FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[FerrariFan63]

Even if they got to use the two closest compounds, there would still be potential issues - for example today, teams would still have had to use either the super soft tyre that went off quickly, or the hard tyre that struggled to build up and maintain heat. Sure, the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain. i don't really mind the ruling too much anyway, it gives an interesting new element to driver skill/tyre management and the engineering of the cars. The tyres didn't cause Kubica and Vettel to crash on their own...

I disagree when you say that "the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain". The problem today was that the soft tyres today weren't suitable for any sort of racing strategy at all. If you have two closer compounds, then you still have the interest of teams having to decide how best to use the tyres, with different drivers being on different tyres at different times of the race, adding the interesting new elements to driver skill/tyre management. And there's no problem. There's only a problem when one (or even worse, both) of the tyres are so unsuited to the racetrack that they simply don't work properly. As happened today. And that's simply not necessary.

[Lemmy G]

I'm all for making the racing too competitive, but this was too much. When one tire is so much worse than the other, it isn't racing. Let's see Vettel and Kubica go at it on close to equal terms. That's what I'll pay to see.

[Mike D]

I like the rule

no ones forcing them to run round for 20 laps on tyres that have gone off, the option is there to pit when the tyre goes off, even if its after 3 laps

ok we know they wont, as theyll drop down, but I think its a good rule.

[Versa-Tech]

I can understand why they would implement a rule like this. It gives more weight to pit decisions. However, the compounds are entirely too hard/soft and I believe the rule will be changed before the season is over in the interest of safety.

[Jensonb]

The new tire rule is dangerous and has no place in any type of motor sports racing.
As far as costs go, shipping two tires anywhere is the same regardless if they are soft or hard or anything in between.

It's not dangerous, Bridgestone's tyres are perfectly capable. The less favourable tyre is just that, less favourable. It's not falling apart after a few laps.
As far as costs go, shipping enough of all 4 compounds to every race for every driver is actually double the cost of just taking 2 compounds.

The teams should present their requirements to the tire manufacture (s) and let then have at it.
Deliver your best shot to the engineers before season opener and let them design to the tire.

That is an extremely expensive idea. We are in a downturn, perhaps you heard about the global financial collapse?

The Aussy GP showed one thing, that teams can loose cars and hurt drivers because of some stupid tire rule that does not cut costs.

Funny, I didn't see anyone harmed by tyres degrading. And the rule does save costs as I have now outlined for you.

[Versa-Tech]

Funny, I didn't see anyone harmed by tyres degrading. And the rule does save costs as I have now outlined for you.[/quote] Really? Drivers were diving into the pits like mad because of how unstable the softs were. You didn't see all of the cars flying off of the track after the first Yellow because they couldn't get heat into the hards? Sounds like a textbook safety issue to me.

[Jensonb]

Funny, I didn't see anyone harmed by tyres degrading. And the rule does save costs as I have now outlined for you.

Really? Drivers were diving into the pits like mad because of how unstable the softs were. You didn't see all of the cars flying off of the track after the first Yellow because they couldn't get heat into the hards? Sounds like a textbook safety issue to me.

A) The fault there was the length of the Safety Car (Not Yellow Flags) Period.
B) The Harder was the tyre everyone liked, it was more suited to the track than the softer.

So I don't see where you guys are going with this.

[scotty]

Even if they got to use the two closest compounds, there would still be potential issues - for example today, teams would still have had to use either the super soft tyre that went off quickly, or the hard tyre that struggled to build up and maintain heat. Sure, the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain. i don't really mind the ruling too much anyway, it gives an interesting new element to driver skill/tyre management and the engineering of the cars. The tyres didn't cause Kubica and Vettel to crash on their own...

I disagree when you say that "the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain". The problem today was that the soft tyres today weren't suitable for any sort of racing strategy at all. If you have two closer compounds, then you still have the interest of teams having to decide how best to use the tyres, with different drivers being on different tyres at different times of the race, adding the interesting new elements to driver skill/tyre management. And there's no problem. There's only a problem when one (or even worse, both) of the tyres are so unsuited to the racetrack that they simply don't work properly. As happened today. And that's simply not necessary.

That is basically what my point was, because even if the softs had been dropped for a medium compound, they'd still have the issue of the hard tyres. I know they only had trouble with them under the SC, but they still caused some problems! Say you have compounds A/B/C/D with A being the softest, my understanding is that compounds A and C were used today, yet both were unsuitable. B would have worked (on paper anyway) but you have to use two compounds - so the problem isn't completely eradicated.

[Versa-Tech]

Even if they got to use the two closest compounds, there would still be potential issues - for example today, teams would still have had to use either the super soft tyre that went off quickly, or the hard tyre that struggled to build up and maintain heat. Sure, the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain. i don't really mind the ruling too much anyway, it gives an interesting new element to driver skill/tyre management and the engineering of the cars. The tyres didn't cause Kubica and Vettel to crash on their own...

I disagree when you say that "the problems would be smaller, but they would still remain". The problem today was that the soft tyres today weren't suitable for any sort of racing strategy at all. If you have two closer compounds, then you still have the interest of teams having to decide how best to use the tyres, with different drivers being on different tyres at different times of the race, adding the interesting new elements to driver skill/tyre management. And there's no problem. There's only a problem when one (or even worse, both) of the tyres are so unsuited to the racetrack that they simply don't work properly. As happened today. And that's simply not necessary.

That is basically what my point was, because even if the softs had been dropped for a medium compound, they'd still have the issue of the hard tyres. I know they only had trouble with them under the SC, but they still caused some problems! Say you have compounds A/B/C/D with A being the softest, my understanding is that compounds A and C were used today, yet both were unsuitable. B would have worked (on paper anyway) but you have to use two compounds - so the problem isn't completely eradicated.

I think the rule that states that they have to use both is BS. It discourages comprehensive pit strategies.

[FerrariFan63]

That is basically what my point was, because even if the softs had been dropped for a medium compound, they'd still have the issue of the hard tyres. I know they only had trouble with them under the SC, but they still caused some problems! Say you have compounds A/B/C/D with A being the softest, my understanding is that compounds A and C were used today, yet both were unsuitable. B would have worked (on paper anyway) but you have to use two compounds - so the problem isn't completely eradicated.

You're following up my posts and talking about a "problem", but it's not the problem I am talking about. The problem I'm talking about is where teams are forced to use a tyre which is entirely unsuitable for the track. Other problems, such as low traction after losing tyre pressure and temperature under the safety car may not go away. But the problem that I'm talking about, a tyre being unsuitable for any reasonable race strategy can go away, even if there are two different compounds.

An example of how you can have two different compounds but not have "the problem" is this: imagine you have two tyres. One is a good compound and design for a one stop strategy. The other is a good compound and design for a three stop strategy. If teams have to use both of these tyres, then race strategy becomes quite complicated, and there's the opportunity to see different solutions to this problem, drivers on different tyres at the same time, etc. But each of the two tyres is suitable for the track in a different way. What we saw today was something quite different, a tyre that simply wasn't suitable for the track. Unless you think a ten stop strategy is reasonable in some way. Which I don't.

[darwin dali]

I think the original rule that drivers have to use both compounds on offer was/still is good. However, the change to a bigger spread between the two compounds isn't that great because it may very well lead to the best suited compound not getting used at all (A and C instead of the best suited B plus C or A). The rule should be flexible enough so that Bridgestone can decide on a race by race basis whether to bring compounds with a smaller or bigger step between them.
But I guess it's the same situation for every team and driver...

[scotty]

That is basically what my point was, because even if the softs had been dropped for a medium compound, they'd still have the issue of the hard tyres. I know they only had trouble with them under the SC, but they still caused some problems! Say you have compounds A/B/C/D with A being the softest, my understanding is that compounds A and C were used today, yet both were unsuitable. B would have worked (on paper anyway) but you have to use two compounds - so the problem isn't completely eradicated.

You're following up my posts and talking about a "problem", but it's not the problem I am talking about. The problem I'm talking about is where teams are forced to use a tyre which is entirely unsuitable for the track. Other problems, such as low traction after losing tyre pressure and temperature under the safety car may not go away. But the problem that I'm talking about, a tyre being unsuitable for any reasonable race strategy can go away, even if there are two different compounds.

An example of how you can have two different compounds but not have "the problem" is this: imagine you have two tyres. One is a good compound and design for a one stop strategy. The other is a good compound and design for a three stop strategy. If teams have to use both of these tyres, then race strategy becomes quite complicated, and there's the opportunity to see different solutions to this problem, drivers on different tyres at the same time, etc. But each of the two tyres is suitable for the track in a different way. What we saw today was something quite different, a tyre that simply wasn't suitable for the track. Unless you think a ten stop strategy is reasonable in some way. Which I don't.

Right, i see what you were trying to say now.

[Mike D]

tyre degrading is a factor which makes motorcycle racing exciting, and thats more dangerous imo

[Jensonb]

I think the original rule that drivers have to use both compounds on offer was/still is good. However, the change to a bigger spread between the two compounds isn't that great because it may very well lead to the best suited compound not getting used at all (A and C instead of the best suited B plus C or A). The rule should be flexible enough so that Bridgestone can decide on a race by race basis whether to bring compounds with a smaller or bigger step between them.
But I guess it's the same situation for every team and driver...

It's a much better idea. When they originally announced it, I thought that was what they meant. It just makes more sense

[mikef1fan]

Hi Guys,
...and F1 will become the NASCAR of open wheel racing.

NEVAR

anyway, i think it throws another tactical element to the races. Since kubica had the better tyre towards the end, it allowed him to close up on vettel, which made it very exciting. I wouldn't go as far as saying the tyres are going to cause pileups frequently, the drivers are still getting used to racing with slicks again. Some are coping better than others.

even if it is tactical surely Vettel being quicker the whole race having the faster car just to be dismayed by crappy tires. But generally I'd rather see better drivers takingt he places e,g rosberg would of had a decent finish he had a good race poor luck on him. I think it is stupidity to have very hard and super soft.

All I hope is that Bridgestone can improve these super soft to last longer like the soft of last year.