35 replies to this topic

[Muz Bee]

With the need to carry all that fuel tyres provided by Bridgestone have to be much more "durable". At Bahrain it was apparent that the tyres had to be nursed during the race - a hot lap would inevitably be followed by a cooldown lap. Whether this represents a significant shift in how the drivers will attack a race in 2010 is a question I would like to put. Certainly there have been weekends in the past when this has been the case, especially at the hotter venues and when the tyre supplier(s) have brought a marginal compound to the event. Does Bahrain 2010 mark a turning point towards serious tyre preservation reminiscent of the fuel saving days when a limited capacity was mandated? (Boring races which could only be "read" by the teams themselves.)

I'll start the discussion by adding my opinion. The ideal race scenario is when drivers are driving flat out not saving tyres or fuel. Looking after a tired motor is one thing but when we can't see the true potential of a car/driver because the penalty for pressing on will be too great, something is lost. This will always have a degree of relevance but it appears that the Bridgestones at Bahrain were pathetic. Certainly a number of the drivers were frustrated. Maybe BS will come up with some really good hoops before Australia.....

[Menace]

They always have limited performance. But with the new rules, they need to make the tyres softer just like Whitmarsh says. The season will be a snore fest if every race is basically a one stopper. Make the soft REALLY soft, so there actually is a major performance increase for a few laps from using them.

The last race was quite dull. The idiotic DD rules (thanks Brawn GP!!)accompanied by the super hard tires is definately not the way to go, in terms of increasing overtaking and battles on the track.

Edited by Menace, 15 March 2010 - 20:58.

[One]

I read the bosses saying the opposite. The tyres are too hard.

Softer tyre does over 20 laps. Harder ones endless.


So we want more difference between the two, like the Good Year ones.


Soft to end up in less then ten laps but with la time differences of more than 3 sec or so.

[ForeverF1]

I would say that, yes, tyres do limit performance (read racing) too much. I would like to see tyres that will last a whole race and maybe more (as they used to), that way, the drivers don't have to worry about tyre degradation and can drive on the limits of those tyres (as they used to).

[noikeee]

For this format to work somewhat until they fix the aero, the tyres need to be softer not harder - so that drivers might have more options than just comfortably do the mandatory 1 stop at the same time everyone does.

I am worried though. Bahrain is supposed to be one of the tracks with the highest tyre wear right? Because of its heat. Well they brought in the softest compound available there, the super softs and it seemed to last more than half the race for most teams. Now imagine on the other tracks with the other harder compounds. Nobody's going to struggle on the tyres on this season, ever. We're never going to have 2-stops vs 1-stops.

I hope somebody can come up and say I'm taking wrong conclusions here, because this isn't looking good.

[OwenC93]

Yep since cars can't overtake without a major difference in performance the tyres need to last a few laps and then break. So you can gain 3 secs a lap on new ones or more. That's never going to happen with the cost though.

[Mandzipop]

For this format to work somewhat until they fix the aero, the tyres need to be softer not harder - so that drivers might have more options than just comfortably do the mandatory 1 stop at the same time everyone does.

I am worried though. Bahrain is supposed to be one of the tracks with the highest tyre wear right? Because of its heat. Well they brought in the softest compound available there, the super softs and it seemed to last more than half the race for most teams. Now imagine on the other tracks with the other harder compounds. Nobody's going to struggle on the tyres on this season, ever. We're never going to have 2-stops vs 1-stops.

I hope somebody can come up and say I'm taking wrong conclusions here, because this isn't looking good.

Looking on the bright side, now they understand what the tyres can do, the drivers might be more confident to push a bit more. Or am I being too over-optimistic?

[craftverk]

I would say that, yes, tyres do limit performance (read racing) too much. I would like to see tyres that will last a whole race and maybe more (as they used to), that way, the drivers don't have to worry about tyre degradation and can drive on the limits of those tyres (as they used to).

with the current aero regs that won't help, tyres have to go off to have any chance of passing someone

if tyres stay consistent we would just see the drivers in the fastest cars romp away with it at the same rate as in qualifying

[ForeverF1]

Yep since cars can't overtake without a major difference in performance the tyres need to last a few laps and then break. So you can gain 3 secs a lap on new ones or more. That's never going to happen with the cost though.

Enforced Pit Stops, are a modern phenomenon to appeal to/for TV. Pit stops, should only be used to keep the cars racing, not to satisfy TV audiences.

[MikeTekRacing]

The idiotic DD rules (thanks Brawn GP!!)

wow, brawngp is/was responsible for f1 rules?

[fed up]

The ideal race scenario is when drivers are driving flat out not saving tyres or fuel. Looking after a tired motor is one thing but when we can't see the true potential of a car/driver because the penalty for pressing on will be too great, something is lost.

+1 agree

This is where F1 has lost its way. Talk amongst the drivers is about saving, be it fuel, tyres, engine revs, gearbox and with the teams, it's about cost savings. Cost savings will kill F1 because it will dumb down the racing.

[craftverk]

The ideal race scenario is when drivers are driving flat out not saving tyres or fuel. Looking after a tired motor is one thing but when we can't see the true potential of a car/driver because the penalty for pressing on will be too great, something is lost. This will always have a degree of relevance but it appears that the Bridgestones at Bahrain were pathetic. Certainly a number of the drivers were frustrated. Maybe BS will come up with some really good hoops before Australia.....

Okay then, so how would this change the result of yesterday's Grand Prix?

+1 agree

This is where F1 has lost its way. Talk amongst the drivers is about saving, be it fuel, tyres, engine revs, gearbox and with the teams, it's about cost savings. Cost savings will kill F1 because it will dumb down the racing.

/facepalm

Conserving your equipment has ALWAYS been part of F1, and is part of motor racing in general. Tell me, how do you think Prost overtook so many people in a Grand Prix? Because he conserved tyres and fuel.

Edited by craftverk, 15 March 2010 - 22:42.

[Muz Bee]

+1 agree

This is where F1 has lost its way. Talk amongst the drivers is about saving, be it fuel, tyres, engine revs, gearbox and with the teams, it's about cost savings. Cost savings will kill F1 because it will dumb down the racing.

And mandatory pitstops ditto = plastic racing series. We need some tyre scenario which will provide opportunities for teams to gamble on different tyre strategy as Ross Brawn sometimes did at Ferrari. The aero is another whole area in need of MAJOR rethink, not tinkering - but that's another subject. The thing about F1 is it seems to always have been able to evolve with the times. The aero is one area that has evolved wrong - it's like all the diffuser designs have been geared as much towards screwing the departing airflow as increasing downforce efficiency.

Clearly Bahrain marked a low point because the progress of the 6 last cars on the grid was almost as interesting as the rest of the field! We wioll have to wait and see but I doubt whether a lack of confidence in the tyres by the drivers/teams contributed greatly to the lack of spectacle. Another approach from Bridgestone's available tyres needs to called for by the teams.

[PassWind]

Tires must limit performance its one of the changeable characteristics of the car, problem really is that the FIA have mandated how this is changeable by forcing the teams to use both tires. Get rid of this rule, and possibly the run what you qual on and strategies can be clean sheet instead of having the already mandated pitstop on there.

Edited by PassWind, 15 March 2010 - 22:42.

[Disgrace]

Tyre war.

[pgj]

Enforced Pit Stops, are a modern phenomenon to appeal to/for TV. Pit stops, should only be used to keep the cars racing, not to satisfy TV audiences.

A standard one element rear wing and optional pitstops.

Tyres are always critical to performance. A drying track is proof of how much tyres can transform a race.

[angst]

I read the bosses saying the opposite. The tyres are too hard.

Softer tyre does over 20 laps. Harder ones endless.


So we want more difference between the two, like the Good Year ones.


Soft to end up in less then ten laps but with la time differences of more than 3 sec or so.

Why is everybody falling for this from Whitmarsh - and to a lesser extent Fry? Whitmarsh stated that the tyres had more life in them than they had anticipated. I get the impression that they discovered this as the race unfolded. They realised that the supersofts were far more durable than they had anticipated...so; why the hell did they radio Button to tell him to go easy on his tyres (the harder compound) that would "have to last till the end of the race"? Why did they "have to" last that long?

I'm sorry, but can nobody see that what Whitmarsh is admitting (read between the lines ffs) that his team failed to react to this new information as it unfolded before them. They learnt it and did...., precisely nothing other than what they had planned under previous data.

So, never mind this 'the tyres are too hard' crap, they understood this and failed to act upon it. They all just slavishly followed each other, nobody daring to take a gamble; like, for instance - if the tyres are more durable than we thought, then let the drivers go for it and perhaps bring them in for a second stop and put some supersofts on with a lighter fuel load and push like hell.

How can anybody take seriously the 'exasperation' of a manager who has just admitted that his team under-utilised the actual properties of the tyres at his disposal?

The problem here is not with the regulations. Forget all this demand for some knee-jerk reaction (compulsory pit-stops or Bernie's 'shortcuts'). The problem is with the teams (and drivers) stuck in a mindset. These people are supposed to be intelligent ...., seems to me they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. If the tyres are better than you thought, then make better use of them. How f***ing simple is that?

[fed up]

They all just slavishly followed each other, nobody daring to take a gamble; like, for instance - if the tyres are more durable than we thought, then let the drivers go for it and perhaps bring them in for a second stop and put some supersofts on with a lighter fuel load and push like hell.

The problem is with the teams (and drivers) stuck in a mindset.

Right you are sir

In F1 these days the teams just cancel themselves out. The competition is very rarely on the track, it's either in the pits, the development race, fuel consumption or whatever. No point trying to overtake as your engine will overheat or the tyres will degrade best to wait for the upgrades for the next race to beat the opposition.

Changing the mindset is the biggest challenge out there and it wont happen over night if ever.

[craftverk]

Why is everybody falling for this from Whitmarsh - and to a lesser extent Fry? Whitmarsh stated that the tyres had more life in them than they had anticipated. I get the impression that they discovered this as the race unfolded. They realised that the supersofts were far more durable than they had anticipated...so; why the hell did they radio Button to tell him to go easy on his tyres (the harder compound) that would "have to last till the end of the race"? Why did they "have to" last that long?

I'm sorry, but can nobody see that what Whitmarsh is admitting (read between the lines ffs) that his team failed to react to this new information as it unfolded before them. They learnt it and did...., precisely nothing other than what they had planned under previous data.

So, never mind this 'the tyres are too hard' crap, they understood this and failed to act upon it. They all just slavishly followed each other, nobody daring to take a gamble; like, for instance - if the tyres are more durable than we thought, then let the drivers go for it and perhaps bring them in for a second stop and put some supersofts on with a lighter fuel load and push like hell.

How can anybody take seriously the 'exasperation' of a manager who has just admitted that his team under-utilised the actual properties of the tyres at his disposal?

The problem here is not with the regulations. Forget all this demand for some knee-jerk reaction (compulsory pit-stops or Bernie's 'shortcuts'). The problem is with the teams (and drivers) stuck in a mindset. These people are supposed to be intelligent ...., seems to me they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. If the tyres are better than you thought, then make better use of them. How f***ing simple is that?

Don't make out you know more than them when it comes to how the tyres behave with their own cars. You wouldn't have known any better if Whitmarsh hadn't said anything.

Edited by craftverk, 15 March 2010 - 23:29.

[angst]

Don't make out you know more than them when it comes to how the tyres behave with their own cars. You wouldn't have known any better if Whitmarsh hadn't said anything.

What are you on about? I'm not pretending I know anything more than they do. It was Whitmarsh who said the tyres were more durable than they expected. Can you not understand? He has told us that his team became aware that the tyres were more durable than they expected and his team did absolutely nothing in reaction to that. They dare not take the risk while they were in a points scoring position - even if that was a lowly seventh place - of taking action on the new data that was coming in. He complained that the tyres were too good, ffs. He's complaining that they didn't make the best use of the tyres.....

[craftverk]

What are you on about? I'm not pretending I know anything more than they do.
It was Whitmarsh who said the tyres were more durable than they expected. Can you not understand?

Then why did you say this:

his team did absolutely nothing in reaction to that. They dare not take the risk while they were in a points scoring position - even if that was a lowly seventh place - of taking action on the new data that was coming in. He complained that the tyres were too good, ffs. He's complaining that they didn't make the best use of the tyres.....

You've contradicted yourself if you ask me.

[senna da silva]

Tyre war.

[Muz Bee]

I'm not sure how tyre degradation works but I know there have been times (and Bahrain 2010) seems to be an example where tyre degradation of one sort happens when you push too hard on them but the performance comes back, you just have to cool them and their performance returns. This is a separate issue to destroying the tyre IMHO. I agree that knee jerk reactions to the race would not be a great idea but I do hope that Bridgestone using data and feedback from teams will come back to Melbourne with two sets of tyres which provide the opportunity for the drivers to push them (the cars/tyres) to the limit for more than 1 lap.

Edited by Muz Bee, 16 March 2010 - 00:00.

[rolf123]

Out of interest, has a new tyre supplier(s) for next year yet been decided?

In this financial climate, which tyre manufacturers would take a chance on F1?

Maybe they'll have to use GP2 tyres! (I have no idea who makes those).

[angst]

Then why did you say this:


You've contradicted yourself if you ask me.

Eeeermm. How so? I'll write this slowly.... Whitmarsh has told us that the tyres were more durable then they anticipated. He has told us how the tyres were acting. What did his team do with this new information? What did his team do, knowing that the tyres were more durable than they expected? They radioed their driver and told him to look after his tyres....

[craftverk]

Eeeermm. How so? I'll write this slowly.... Whitmarsh has told us that the tyres were more durable then they anticipated. He has told us how the tyres were acting. What did his team do with this new information? What did his team do, knowing that the tyres were more durable than they expected? They radioed their driver and told him to look after his tyres....

What do you think they could've done?

[angst]

What do you think they could've done?

I've already said. If the tyres, as it turned out, were more durable, then they could have pushed the hard tyres more, told Button to push - rather than telling him to look after his tyres. Push the tyres and put pressure on Schumacher. See how the tyres hold out under that sort of pressure. Hey, maybe this new - more aggressive - strategy might have allowed Button to pass Schumacher and then pull out a lead over him.

Once they've figured that out then they can say, hey see if you can eek out even more of a lead and close on Rosberg. They could look at the race pace of their rivals and compare that with their qualifying speeds... and if it turns out their new, more aggressive strategy did pull him away from Schumacher and toward Rosberg at some considerable pace then they might ask him how his tyres are. If they were fast enough comparitively then they might be able to bring him in for a new set of supersofts, on light fuel and put pressure on those ahead, with - potentially - a 5-6 seconds a lap advantage over them.

What this change in strategy might also have done is awaken the teams ahead - to force them to react.

[senna da silva]

I'm not sure how tyre degradation works but I know there have been times (and Bahrain 2010) seems to be an example where tyre degradation of one sort happens when you push too hard on them but the performance comes back, you just have to cool them and their performance returns. This is a separate issue to destroying the tyre IMHO. I agree that knee jerk reactions to the race would not be a great idea but I do hope that Bridgestone using data and feedback from teams will come back to Melbourne with two sets of tyres which provide the opportunity for the drivers to push them (the cars/tyres) to the limit for more than 1 lap.

There clearly needs to be a much larger performance disparity between the compounds. I would like to see about three seconds per lap.

[Menace]

There clearly needs to be a much larger performance disparity between the compounds. .

Edited by Menace, 16 March 2010 - 02:08.

[krapmeister]

I doubt Bridgestone will do that much because they are pulling out at the end of the year - why would they bother?

[pgj]

I've already said. If the tyres, as it turned out, were more durable, then they could have pushed the hard tyres more, told Button to push - rather than telling him to look after his tyres. Push the tyres and put pressure on Schumacher. See how the tyres hold out under that sort of pressure. Hey, maybe this new - more aggressive - strategy might have allowed Button to pass Schumacher and then pull out a lead over him.

Once they've figured that out then they can say, hey see if you can eek out even more of a lead and close on Rosberg. They could look at the race pace of their rivals and compare that with their qualifying speeds... and if it turns out their new, more aggressive strategy did pull him away from Schumacher and toward Rosberg at some considerable pace then they might ask him how his tyres are. If they were fast enough comparitively then they might be able to bring him in for a new set of supersofts, on light fuel and put pressure on those ahead, with - potentially - a 5-6 seconds a lap advantage over them.

What this change in strategy might also have done is awaken the teams ahead - to force them to react.

Agreed.

We did not see a following driver make an effort to get a lead driver to cook his tyres. It may be that it simply was not possible to get close enough to the car in front. If these tyres do go off for a lap or two if they are mishandled then perhaps a strategy will evolve around spending a lap or two trying to put a lead driver in tyre trouble.

Williams reported that a two stopper was the optimal strategy in Bahrain but it involved about five overtakes per stint to make it work.

[angst]

Agreed.

We did not see a following driver make an effort to get a lead driver to cook his tyres. It may be that it simply was not possible to get close enough to the car in front. If these tyres do go off for a lap or two if they are mishandled then perhaps a strategy will evolve around spending a lap or two trying to put a lead driver in tyre trouble.

Williams reported that a two stopper was the optimal strategy in Bahrain but it involved about five overtakes per stint to make it work.

That last line..., right there - along with the comments of Whitmarsh, Button and Alonso - highlight exactly what I've been saying. The teams underused their tyres. There was more performance ( alot more) to be had from them, and all it would have taken would be for one of them to have taken a gamble and put pressure on those ahead of them. The gamble....? To try and use the extra performance in the tyres to get past the car in front and build up a lead over them. If one of those drivers (with the team) had taken that gamble and it had paid off then.... the whole thing takes off. But all that they did (read their comments, read between the lines of their comments) was hold onto what they had in the bag and waited to react to whoever they were following.

Part of this problem is the points system. Hamilton was running seventh. In the old days he'd have been out of the points. As it is, that's 4 points in the bag, and the teams dare not risk give those points finishes up - as things stand, the teams who are expecting to be challenging for the championship are always likely to be running in points scoring positions. F1 has become too much about holding on to what you've got, rather than looking to what might be gained. It has become risk-averse.

[Marbles]

Looking on the bright side, now they understand what the tyres can do, the drivers might be more confident to push a bit more. Or am I being too over-optimistic?

That's what I'm hoping for. Now that the teams have some hard data to run simulations on, their stifling conservatism may ease somewhat in the following races. Renault, in particular, should have an advantage in this regard, given Kubica's charge through the rear of the field (which apparently was halted by fuel considerations, not a lack of rubber).

Have my fingers crossed, too, Mandzipop

[99cent]

That last line..., right there - along with the comments of Whitmarsh, Button and Alonso - highlight exactly what I've been saying. The teams underused their tyres. There was more performance ( alot more) to be had from them, and all it would have taken would be for one of them to have taken a gamble and put pressure on those ahead of them. The gamble....? To try and use the extra performance in the tyres to get past the car in front and build up a lead over them. If one of those drivers (with the team) had taken that gamble and it had paid off then.... the whole thing takes off. But all that they did (read their comments, read between the lines of their comments) was hold onto what they had in the bag and waited to react to whoever they were following.

Part of this problem is the points system. Hamilton was running seventh. In the old days he'd have been out of the points. As it is, that's 4 points in the bag, and the teams dare not risk give those points finishes up - as things stand, the teams who are expecting to be challenging for the championship are always likely to be running in points scoring positions. F1 has become too much about holding on to what you've got, rather than looking to what might be gained. It has become risk-averse.

Why not just give points to the top three then?

[krapmeister]

Agreed.

We did not see a following driver make an effort to get a lead driver to cook his tyres. It may be that it simply was not possible to get close enough to the car in front. If these tyres do go off for a lap or two if they are mishandled then perhaps a strategy will evolve around spending a lap or two trying to put a lead driver in tyre trouble.

Williams reported that a two stopper was the optimal strategy in Bahrain but it involved about five overtakes per stint to make it work.

Did you not see the onboard shots from Webber's car? It certainly looked to me like he was trying to pressure the car (Button, Schumi) in front - locking the fronts up, understeering wide etc - but it was pretty noticeable that he would then have to drop back, let the tyres recover and he would then zoom up behind them and start the same process all over again.

[Anamihamilton]

Were the drivers scared of their tyre wear, yes, did they use their tyres efficiently, no, can they get more out of their tyres during the race, definitely so.