69 replies to this topic

[steveninthematrix]

bridgestone bring tires, which can easily last the whole race..., so, for every dry race, it will be,

quali on soft, drive 10-20 laps, put on hards and drive to the end.


now, if bridgestone brought a hard-tire, which only lasts 50% of the race + -, and a soft-tire which is 2 seconds a lap faster + -, but only lasts 15% of the race.... think of the permutations



soft,hard,soft, soft, vs soft hard, hard, vs hard, hard (no more must use each tire rule perhaps?)


with bridgestones super safe tires, drivers know the tire is extremely consistent... we need grippier hard-tire, and super-grippier soft tire, which cannot last the entire race when both used, so teams would need to pit twice

i think this would solve a lot,

not sure why im making this post, because no one at the FIA or bridgestone has ever thought about this

[Atreiu]

We had lots of processions during the tyre war.
Silverstone 2006 was painful, and there were no DDDs around.
Hungary 2004 was like hell to watch. As a matter of fact, I couldn't. It bored me beyond anything I'd ever been through before.

I don't see any simple and quick fix by simply serving different tyres.

[CatharticF1]

I agree entirely - Bridgestone don't want their tyres to look bad and so they naturally supply grippy durable tyres.

When for the quality of the racing either:

1. Grippy fragile tyres
2. Low (much lower than current) durable tyres

.. is what we need.

In the former drivers need to manage the tyres against raw speed and when they don't the differential promotes overtaking. In the second case the overall reduced grip level and lack of marbles would allow alternative lines and longer braking zones.

As it stands I firmly believe you're better off designing a car that is hard on its tyres because you'll get heat in them quickly in the wet or cold qualifying and Bridgestone (within reason) will always bring a tyre that's aimed at the worst performing team. Because they don't want their tyres to look bad.

[slideways]

The teams would probably just redesign their suspension to work the tyres less.

Pit stops make for artificial racing anyway. Give them two compounds, both of which will last a full race distance, but will behave differently over the race.

[packapoo]

I'm rather lost as to how tyres seem able to win this race but cost someone the next.
Sometimes there seems no consistency.
Are they the same from race to race....is the hard compound, say, consistantly the same or does it vary from track to track?
And similar for the other compounds. Just curious.

[Augurk]

I'm rather lost as to how tyres seem able to win this race but cost someone the next.
Sometimes there seems no consistency.
Are they the same from race to race....is the hard compound, say, consistantly the same or does it vary from track to track?
And similar for the other compounds. Just curious.

That is how I understand it. There are 4 compounds I think: Supersoft, soft, medium, hard. These are the same throughout the entire season I think. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for BS to say they would bring the supersofts and the mediums, or the softs and the hards, etc. They would just say we bring options and primes to every race.

[slideways]

Yes the same compound for each gradient over the race season. The same compound may react (very) differently to the various track surfaces and conditions you have at each GP though.

[domhnall]

Well last year the bridgestone tyres fell apart in the first couple of races. The racing was great, but a lot of people complained about it. That's why I think Bridgestone have been overly conservative this year, and i don't blame them for it. I also get the impression that they wanted to spend as little as possible on this years program so going down the conservative route is the quick way to cover all tracks. As tyre wear obviously varies greatly between circuits, I reckon they didn't want to pour money into developing tyres that behaved a certain way on every track. It is pretty ridiculous that you can run competitive laps on a set of tyres that 60-70 laps old. The GP2 races were a lot more interesting at the weekend as some people struggled greatly with rear tyre wear. It made for some good racing and interesting viewing as you could guys sliding around more and more as the race progressed. Anyway i don;t really see bridgestone making any changes mid-season so we have what we have. Also i think it's important not to make rash judgements about overtaking after we've just had Spain and Monaco back to back. They along with Valencia and Hungary are surely the hardest places to overtake. Turkey with it's long turn 8 might produce a good race.

[One]

If the tyres are specified softer for the next year, the engineers will make the car which build their car's race option as large as possible. So in effect the results of your hypothetical condition are close to this year, perhaps.

[The Ragged Edge]

F1 is all about self interest. You cannot place the blame on the type/quality of tyres Bridgestone provide. The teams were given the option pre-season, of 2 compulsory pitstops and some teams voted against it, primarily because their car was easy on their tyres. As we stand today with all the teams capable of running 1 stop strategies, we are going to see processional one stop races, with teams covering each others pit stops.

Edited by The Ragged Edge, 18 May 2010 - 08:18.

[Henrik B]

That is how I understand it. There are 4 compounds I think: Supersoft, soft, medium, hard. These are the same throughout the entire season I think. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for BS to say they would bring the supersofts and the mediums, or the softs and the hards, etc. They would just say we bring options and primes to every race.

That is correct, and to ensure more variety they always select compounds two steps apart (with some exceptions, I think) - in Monaco they use Supersoft and medium. I however agree with the OP that the entire range seem to be a bit too hard, or perhaps not enough difference between them. Hard to draw any conclusions from Monaco, it's such a special race, but generally speaking something is wrong when someone can drive an entire race on one set of tyres. That was not the intention. It's even worse when someone can drive almost an entire rae on the softer compund.

[Jay101]

I would blame the two tyre rule a lot more for processions, if they kept the rule that you start the race on the tyres you qualified on then we would see a mix of stratigies, with some opting to qualify in the top 5 on softs gaining early track position and hoping to drive off into the distance, then you'll have others qualifying on hard rubber and planing to go the distance on one set of tyres. If they do jump the 1 stoppers at the pitstops then the 1 stoppers would soon catch up and mount there attack. Fred basically did the entire race on one set of hards from the back of the pack and it worked well for him.

[sosidge]

F1's fundamental problem is the cars.

The fundamental problem with the cars is the aero.

To blame the tyres misses the point entirely.

Has it actually come down to criticising a company for making a good product? Does F1 actually need artificially induced failures to become interesting?

[One]

This is a too simplistic definition Sosidge.

F1 is there because the cars run so well in speed. So why do you blame cars as the fundamental problem?

[sosidge]

This is a too simplistic definition Sosidge.

F1 is there because the cars run so well in speed. So why do you blame cars as the fundamental problem?

Because they cannot overtake one another unless there are exceptional track conditions or a laptime advantage of 2s. And that is entirely a result of the car design, not a result of the tyre compounds.

[buzatlas]

No, it's not the tyres.

What's lacking is that there should be a way for a car slightly faster to pass another and as things are you need to be about 3 seconds faster to do it. (Monte Carlo apart)

[jez6363]

F1's fundamental problem is the cars.

The fundamental problem with the cars is the aero.

To blame the tyres misses the point entirely.

Has it actually come down to criticising a company for making a good product? Does F1 actually need artificially induced failures to become interesting?

Totally agree - its aero that needs fixing, nothing else.

During the tv coverage for Monaco they showed various bits of older races and I was shocked to see the amount of tyre debris on the track - it wasn't just a case of a few bits - the track was more like a path through a ploughed field with a narrow racing line - off line looked undriveable. At the end of this race the amount of marbling was much much less. I think Bridgestone have got a really good balance at the moment, they are doing everything right for F1 racing.

If you brought back tyres that only lasted half a race, or a third of a race, then obviously the rubber that used to be on those tyres has to end up on the track and we would be back with huge marbling.

Its more important to be able to race off-line than depend on tyres going off to give a chance of racing. There would be no point in having a tyre wear differential if the result of that was that you had no chance of going off-line to overtake.

If we had 80's aero on the current cars we would have an awesome series right now.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

I think they just don't want their tyres to look bad. Simples.

[y2cragie]

Also take into account they are trying to save money, if they can just bring enough tyres for just the one stop while still looking good, they will. If the teams had to make another stop, they'd be demanding an extra set of new tyres added to their allocation, which is more money.
The thing that is stupid, is the rule that says you must use both sets. Maybe a couple of years back when some cars didn't work properly on one set it worked, but now every car manages the tyres so well its pointless. Teams should be allowed to run whatever tyres they want during a race. Have a manditory pitstop if the tyre company are going to make a tyre that can last a whole race. Also get rid of marking them. I actually dont care so much what tyre they are on, if it means other teams around them are left guessing as to what they might be doing. Make the strategists earn their money. If they cant see what tyre a team has put on then they cant just call a car in the next lap to cover the stop. They might have to actually watch the lap times of a rival closely to work out the tyres they are on and adjust their strategy accordingly. There is a little too much openess these days in F1. Like when they started releasing fuel amounts. F1 at times is so boring, I think we need a little suspense and surprise brought back to it.

[Grenada]

bridgestone bring tires, which can easily last the whole race..., so, for every dry race, it will be,

quali on soft, drive 10-20 laps, put on hards and drive to the end.


now, if bridgestone brought a hard-tire, which only lasts 50% of the race + -, and a soft-tire which is 2 seconds a lap faster + -, but only lasts 15% of the race.... think of the permutations



soft,hard,soft, soft, vs soft hard, hard, vs hard, hard (no more must use each tire rule perhaps?)


with bridgestones super safe tires, drivers know the tire is extremely consistent... we need grippier hard-tire, and super-grippier soft tire, which cannot last the entire race when both used, so teams would need to pit twice

i think this would solve a lot,

not sure why im making this post, because no one at the FIA or bridgestone has ever thought about this

Why don't they bring tyres that will just last for a whole race and don't wear (I'm sure they have the technology) so that drivers just race, you know, RACE, without having to "conserve their tyres" and "back off and cruise"? I think that is one of the main reasons for the processional boring races. When someone is trying to overtake, their tyres go off from being behind a car for a few laps and that is the end of their attempt.

If we want to see real flat out, give it their all racing, make sturdier tyres that will last the whole race so there is no pit stop strategy necessary.

Unless someone with more technical knowledge can inform me as to why this wouldn't be a good idea, I maintain that I cannot understand why they don't go down this route.

[GSiebert]

Tires are only one part of the problem, the others are aero, brakes and tracks.

[rhukkas]

Bridgestone build fantastic tyres that last incredibly well and you want them to tarnish their own reputation? Good luck with that! This is a consequence of one-make tyres but to expect Bridgestone to screw themselves over is dreaming

[pgj]

I don't like forced tyre changes. If we have to use at least two sets of tyres per race then teams should be able to mix and match them.

[tkulla]

I don't like forced tyre changes. If we have to use at least two sets of tyres per race then teams should be able to mix and match them.

Okay, today wasn't a procession and was actually an exciting race, but it's still disappointing to see the soft tyre last the entire race with no trouble at all (Vettel). I won't be sorry to see Bridgestone leave the sport - Pirelli won't be nearly so conservative and that will bring more strategy and excitement to the races.

[Captain Tightpants]

Fifty-two laps? On a "soft" tyre?

Am I the only one who remembers a time when soft tyres would last fifteen laps?

[Mastah]

...while intermediates last 10 laps .

[Captain Tightpants]

...while intermediates last 10 laps .

If they're used wrongly, yes. It seems that the only way to get any tyre wear these days is to bolt a set of extreme wets on in the dry. Like Ferrari did with Raikkonen at Sepang last year.

[Anja]

When you can drive a full race distance on one set of "soft" tyres - something isn't right here. Now let's just hope that Pirelli's words about making the tyres good for the show wasn't just some PR bullsh*t.

[domhnall]

well the track has only 6 corners and they couldn't bring the super soft tyre as it would overheat on the straights. So low degradation was inevitable. This is what happens when you limit yourself to 4 generic compounds for the entire season.

[hotstickyslick]

Vettel, 52 laps on the soft tyre. Ridiculous.

[sosidge]

So, what you are saying is that you would rather watch a race determined by mechanical failures than by driving skill?

F1 technical regs still don't permit enough overtaking, that is true. But blaming durable tyres for issues with the car's aerodynamics missed the point entirely.

They should get rid of the compulsory stop use of both compounds though.

[Captain Tightpants]

So, what you are saying is that you would rather watch a race determined by mechanical failures than by driving skill?

F1 technical regs still don't permit enough overtaking, that is true. But blaming durable tyres for issues with the car's aerodynamics missed the point entirely.

They should get rid of the compulsory stop use of both compounds though.

I would want to see tyres that are at that point where a driver can conserve them if he wants to, but which yield enough grip for him to take a run at someone. It stands to reason that the harder you push, the more your tyres wear down, but this should be more pronounced.

[SilentKiller]

Well thanks to Bridgestone's everlasting tyres I think the whole strategy thing has gone out of the toilet this season, especially during dry races.
AFAIK only Canada was a dry race where the 1-stop strategy was not the norm.
I mean how many times have we seen the lead change in a dry race due to strategy( Except today and Hungary thanks to Safety car as well as the soft tyres for Webber).
This season has been interesting thanks to multiple teams in the fray as well as lots of mistakes by the top drivers but the top positions are almost decided after the first 3-5 laps barring any reliability issues.

[sblick]

I think that tire lasting the "whole" race was ridiculous. I am still of the thought that if you run softs that shouldn't last more than 25% of the race.

The problem for Pirelli may be the marketing aspect when drivers say the tires aren't durable enough.

Could it have been just as easy for Bridgestone to put less rubber on the tread to make them wear out faster or is the thickness of the tread part of its safety for the high speeds?

[King Six]

I'll be glad to see the back of Bridgestone, they can't leave Formula 1 quick enough. Pirelli will be the same, however they should give us a something interesting in the beginning as they're relatively new to all of this. But after awhile I'm sure we'll be wishing to see the back of Pirelli too.

The FIA need to be much more strict to the tyre manufacturers. If the tyre companies don't want to play ball then the FIA/F1/FOTA should try and start manufacturing their own tyres.

Edited by King Six, 12 September 2010 - 19:41.

[Clatter]

Bridgestone build fantastic tyres that last incredibly well and you want them to tarnish their own reputation? Good luck with that! This is a consequence of one-make tyres but to expect Bridgestone to screw themselves over is dreaming

And yet the race that got BS the most kudos and good publicity was Canada.

[sawyer_si]

Vettel, 52 laps on the soft tyre. Ridiculous.

Actually, he did almost 60 laps on it, since he had to qualify on them as well...

[Fastcake]

Actually, he did almost 60 laps on it, since he had to qualify on them as well...

And he was hardly trundling around for much of the race.

[Lights]

The only dry race in which strategy was a vital and fun part of the race was Montreal. It worked there, it was awesome. I hope Pirelli will make sure we can have more of those races next year.

[808Fail]

Surely there is also a safety risk with tyres that go off super quickly?

[Clatter]

Surely there is also a safety risk with tyres that go off super quickly?

Why? It's not like they are working one second and crap the next. It just means pitting earlier.

[jjcale]

Its funny... when some of us pointed the durability of this years tyres as early as during preseason testing, we were pretty much mocked as LH fanboys and supplied with quotes by Hamashima and the likes of Mark Hughes and other journos telling us that the primes would last 2/3 distance and the options 1/3 distance and warned that "aggressive" drivers would not be able to manage this. Even some teams believed this BS despite the on track evidence to the contrary and amazingly Macca gave LH an extra pitstop in Aus based on Hamashima's info.... Despite watching MS run on one set of tyres for pretty much 2 solid hours of testing on the afternoon of the last day in Barcelona.

Why is it so hard for people to accept what their eyes tell them and ignore PR crap?? Lots of the information about F1 is spun PR crap, its an industry more than it is a sport... but you get shouted down whenever you try to explain the practical implications of this, like their being a snowball in hell's chance that Ferrari would be penalised for anything the week before Monza ... like Bridgestone would never risk developing a marginal tyre this year as they would not risk the potential for bad publicity if they were criticised by say Ferrari or a number of F1 teams.

and...Why should Bridgestone give a monkey's about the quality of the racing, they're pulling out FFS.


I cant believe its taken till race 13 (or 14, whichever it is) for this thread to appear.

[Disgrace]

FYI, original post was back in May and we all commented on it after the first race, if you dig up post-Bahrain stuff.

[Skinnyguy]

I don´t think you can blame Bridgestone. 4 tyre compounds are not enough to cover all the circuits, with enormous differences in tyre ware. Today´s tyre choice wouldn´t last long in Canada, and would complete almost 2 races today.

In mid 2000´s sometimes a brand carried 6 different compounds to a GP!

[Clatter]

I don´t think you can blame Bridgestone. 4 tyre compounds are not enough to cover all the circuits, with enormous differences in tyre ware. Today´s tyre choice wouldn´t last long in Canada, and would complete almost 2 races today.

In mid 2000´s sometimes a brand carried 6 different compounds to a GP!

2 compounds would be more than enough.

[Skinnyguy]

2 compounds would be more than enough.

In case they build them especially for every GP, it would. If you have to build two types of tyre and carry them all around the world, which is the case with the four compounds now, it´s ridiculous to think so.

[One]

Last decades we saw few accidents that were fatal. Now I do think that Pirelli will bring 'bad' tyres - meaning th tyrea which as a lot of on the edge elements in terms of its consistency, interms of its durability grip level and so on - in order to make the racing exciting.

Now the consequence?

[Clatter]

Last decades we saw few accidents that were fatal. Now I do think that Pirelli will bring 'bad' tyres - meaning th tyrea which as a lot of on the edge elements in terms of its consistency, interms of its durability grip level and so on - in order to make the racing exciting.

Now the consequence?

More pit stops.

[jjcale]

FYI, original post was back in May and we all commented on it after the first race, if you dig up post-Bahrain stuff.

I'll get my coat...

[One]

A lot more accidents, I assume.