will do.

No one is complaining about the number of pit stops or the use of strategy to win a race. Its all down to the current tires not being able to handle shorter/fast stints. The tires simply have too much degradation. Everybody has to manage their tires to last a reasonable amount of laps and that's whats leaving Schumi and other drivers unsatisfied. We went from one extreme(tires wars) to another(too much deg). Pirelli just need to tweak the compound to find a good balance. IMHO there is no need for refueling or tire wars.


My first post and just want to say hi.

Hi! Good first post.

[myownalias]

At least Kimi didn't loose a whole wheel because of tyre regulations and restrictions, like he did at the Nurburgring in 2005!

2005 was a shambles of a year for tyres, no tyres stops allowed is even more ridiculous than the fast degrading tyres! What I would like is to have tyres that don't fall off a clip and degrade gracefully, so you could run a one stop race instead of a risky two or the more likely three stops, bring back strategy, most teams except maybe Sauber will run a three stop strategy!

[spankyham]

What we have today is a product of "false economy" and tire characteristics driven by "pageant metrics" rather than performance.

The "false economy" is the belief that limiting the supply side and thereby increasing the market i.e. monopoly equals a better marketplace. Monopolies don't work. The economic benefit flows to the supplier. There is no imperative to improve or increase or change your product range because Pirelli knows everyone has to use their rubber. Step one should be to break the monopoly. Allow as many suppliers into F1 as want to be there.

The current performance of tires is entirely determined by metrics that are totally unrelated to performance. They are driven by objectives that are deemed to be popular with masses. Even if you get your instant coffee increased new audience the problem is that you are no longer delivering your core product - in our case the core product should be "the pinnacle of motor sport". Let me provide what I feel is a relevant example. When McDonalds move into Asian countries, they are faced with a dilemma. Their core product is a beef burger, yet Asians are not oriented to eating beef, their core protein products are chicken, pork (in non-Muslim countries) and fish. The instant coffee response would be to drop burgers from the menu and serve all things chicken, perhaps add noodles. McDonalds don't do that, what they do is embark on a program of "educating" their new markets to their product (which I personally loathe, but what the heck, its a great example). Over time, the new market learns and embraces the new product if it delivers benefits that are espoused in the education phase.

In essence I think F1 would be better served to get rid of the monopoly, introduce competition and then allow whoever goes into the market to innovate and bring their solution to what should be a very simple set of rules and regulations regarding tire specifications. What we might end up with are tires that will empower drivers and cars to achieve their true potential.

[bud]

I think it's fairer having one tyre for all, as we saw in the past with Bridgestone, just making tyres to suit Ferrari which would probably explain why you're for more suppliers.
But one tyre for all teams is the best option for seeing which team can be the best!

[spankyham]

I think it's fairer having one tyre for all, as we saw in the past with Bridgestone, just making tyres to suit Ferrari which would probably explain why you're for more suppliers.
But one tyre for all teams is the best option for seeing which team can be the best!

Really disagree with this thinking, if your team can't get a supplier and do deals like Ferrari does then who's fault is that?

[bud]

I think it's fairer having one tyre for all, as we saw in the past with Bridgestone, just making tyres to suit Ferrari which would probably explain why you're for more suppliers.
But one tyre for all teams is the best option for seeing which team can be the best!

Really disagree with this thinking, if your team can't get a supplier and do deals like Ferrari does then who's fault is that?

That's a pathetic arguement! that's all that needs to be said for that honestly!

[spankyham]

I think it's fairer having one tyre for all, as we saw in the past with Bridgestone, just making tyres to suit Ferrari which would probably explain why you're for more suppliers.
But one tyre for all teams is the best option for seeing which team can be the best!

Really disagree with this thinking, if your team can't get a supplier and do deals like Ferrari does then who's fault is that?

That's a pathetic arguement! that's all that needs to be said for that honestly!

We'll have to disagree, IMO my comments are completely logical.

If Ferrari has a better KERS unit will they turn that to a single supplier?
If Red Bull has a better windtunnel will they force a single supplier there?
If Ferrari builds better test facilities will they ban that too ..... oh yeah, they did ban that

I've seen first hand the ultimate example of where an authority tears down anyone that excels in the name of a level playing fields - its called Pyong Yang North Korea and believe me that is not a model for creating a leading edge competitive environment.

[bud]

Youre examples are weak as your arguement! They aare in no way similar! You obviously don't understand the importance a tyre plays in Motorsport.
In many other series the use of one tyre make is put in place to not advantage anyone! Every team designs their car around that one tyre let's see who can do the best job at it!

But if you need Ferrari to have a special tyre only for them in order to compete then well that says more about your view on sportsmanship and I've lost more respect for you because of that, not that there was much.

[Hammer278]

I think it's fairer having one tyre for all, as we saw in the past with Bridgestone, just making tyres to suit Ferrari which would probably explain why you're for more suppliers.
But one tyre for all teams is the best option for seeing which team can be the best!

Really disagree with this thinking, if your team can't get a supplier and do deals like Ferrari does then who's fault is that?

I got a better idea for Ferrari, why not start a new type of Championship where all 24 cars are Ferraris? That way they can never lose! And you can start following that as a daily fix with a wide grin on your face.

[LewEngBridewell]

Yeah, I'm completely against the tyre war. In the early 2000s, Bridgestone clearly had the edge over Michelin, and despite supplying tyres to a number of teams, such as Arrows, Jordan and Sauber, they only focussed on Ferrari really. The combination was just too much for any of the Michelin-shod cars, which suffered as a result. One tyre type is always best.