Drivers Getting Heated up Over Tyre Blanket Ban

Originally posted by Jacquesback


Then maybe they'll be less pitstops. That would be a good thing.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
10 seconds?

Originally posted by Ogami musashi


http://en.f1-live.co...416095321.shtml

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/66122

and i can't find the article of jerez test times were i think heidfeld said that "we speak of several seconds here not just one.."

and from the lap times he laped 1:23 max with the slick and his first times were 1:28..


again the differencial is tyre grip dependent and to that the downforce decrease...

nothing to see with other series.

Originally posted by Atreiu


Level playing field has absolutely nothing to do with it. The issue at hand is driver A coming out of the pits with 50kgs of fuel and stone cold tyres which simply deliver very little grip until they're heated.



Imagine someone trying slicks during a race at a damp Spa. The first corner he faces is nothing less than Eau Rouge. His options are to either crawl through it in order to not crash, or be brave, go at full speed and crash at one of the fastest corners of all. Even if he decides to crawl through it 20km/h slower than he normally would, what will happen to the fool on heated tyres and a lighter car who decides to overtake him on the outside because he's on a hot lap before he pits???? Or do you think he'll sit behind and lose a couple of seconds at least in the name of safety?

If not Spa, it can happen at Montreal or any nice street circuit with close walls and people fighting for postions while others struggle to get their tyres to temperature. 2009 will also have more street circuits beckoning for someone to crash on cold tyres...

Originally posted by Muz Bee
Bridgestone (or any tyre supplier) will simply remix the compound/construction if tyre warmers are banned. This will factor in quicker warming or less deficiency when cold so a 5 or 10 second loss of speed is unlikely.

However - and I don't want to be a fence sitter - isn't the general F1 audience supportive of the sport being seen as leading edge? MotoGP, Superbike, IRL, A1GP and just about every form of serious racing uses tyre warmers. Without mainstream motorsport's tyre warmers, F1 could be seen as a "dumbed down motorsport". Probably is by a lot anyway!

Also when we started using tyre warmers on superbikes (15 or so years ago) the immediate benefit was the tyres suffered less "cold graining" and "cold shear" which is damaging to the tyre life and creates unpredicatability from tyre to tyre. I believe we all want the drivers to be more the determining factor in the result and that is why so many support the ban. I just question whether this particular approach is really a great idea, I'm not so sure. Removing the appalling traction control and braking aids, drasticly reducing downforce and so on should do more than enough to liven up F1, why add yet another experimental idea? With these changes in 2009 F1 should be a whole heap more exciting.

Originally posted by Torch
One other point that makes me in favour of this is that the better drivers will be able to get their temperatures up quicker by pushing harder earlier.

Originally posted by Atreiu
It would also be an exciting prospect if they could only race with one rear view mirror, wouldn't it?
I even think there was a time in which no rear view mirrors were used, so taking only one off has got to be a good thing. Only the pussies will decline the challenge.

Originally posted by Muz Bee


Also when we started using tyre warmers on superbikes (15 or so years ago) the immediate benefit was the tyres suffered less "cold graining" and "cold shear" which is damaging to the tyre life and creates unpredicatability from tyre to tyre. .

Originally posted by Fatgadget

With all due respect that is a very strange analogy. A driver can choose not to use his/her mirrors. ((Andrea de Cesaris was a notable example! ) Rather different far as tyres are concerned don't you think?

Originally posted by Muz Bee
Bridgestone (or any tyre supplier) will simply remix the compound/construction if tyre warmers are banned. This will factor in quicker warming or less deficiency when cold so a 5 or 10 second loss of speed is unlikely.

However - and I don't want to be a fence sitter - isn't the general F1 audience supportive of the sport being seen as leading edge? MotoGP, Superbike, IRL, A1GP and just about every form of serious racing uses tyre warmers. Without mainstream motorsport's tyre warmers, F1 could be seen as a "dumbed down motorsport". Probably is by a lot anyway!

Also when we started using tyre warmers on superbikes (15 or so years ago) the immediate benefit was the tyres suffered less "cold graining" and "cold shear" which is damaging to the tyre life and creates unpredicatability from tyre to tyre. I believe we all want the drivers to be more the determining factor in the result and that is why so many support the ban. I just question whether this particular approach is really a great idea, I'm not so sure. Removing the appalling traction control and braking aids, drasticly reducing downforce and so on should do more than enough to liven up F1, why add yet another experimental idea? With these changes in 2009 F1 should be a whole heap more exciting.

Originally posted by Atreiu


Yeah, it just popped to my mind as an example "just because it was done once doesn't mean it has to be done again".

Originally posted by Atreiu


Level playing field has absolutely nothing to do with it. The issue at hand is driver A coming out of the pits with 50kgs of fuel and stone cold tyres which simply deliver very little grip until they're heated.

Imagine someone trying slicks during a race at a damp Spa. The first corner he faces is nothing less than Eau Rouge. His options are to either crawl through it in order to not crash, or be brave, go at full speed and crash at one of the fastest corners of all. Even if he decides to crawl through it 20km/h slower than he normally would, what will happen to the fool on heated tyres and a lighter car who decides to overtake him on the outside because he's on a hot lap before he pits???? Or do you think he'll sit behind and lose a couple of seconds at least in the name of safety?

If not Spa, it can happen at Montreal or any nice street circuit with close walls and people fighting for postions while others struggle to get their tyres to temperature. 2009 will also have more street circuits beckoning for someone to crash on cold tyres...

Originally posted by bobqzzi


In short, any marginal improvement certainly isn't worth the technical and regulatory can of worms banning them would open.

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve


meh...this was the case for 30 years in F1. You need better driving. God help Massa without tyre warmers.

Originally posted by SeanValen



Perhaps now they are going back to the future to improve racing, the problem is perhaps going over the top.

Originally posted by mursuka80
i dont know why these drivers whine about everything"without TC rain is dangerous" and "tyrewarmers blaa blaa blaa" they are paid millions of euros so shut up or give some other guy whos not a pussy a chance

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve


Here's the problem with that: many (most) drivers in F1 are there because of nepotist connections, not proven talent. If the FIA starts making rule changes that actually put emphasis on driving, they will be embarrassed by the result.

People get used to anything. Modern F1 fans are now accustomed to boring racing, and frankly, if we put all F1 cars on tracks and paraded them for 2 hours, most fans would still be happy, as long as the Ferraris are in front.

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Sadly I have to confess that I agree with Ross and that the added risk of falling off the track and having to defend hard for a lap or two is quite an exciting prospect.

Originally posted by StefanV
At first I thought removing the tyre warmers was a good idea and that the complaints from the drivers seriously threatened their image as dare devils. But Muz Bee have convinced me that tyre warmers should stay. Not because of safety, but because F1 are F1. I don't want them to go backwards to the good old days because those days are gone. I want real innovations back, I want to be surprised and amused by technical solutions. Maybe someone decides that the best way to heat a tyre is to have a huge mechanical device that beats the **** out the tyre, a guy with a blow torch or a micro wave oven, so be it. I don't want the old times back, I can watch youtube if I want nostalgia. I want to see things I have never seen before. I want a regulations that guides into the future, not rules that kills fantasy. I want the cars to look different again. Six wheels, eight wheels. No wheels. Free use of computers and driver assists.

But then I would like a Formula Drivers also, where the races are run at the same day at the same venue. Maybe it could be called GP1?


But I have not changed my mind about the drivers. Not many of them would step into a Lotus 72 and drive it in anger.

Originally posted by WOOT


So I assume you don't agree with the aero cuts and going back to slicks either?

Originally posted by StefanV

Why is KERS regulated? In the light of the current environmental issues, it is unbelievable that energy recovery must be limited.

Originally posted by Orin


I suspect it's because of the worry that some teams will fork out the upfront costs of several hundreds of millions, leading to a spending war. I actually like the 5 year phase-in period, if only the FIA adopted such staged plans for other areas. Bringing in new rules late in the day is likely to result in huge expenditure.

Originally posted by StefanV

It is already a spending war. I rather see them spend those money on something useful rather than winglets and TC/LC without electronics. The teams will always make a budget of how much they can spend, that budget is related to what they believe they can win, what profit they might make. There is no team, with the possible exception of Super Aguri (soon to be a ex F1 team), that is not a commercial entity.

Originally posted by Orin


I suspect it's because of the worry that some teams will fork out the upfront costs of several hundreds of millions, leading to a spending war. I actually like the 5 year phase-in period, if only the FIA adopted such staged plans for other areas. Bringing in new rules late in the day is likely to result in huge expenditure.

Originally posted by Orin


It's strictly capped by the boardrooms at the moment, they're not going to sanction another 100, 200 million to eke an extra few 100ths out of the aero department. Give them unlimited opportunity with KERS and it might be another matter - especially if you convince them to spend say 500 million over 5 years, but weighted heavily towards the first 2 in the hope of a run at the championship for the next 3-4 years while everyone else catches up. Then we'd see the mother of all spending wars.

Originally posted by Slowinfastout
The speed differential between cars would clearly be too dangerous. Its not like when you come up behind a F430 when driving a gt1 or a lm p1... the driver behind with the warmed-up tires doesnt necessarily know he's driving a MUCH faster car.

It really is dangerous.

Originally posted by StefanV

And what is the problem with that? That no privateers can enter? They can't now and quite honestly - is it important? This is Formula One, not Formula I Wanna Be a Part of It. In reality though, it might even open the doors for a completely new group of people. Scientists from other areas. Universities. Who knows? But currently there is more people researching new batteries than new petrol engines.

Originally posted by StefanV

Come on, he see a car come out of the pits = cold tyres.

After a couple of corners the difference will be minimal, after half a lap the difference is academic.

Originally posted by Slowinfastout


Nope, sorry. In some occasions you would flatout be relying on communications to know. Its very dangerous mate, and believe me I would love to see the blankets go.

Originally posted by WOOT
I think KERS was regulated because Max was afraid that teams like Honda and Toyota would dominate.

Originally posted by Jodum5


If they can barely do well today, I find it hard to believe they would dominate with brand new technology in the sport.

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve


F1 uses "spirit of the rule" in regulations and enforcement.

Ambient is ambient.

Originally posted by paranoik0


The way I see it:

Slicing aero, bringing slicks, banning tyre warmers = good

Reversed grids, points for overtaking, enforced rotational system of drivers = over the top

It's an alarming sign that we've heard calls for some of these over the top things.

Originally posted by Orin


The problem is economic downturn. If the manufacturers hit a rough patch and spending is through the roof they don't cut back, they tend to drop out altogether. Imagine 3 or 4 manufacturers quitting in the same season? Whoever remained would walk it, it would completely devalue the competition.

Originally posted by WOOT



And on what occasions would that be? Like he said, you see a driver coming out of the pits = cold tires.

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve
I don't get Schumacher these days, he's making comments that show he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Tire warmers are only needed if everyone else uses them. If no one uses them, level playing field.

MS has also made some weird comments about Massa's ability to drive a non-TC car, which is ironic from Schumi, since most of his car control was steering wheel button-mediated for most of his wins.

God forbid we see some need for driving talent in F1 -where will all the "juniors" and Satos go?

Originally posted by Atreiu


Level playing field has absolutely nothing to do with it. The issue at hand is driver A coming out of the pits with 50kgs of fuel and stone cold tyres which simply deliver very little grip until they're heated.



Imagine someone trying slicks during a race at a damp Spa. The first corner he faces is nothing less than Eau Rouge. His options are to either crawl through it in order to not crash, or be brave, go at full speed and crash at one of the fastest corners of all. Even if he decides to crawl through it 20km/h slower than he normally would, what will happen to the fool on heated tyres and a lighter car who decides to overtake him on the outside because he's on a hot lap before he pits???? Or do you think he'll sit behind and lose a couple of seconds at least in the name of safety?

If not Spa, it can happen at Montreal or any nice street circuit with close walls and people fighting for postions while others struggle to get their tyres to temperature. 2009 will also have more street circuits beckoning for someone to crash on cold tyres...

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve


Here's the problem with that: many (most) drivers in F1 are there because of nepotist connections, not proven talent. If the FIA starts making rule changes that actually put emphasis on driving, they will be embarrassed by the result.

Originally posted by Andrew, Ford &F1


Isn't that unfair? Sato had a great race in Canada last year, overtaking Alonso in the process. And even though I'm not one of his most vehement supporters (no pffence, but I personally think that the least Japanese we have on the grid the better), I strongly urge you to give respect where it is due.

Originally posted by Orin


I take it this is due to the quality of Japanese drivers?

Originally posted by Andrew, Ford &F1


Exactly. But, just as you said, Nakajima might prove us wrong. Even though the way he crashed into the back of Robert Kubica in Melbourne makes me think that he graduated to F1 way too early. Another year of GP2 would do him no harm at all.