FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[madbrad]

Sorry if it's been discussed, I have trouble with the complexity in here. I have to take out my gum to post you know.

What is the rationale behind the mandatory use of both compounds? I'm not saying I hate it, but I was thinking what it would be like if they didn't have that. I mean, do you not think that to a point it artificializes the pit strategy? I mean the strategy has to take this into account so the strategy for a given driver would be different if they didn't have to do this. So there's a certain purity that's lost by this reg. Q tires would be nice but I can see the cost problem with that. I can think of a couple nice ways to make the tire regs, at least that would make it a nicer spectacle for me as a viewer.

[Gilles 27]

i assume it is to try and promote overtaking by creating a situation in which one driver is one the optimum while another is not. seems to have been relatively successful in this if you ask me

[darwin dali]

It was introduced the moment Michelin left and Bridgestone gained the monopoly in tire supply. It was mostly to keep everybody talking about tires and hence, the name Bridgestone by keeping it high profile with the two specs and quasi mandatory pit stops.

[bud]

Like DD said, so people don't forget who makes the black round things.

[madbrad]

More money for Bridgestone, yes. So the only reason Bernie would make a rule tha made Bridgestone more money is if that in turn makes Bernie more money.
Goes back to the old thoght that every rule change has everything to do with lining his pockets and nothing to do with sporting.

[darwin dali]

More money for Bridgestone, yes. So the only reason Bernie would make a rule tha made Bridgestone more money is if that in turn makes Bernie more money.
Goes back to the old thoght that every rule change has everything to do with lining his pockets and nothing to do with sporting.

Not sure about that. BE needs to keep Bridgestone happy and it's less about him making money directly (though indirectly you're absolutely right - if Bridgestone is happy, F1 will be happy = more money for BE).

[madbrad]

Yes happiness means indirect money or at least not losing a revenue stream, that's sort of what I was leaning to.

[cap-dude]

In my opinion, what it means to the fans (us) is that a driver must use tte non-optimum tyre at one point in the race. In other words a driver is going to struggle at least once in the race, causing a bit of variety and unpredictably.

In my opinion this is one of the few rules the FIA have brought in that works. We actually seen overtaking and excitement in Monaco. Monaco!!! Early on with Vettel, Massa and Rosberg was good fun was it not. We seen some chaos in Australia, with Kubica making an exciting charge later in the race. However, some races have seen an opposite effect, with Bahrain, Truili couldn't challenge for the lead. But overall, I give the rule a thumbs up. It's created some good racing lately, and in Sepang and China we would've seen the same thing, and surely Istanbul will again provide a similar spectacle.

However, I do wonder what it would be like next year. With re-fueling apparently gone, will drivers stop just once. Will they still have to use both sets of tyres.

[darwin dali]

In my opinion, what it means to the fans (us) is that a driver must use tte non-optimum tyre at one point in the race. In other words a driver is going to struggle at least once in the race, causing a bit of variety and unpredictably.

In my opinion this is one of the few rules the FIA have brought in that works. We actually seen overtaking and excitement in Monaco. Monaco!!! Early on with Vettel, Massa and Rosberg was good fun was it not. We seen some chaos in Australia, with Kubica making an exciting charge later in the race. However, some races have seen an opposite effect, with Bahrain, Truili couldn't challenge for the lead. But overall, I give the rule a thumbs up. It's created some good racing lately, and in Sepang and China we would've seen the same thing, and surely Istanbul will again provide a similar spectacle.

However, I do wonder what it would be like next year. With re-fueling apparently gone, will drivers stop just once. Will they still have to use both sets of tyres.

Yes, I agree, the rule isn't half bad. Just this year's implementation with a difference of 2 specs between the prime and option tire is a bit dodgy (they scrapped that for Monaco - and should for the rest of the season imho).

Yes, next year they will still have to use both specs on offer. With the full gas tank the tires will suffer more at the beginning of the race. If Bridgestone doesn't make any major changes to the tires, I'd imagine that we'll still see a fair amount of pit stops with tire changes for that reason, hence the one-stopper may still be more of an exception.

[madbrad]

yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't work at getting the effect they were aiming for, but maybe in a way the artificial aspect of it is a bit of an interference to true competition, like mandatory caution periods in NASCAR. NASCAR, the most exciting form of traffic!
They could make a rule that made it impossible or uncompetitive to complete the race without both componds, without actually making a rule that says they have to use both. But that would have to allow refuelling. With no refuelling, one could do the whole contest without stopping. It has been done IIRC, but tire wise it's not practical. That's the other side of the coin.

[darwin dali]

yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't work at getting the effect they were aiming for, but maybe in a way the artificial aspect of it is a bit of an interference to true competition, like mandatory caution periods in NASCAR. NASCAR, the most exciting form of traffic!

I see where you're coming from. However, I would contend that the tire rule is way less intrusive to the outcome of a race compared to those stupid mandatory cautions in Nastycar. The teams still have many degrees of freedom to comply with the tire rule and in effect build it into their race strategy and use it as a weapon against their competitors.

[madbrad]

Beats the no tire change rule of 06 anyway.

[darwin dali]

Beats the no tire change rule of 06 anyway.

That was awful

[Gilles 27]

it was 2005 and it was a joke!

[madbrad]

Whatever year, bad memory. It's the 2nd thing that goes, you know.