41 replies to this topic

[pingu666]

anyone got some figures for how much bridgestone tyres give up? will be important next year, as theres no refueling, cars should be faster after pitstop , I guess they hang on pretty well currently...

commentators will be banging on about how critical it is...

[Clatter]

Not sure you can put a figure on it. We have seen over the last few seasons that the same tyre compound can work very differently from car to car, and even driver to driver within the same team.

[Louis Siefert]

my money is on the tires being extremely unreliable and the teams being unable to gauge their wear.
This way Bridgestone will be able to have their name allover the news, as teams struggle to grasp the wear rates and the safety factor will be brought up randomly over the season as info is "leaked" out that the tires may be ill-suited to "certain" untested circuits putting "unforeseen" loads on the tires.

Not unlike what you see in nascar when goodyear gets called out on supplying an unsafe tire for certain tracks
whether it be because of speeds or track surfaces

Goodyear's name is then everywhere from the interweb to the TV to radio and weekly periodicals
if this was bad press they wouldn't allow it to occur
but since any publicity is good publicity
they supply "substandard" tires and on sunday after the mandatory cautions and tire changes provide little to no example of the fabricated fears, Goodyear is vindicated and the public's awareness level rises and their reputation gets buoyed by all the wolf tickets sold

until the next time they pull the same farce

Bridgestone has been watching and studying this publicity model intently and will unleash it's own version on F1 with dramatic effect and success

[Tufty]

my money is on the tires being extremely unreliable and the teams being unable to gauge their wear.
This way Bridgestone will be able to have their name allover the news, as teams struggle to grasp the wear rates and the safety factor will be brought up randomly over the season as info is "leaked" out that the tires may be ill-suited to "certain" untested circuits putting "unforeseen" loads on the tires.

Not unlike what you see in nascar when goodyear gets called out on supplying an unsafe tire for certain tracks
whether it be because of speeds or track surfaces

Goodyear's name is then everywhere from the interweb to the TV to radio and weekly periodicals
if this was bad press they wouldn't allow it to occur
but since any publicity is good publicity
they supply "substandard" tires and on sunday after the mandatory cautions and tire changes provide little to no example of the fabricated fears, Goodyear is vindicated and the public's awareness level rises and their reputation gets buoyed by all the wolf tickets sold

until the next time they pull the same farce

Bridgestone has been watching and studying this publicity model intently and will unleash it's own version on F1 with dramatic effect and success

Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with you. This could also prove to further discourage other tyre suppliers from entering if there are worries about current tyre qualitities.

[BullHead]

The best aero designs will be he winners in this scenario. Also the best or smoother drivers..

[Muz Bee]

As 2009 was a season of "all change" so will 2010, could get a number of cars and drivers in winners circle.

This year the top qualifiers were often those that were able to bring their tyres up to optimum quickly. What is the qualifying format next year? Whatever format it's likely that a car and driver who aren't able to get raw speed in qualifying may win the war through being able to turn fast laps well into the race on old rubber. It's going to be interesting, for a time at least.

[nada12]

The best aero designs will be he winners in this scenario. Also the best or smoother drivers..

Pretty much. Driving fast while being able to nurse the tires will be key. It could potentially lead to a lot of designs struggling to heat up the tires in qualifying though, it's gonna be interesting.

[Wheels23]

It would be interesting though if they have to use one tyre set for quali through Q1, Q2 and Q3 and use them in the race. So basically using the same set on Saturday and until the first pitstop on Sunday.

Or at least use one tyre set throughout Quali. That would be interesting but I doubt that would happen though.

[maverick69]

Pretty much. Driving fast while being able to nurse the tires will be key. It could potentially lead to a lot of designs struggling to heat up the tires in qualifying though, it's gonna be interesting.

The qualiy thing is what I think is most significant. James Allen reported that the 2010 Bridgestones will be uber robust so I'd imagine they will need a bit of "punishment" to bring them up to temperature quickly.

[One]

Pretty much. Driving fast while being able to nurse the tires will be key. It could potentially lead to a lot of designs struggling to heat up the tires in qualifying though, it's gonna be interesting.

Button to be the best yet again?

[Seanspeed]

Bridgestone has been watching and studying this publicity model intently and will unleash it's own version on F1 with dramatic effect and success

So you're already condemning them for something they haven't even done yet and very likely might not do at all?

At least be fair and wait for it to happen before accusing them of anything, geez.

[patgaw]

Louis Siefert has point.
i dont know about nascar - i dont watch it, but yep part about f1 is true.
maybe stating "extremely unreliable" is bit too much, but unfortunately bridgestone is not doing proper job in f1.

[Seanspeed]

Button to be the best yet again?

Given the nature of F1's mini-sprint format for the past 15-odd years, I dont think we'll have much of a clue how any of these drivers are going to handle this no refueling/nurse your tires strategy best. Its gonna open up a new variable between the drivers that certain ones will likely adapt to better.

It'll be interesting, I think. I'd definitely like to see the comeback of the 'Prost' approach, which disappeared when refueling returned.

[Seanspeed]

but unfortunately bridgestone is not doing proper job in f1.

How so? Apart from Australia, was there any time where the tires were dangerously unreliable? How many times did we see random tire blowouts?

Certain teams may complain one race weekend about the tires, but when other teams are using them just fine, it really points to it being the team's fault and not the tire manufacturer's.

[Hairpin]

Button to be the best yet again?

It is easy to believe that the one that is easy on the tires will be best off if tire wear is an issue. That is only partly true. If you are the fastest AND is easy on the tires, it is a good thing, but "being easy on the tires" might also mean "unable to use the most of them". And that will be the key. To use the most of them.

[nada12]

So you're already condemning them for something they haven't even done yet and very likely might not do at all?

At least be fair and wait for it to happen before accusing them of anything, geez.

It's already happening since '07, we have these standard tires that have an incredibly narrow operating window to make sure the drivers and teams are always talking about the tires and how difficult it is to use them properly, coupled with the two-compound rule to also create artificial buzz around the tires. Bridgestone does everything to keep their name in the media and sadly even go as far as compromising the quality of their tires. Think about it, how many times do we read or hear the name Bridgestone compared to other racing series with a single tire supplier. In most other series I watch I don't have a clue who the tire supplier is, partially because I dont really care but also because it rarely comes up because everybody's tires simply work well.

[V8 Fireworks]

I dont think we'll have much of a clue how any of these drivers are going to handle this no refueling/nurse your tires strategy best.

2005 they had to use same tyres whole race though.

These low-cost Bridgeys won't be as good as big buck tyre war tyres of course also.

[New Britain]

my money is on the tires being extremely unreliable and the teams being unable to gauge their wear.
This way Bridgestone will be able to have their name allover the news, as teams struggle to grasp the wear rates and the safety factor will be brought up randomly over the season as info is "leaked" out that the tires may be ill-suited to "certain" untested circuits putting "unforeseen" loads on the tires.

Not unlike what you see in nascar when goodyear gets called out on supplying an unsafe tire for certain tracks
whether it be because of speeds or track surfaces

Goodyear's name is then everywhere from the interweb to the TV to radio and weekly periodicals
if this was bad press they wouldn't allow it to occur
but since any publicity is good publicity
they supply "substandard" tires and on sunday after the mandatory cautions and tire changes provide little to no example of the fabricated fears, Goodyear is vindicated and the public's awareness level rises and their reputation gets buoyed by all the wolf tickets sold

until the next time they pull the same farce

Bridgestone has been watching and studying this publicity model intently and will unleash it's own version on F1 with dramatic effect and success

With respect, I must say that this is one of the most ludicrous pieces of attempted insight that I have seen.

In the first place, if you really think that Goodyear benefited from having been unable to produce a tyre for Indy '08 that could be raced for more than 10 laps, you're crazy. That debacle made them look incompetent. Believe it or not, when a tyre manufacturer looks incompetent to millions of people, the result is that they sell fewer tyres.

In the second place, your argument relies on the notion that the engineers who develop and spec the tyres are so cynical that they would purposefully put 43 drivers on defective equipment so that they could put their lives unnecessarily at risk at average speeds of 180+.

In the third place, if what you are alleging were true and were to be revealed - that Goodyear had intentionally supplied defective or inadequate tyres simply in order subsequently to improve them and somehow gain credit from that improvement - the brand would be discredited and effectively destroyed, and there also would be litigation.

"Any publicity is good publicity" may be a facile catch-phrase, but it also is utter nonsense. Do you imagine that Tiger Woods' sponsors believe that today?

[One]

It is easy to believe that the one that is easy on the tires will be best off if tire wear is an issue. That is only partly true. If you are the fastest AND is easy on the tires, it is a good thing, but "being easy on the tires" might also mean "unable to use the most of them". And that will be the key. To use the most of them.

Interesting article on Mclaren on the Autosport. Mclaren think that car defines the degradation more than any driving style (differences of their two drivers). Button is named as the high speed track specialist who may excel their expectation(s), which does not onvince me that Button is either case of your note.

[DOF_power]

2005 they had to use same tyres whole race though.

These low-cost Bridgeys won't be as good as big buck tyre war tyres of course also.

And the racing was pretty dull. With no tire war my guess is it will only get worse.

[Clatter]

And the racing was pretty dull. With no tire war my guess is it will only get worse.

Racing was dull? You must have been watching a different 2005 to the one I watched.

[DOF_power]

Given the nature of F1's mini-sprint format for the past 15-odd years, I dont think we'll have much of a clue how any of these drivers are going to handle this no refueling/nurse your tires strategy best. Its gonna open up a new variable between the drivers that certain ones will likely adapt to better.

It'll be interesting, I think. I'd definitely like to see the comeback of the 'Prost' approach, which disappeared when refueling returned.

The Prost comeback disappeared with the dominant 88-89 McLarens and then Williamses.

Besides the superior engine-engine electronics combo of the TAG-Porsche/Honda boys allowed "more power per hour" and McLaren, Ferrari and Williams had things like carbon-carbon brakes while most needed till 92/93 to get there, also played a big part.

With no shitty team, shitty cars and shitty pay drivers making up most of the field, Prost wouldn't have made most of his comebacks.

[DOF_power]

Racing was dull? You must have been watching a different 2005 to the one I watched.

Apart from Suzuka I don't remember any good/great race.

[Seanspeed]

It's already happening since '07, we have these standard tires that have an incredibly narrow operating window to make sure the drivers and teams are always talking about the tires and how difficult it is to use them properly, coupled with the two-compound rule to also create artificial buzz around the tires. Bridgestone does everything to keep their name in the media and sadly even go as far as compromising the quality of their tires. Think about it, how many times do we read or hear the name Bridgestone compared to other racing series with a single tire supplier. In most other series I watch I don't have a clue who the tire supplier is, partially because I dont really care but also because it rarely comes up because everybody's tires simply work well.

I dont know, you hear Goodyear quite a bit in NASCAR. And F1 is high-profile, so being the tire supplier of such a series is going to be something talked about, especially when everybody has different cars and uses the tires differently.

Speaking of which, I think much is made out of how hard the tires are to use, but the teams all get them working just fine 95% of the time. I also find it a convenient excuse for teams/drivers to use when they aren't 'on it'.

You're right about the two-tire rule, though. It was as much for publicity as it was to inject strategy into the races.

[Clatter]

Apart from Suzuka I don't remember any good/great race.

I thought it was a great season and I think most were disappointed when tyre changes were brought back again.

[robracer]

I thought it was a great season and I think most were disappointed when tyre changes were brought back again.

I think your wrong. When tyre changes came back the racing became better IMO.

[Hairpin]

I think your wrong. When tyre changes came back the racing became better IMO.

No, he is right.

[robracer]

No, he is right.

There is no definate answer, just what peoples opinions are. This is why I said IMO (in my opinion) the racing was better when tyre changes came back.

[Hairpin]

There is no definate answer, just what peoples opinions are. This is why I said IMO (in my opinion) the racing was better when tyre changes came back.

I forgot the smiley

[nada12]

I dont know, you hear Goodyear quite a bit in NASCAR. And F1 is high-profile, so being the tire supplier of such a series is going to be something talked about, especially when everybody has different cars and uses the tires differently.

Speaking of which, I think much is made out of how hard the tires are to use, but the teams all get them working just fine 95% of the time. I also find it a convenient excuse for teams/drivers to use when they aren't 'on it'.

You're right about the two-tire rule, though. It was as much for publicity as it was to inject strategy into the races.

There was a segment on I think RTL in the beginning of this year where Heidfeld(?) explained how they have to drive in a very specific manner to heat up the tires the right way and if someone impedes them on their outlap (!!) then the hot lap is basically ruined (Exaggerated of course, but an ideal lap isn't possible anymore). I wish I had a link, but stuff like this just sounds ridiculous to me.

I think BS are well aware of how they could improve their tires but they don't, because it keeps their name in the media but they still save face because they can always point to the other guy who got the procedure right and say 'Hey look, he can use them, why can't you?' And I agree about teams/drivers using the tires as a lame excuse for their own failure, but there are two sides to it. If Bridgestone gave them tires that weren't as difficult to use they just wouldn't have that excuse. And I just don't think tires are supposed to be difficult.

[pingu666]

I guess it depends how far the teams are from optimum, also teams can be much more critical in a single tyre supply situation

im wondering if we will see guys trying to short pit, ala nascar, get new tyres on and go faster than the chaps on old tyres and leapfrog them

[BullHead]

Button to be the best yet again?

Over the race, certainly a good driving technique advantage. But possibly could suffer in quali.

[DOF_power]

I thought it was a great season and I think most were disappointed when tyre changes were brought back again.

There was only one good race and that was Suzuka.
It was bad with multiple tires and free engines, it will get worse with spec tires and rev limited engines.

Edited by DOF_power, 30 November 2009 - 21:46.

[Seanspeed]

There was a segment on I think RTL in the beginning of this year where Heidfeld(?) explained how they have to drive in a very specific manner to heat up the tires the right way and if someone impedes them on their outlap (!!) then the hot lap is basically ruined (Exaggerated of course, but an ideal lap isn't possible anymore). I wish I had a link, but stuff like this just sounds ridiculous to me.

I think BS are well aware of how they could improve their tires but they don't, because it keeps their name in the media but they still save face because they can always point to the other guy who got the procedure right and say 'Hey look, he can use them, why can't you?' And I agree about teams/drivers using the tires as a lame excuse for their own failure, but there are two sides to it. If Bridgestone gave them tires that weren't as difficult to use they just wouldn't have that excuse. And I just don't think tires are supposed to be difficult.

Having to drive in a specific manner to take advantage of the equipment you have is just a part of F1. I'm sure drivers next year are going to have to drive a bit different than they do now in order to take best advantage of the ban on refueling and longer-life tires.

And I dont think the BS tires were all that bad. Like I said, it seems that 95% of the time, a team could get them working just fine. I think they're just annoyed that now instead of just trying out different tires to suit their car, they have to make the car suit the tires. Either way, I think its still a good battle of engineering, which I thought people liked about F1? Sure, its a bit difficult sometimes, but so I think it should be.

And I dont think that BS purposefully set out to make a bad tire, either. I think they just dont worry about ever improving them. And thats likely something that a single tire supplier was supposed to bring, cuz having more than tire manufacturer means a tire war, which costs lots and lots of money. One thing is for sure, though, it does make it consistent for the teams.

I dont know. I'm just not as pessimistic over having this single tire supplier. I kind of like that all teams are on equal grounds in this regard, as it makes it more(but not totally) a matter of who builds the better car and not who happens to be on the right tires for the specific track/situation.

[DOF_power]

Having to drive in a specific manner to take advantage of the equipment you have is just a part of F1. I'm sure drivers next year are going to have to drive a bit different than they do now in order to take best advantage of the ban on refueling and longer-life tires.

And I dont think the BS tires were all that bad. Like I said, it seems that 95% of the time, a team could get them working just fine. I think they're just annoyed that now instead of just trying out different tires to suit their car, they have to make the car suit the tires. Either way, I think its still a good battle of engineering, which I thought people liked about F1? Sure, its a bit difficult sometimes, but so I think it should be.

And I dont think that BS purposefully set out to make a bad tire, either. I think they just dont worry about ever improving them. And thats likely something that a single tire supplier was supposed to bring, cuz having more than tire manufacturer means a tire war, which costs lots and lots of money. One thing is for sure, though, it does make it consistent for the teams.

I dont know. I'm just not as pessimistic over having this single tire supplier. I kind of like that all teams are on equal grounds in this regard, as it makes it more(but not totally) a matter of who builds the better car and not who happens to be on the right tires for the specific track/situation.

The cliptheapex charts prove it's wrong to have spec tires.

[Seanspeed]

It was bad with multiple tires and free engines, it will get worse with spec tires and rev limited engines.

I dont see what having spec tires has to do with the amount of overtaking. There has been single tire manufacturers in F1 before.

I think thats pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

[Seanspeed]

The cliptheapex charts prove it's wrong to have spec tires.

No, it doesn't.

[Sausage]

It only proves the guy who made them is mentally challenged. F1 in the old days had a bit more passing than today, but a lot of failures and tyre-strategy too wich created passing but can't really count as it

[pingu666]

no one has run a stratagy which intended to pass cars for years, atleast that i can remmber

[Clatter]

The cliptheapex charts prove it's wrong to have spec tires.

Your charts prove nothing.

http://forums.autosp...;hl=tyre change

Opinion is much more powerful.

[DOF_power]

Your charts prove nothing.

http://forums.autosp...;hl=tyre change

Opinion is much more powerful.

What does that mean ?!

[Clatter]

What does that mean ?!

Read the thread. The majority of people viewed the one tyre rule as positive, and were unhappy about the change back. Doesn't matter what stat you might want to produce, the fans opinion on what was better counts far more.