54 replies to this topic

[Mox]

First of all, let me just say congratulations Seb and Red Bull on a massive season and well-deserved championships.
The purpose of this thread is not to diminish their achievements in any way, and the subject is not meant in favour of any team or driver.


THE BRIDGESTONE TYRES SUCK!!!

Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Prime tyres able to run the full race distance without being more than marginally slower than the option tyres??
Option tyres which, in turn, last for 40 laps at race-leading pace??
And it's not the first time this season it has been like that.

IT'S PATHETIC! It defeates the purpose of having different compounds and forced tyre-changes. It brings no "racing" but puts focus on timing your pitstops to avoid traffic, which - as we all know - Ferrari failed miserably at, today!

Tyres must force drivers to conserve at some point during the race, or suffer a serious drop off in pace.
You should be forced to choose between strategies that either rely on the nursing of the tyres, or on the extra pit-stop.
Under current "must use both compounds" rules, the choice should be between "A-B/B-A" and "A-A-B/A-B-A/B-A-A".

I really, REALLY hope, Pirelli gets this for next season.

Tyre rules should secure "Equal opportunities", but allow strategies to differ, not encourage them to be the same.

(Same goes for KERS btw ... "Same amount of power for the same amount of time for the same amount of laps" adds nothing in terms of racing)

It's elementary ... FIX IT !!!

[Risil]

They don't suck, they were designed back when there was a desire for technical excellence.

Now it seems like the more your tyres behave either like rocks or camembert, the more popular you become.

[DILLIGAF]

When a soft set of tyres can last 33-34 laps at Abu Dhabi like Button's did or 42 laps in Hungary like Webber's did, there is something obviously wrong imho.

[Fastcake]

When a soft set of tyres can last 33-34 laps at Abu Dhabi like Button's did or 42 laps in Hungary like Webber's did, there is something obviously wrong imho.

Or an entire race, like Vettel at Monza. That's just not right.

[mtknot]

did we really need another thread?

So the tyres suck because they're too good now? I wont be surprised when we start complaining about how artificial racing becomes because of bad tyres.

[DILLIGAF]

did we really need another thread?

So the tyres suck because they're too good now? I wont be surprised when we start complaining about how artificial racing becomes because of bad tyres.

So you think the compounds this year enhanced the racing?

[pingu666]

its quite disapointing that the tyres where so good degredation wise that pitting twice just wasnt worth it at every race apart from canada, and even then the final tyres for lewis went over half distance, and others who pitted about the same time

also starting on hards only works if you will be much faster than those around you, normaly

[pingu666]

someones sig on the iracing forums ;)

[Disgrace]

The tyres have always, mostly sucked.

Although the graining stage that made Ferrari wet their pants today changed the championship outcome, they're too strong, hence the awful race in Bahrain when we all though this season would be one of the worst ever. Then they fell apart in Canada, creating one of the best races.

Martin Whitmarsh alluded to "interesting" tyres by Pirelli so there's hope yet that a less experienced brand with infinite less miles under its belt will create inferior tyres, spicing up the racing.

But what we really need is a tyre war. Bring that on.

Edited by Disgrace, 14 November 2010 - 23:17.

[Massa_f1]

its strange cause on a friday practice you would get drivers complaining after about 6 laps on the softs but come sunday there fine sometimes to do a full race

[Nuvol]

It was worse when you had tyre war between B and Michelins.

[Lights]

Was waiting for a thread like this. I kinda agree.

I mean:

Rosberg pitted in lap 1.

In lap 52 out of 55, he drove the 3rd fastest lap of the race.

Just wrong.

Edited by Lights, 14 November 2010 - 23:21.

[Mayur]

Forcing use of both compounds is ludicrous. It has essentially forced everyone to use the same strategy a.k.a Option followed by Prime. It is now also almost impossible to gain places through pitstops because cars are faster after their stops. The guy ahead is obviously the first one to be in a position to come out clear of traffic and he usually makes the call to stop as soon as he knows he can clear traffic. Hamilton tried to go against this behavior today to make something happen and promptly got stuck behind Kubica.

[tifosi]

So the tyres suck because they're too good now?

That was my thought when I read the OP. I mean, it might not be good for racing, but the point isn't that they suck, its that they are too good. The only solution is spec tires with the spec being to make tires that suck.

[Fastcake]

It will also help ditching the ridiculous rule requiring the top drivers to start on their qualiflying tyres. Stops any sort of contary strategies among the top ten.

[Nesto]

Bridgestone are doing it on purpose. Its their last year and they want to show they can build a quality tire. They don't like drivers stating the tires grain and lose performance as that hurts their image in the public view. It shows they make incredibly durable and fast tires for the world's fastest road machines. Pirelli have stated they can do the same but hopefully they won't.

[Lights]

It will also help ditching the ridiculous rule requiring the top drivers to start on their qualiflying tyres. Stops any sort of contary strategies among the top ten.

To be fair, that never worked anyway. Red Bull tried it in Montreal, Button in Japan. It failed. Options were the way to go regardless of qualifying.

[inaki]

I think that there should be just one single type of tyres for every GP and last the full race distance. This is not what it is destroying racing, it is aero vs mechanical grip

[Mayur]

It will also help ditching the ridiculous rule requiring the top drivers to start on their qualiflying tyres. Stops any sort of contary strategies among the top ten.

I have no clue what this rule is supposed to achieve. Is it meant to compromise the strategies of the top 10 and give the other guys a better chance?

Even if this rule goes, I don't believe it will improve the racing much because I think the fastest race strategy is to use the Options first followed by the Prime anyway (keeping in mind the current rule to use both compounds).

[DILLIGAF]

Forcing use of both compounds is ludicrous. It has essentially forced everyone to use the same strategy a.k.a Option followed by Prime.

Yep. The racing would have been better this year if they only had one compound imo - soft.

[Iasius]

For pure racing, I'd say a tyre that lasts the whole race without the artificial 'you have to change at least once' rule would be better. That would mean that you have to pass the car in front of you on the track. And how well you manage your tyres would play into that. Keep better care of them and pass the car later in the race.

However, F1 was never about pure driver skill (I think that's become more pronounced though recently) , it's always been a combination of driver, car, and strategy.

If you really want to see the driver making all the difference, then prohibit strategy (pit stops) and have stock cars. But that wouldn't be F1 anymore.

[smitten]

The tyres don't destroy the racing, they are one of the fundamental excitements of F1 at the moment.

F1 is a technological sport, but sometimes I wonder if it hasn't gone too far. Get rid of semi automatic gearboxes, carbon brakes, and a bunch of downforce and the racing would be very different regardless of the tyres. But it wouldn't be F1 as we know it today. Blaming the tyres rather than understanding all the other aspects is a little shortsighted.

Edited by smitten, 15 November 2010 - 00:06.

[Hairpin]

Tyres are not the problem, but Bridgestone brought in the "must use both compounds" rule and for that I will never forgive them. Apart from that, I do not like sensitive tires that needs to be heated up to the 99.9% of their optimum to give a decent qualy lap. I don't like tires that have an immediate drop-off after each slide and then comes good again. No, I do not like Bridgestone. They have failed miserably in their marketing strategy, they appear like grey boring whiners and give no association to speed and cool chics.

[DILLIGAF]

Tyres are not the problem, but Bridgestone brought in the "must use both compounds" rule and for that I will never forgive them. Apart from that, I do not like sensitive tires that needs to be heated up to the 99.9% of their optimum to give a decent qualy lap. I don't like tires that have an immediate drop-off after each slide and then comes good again. No, I do not like Bridgestone. They have failed miserably in their marketing strategy, they appear like grey boring whiners and give no association to speed and cool chics.

Does Pirelli plan to use two compounds as well?

[P123]

Was waiting for a thread like this. I kinda agree.

I mean:

Rosberg pitted in lap 1.

In lap 52 out of 55, he drove the 3rd fastest lap of the race.

Just wrong.

It's not wrong. This is what you get with a one-make tyre formula. You can't ask Bridgestone to suddenly become technically inept.

I'm sure had their tyres fallen apart after 5 or 6 laps each race then we would all be complaining about tyres having too much of a say in the outcome and the teams would be slating Bridgestone too.

[Doughnut King]

I don't think it necessarily ruins races but the evidence suggests that the cars can run most of the race on the softer of the compounds with a grip level that appears to level off after so many laps. Other than initial pace i don't think it makes too much difference which tyre a car starts on unless the car and track cause a peculiar grip/wear rate.

It kind of makes decision to bring two tyres compounds a bit pointless beyond qualifying and those Kobayashi kind of last few laps of the race strategies.

I would by content to see one tyre compound suitable for all tracks and brought to all races. If the tyre wears out faster or slower at one track so be it, let the teams and drivers manage it.

Edited by Doughnut King, 15 November 2010 - 00:25.

[HappySachs]

The problem with the system is that it's Bridgestone that gets to choose the tyres that the teams use. If instead Bridgestone brought a portfolio of tyres that the teams could choose from and scrapped the 1 stop rule, then you'd have the teams free to pic different strategies based on tyre wear.

I guess you could take it a step further and outline a set of performance specifications for the tyre company that sets targets for durability vs adhesion for each increment in tyre 'hardness'.

anyone see problems with that?

Edited by HappySachs, 15 November 2010 - 02:15.

[Lights]

It's not wrong. This is what you get with a one-make tyre formula. You can't ask Bridgestone to suddenly become technically inept.

I'm sure had their tyres fallen apart after 5 or 6 laps each race then we would all be complaining about tyres having too much of a say in the outcome and the teams would be slating Bridgestone too.

And then I remember the first 10 laps of the Canadian Grand Prix and everybody thinking: 'Awesome!', and even the teams liked the challenge.

Bridgestone certainly doesn't have to make a wrong tyre, but the compounds are still too similar and the 'option' compound they bring to most venues still lasts way longer than necessary. It would be better if it had even more performance but also wears down sooner.

[DILLIGAF]

And then I remember the first 10 laps of the Canadian Grand Prix and everybody thinking: 'Awesome!', and even the teams liked the challenge.

Bridgestone certainly doesn't have to make a wrong tyre, but the compounds are still too similar and the 'option' compound they bring to most venues still lasts way longer than necessary. It would be better if it had even more performance but also wears down sooner.

Canada was one of the best races of the year & a large part of that was because of the tyre wear. The softs weren't falling apart but their performance kept both the teams & fans a little on edge. There should be more of it imo.

[smitten]

Canada was one of the best races of the year & a large part of that was because of the tyre wear. The softs weren't falling apart but their performance kept both the teams & fans a little on edge. There should be more of it imo.

Canada was exciting for the reasons you state, but I wouldn't want it every race. Turning the whole season into more of a tyre management lottery than it already is is not the way to fix any perceived 'problems' with F1. As a one-off it was fabulously exciting, but not for a whole season.

[eoin]

Can people engage their brain? Bridgestone had four(?) compounds that had to cover every track so of course there was going to be tracks where it proved too hard. They also have to design the tyres for 24 cars, not just the leading few which are usually much better at conserving the tyres. On top of that they designed these tyres nearly a year ago so it wasn't possible to know the tyre wear rates.

[ryan86]

There's no problem in having a tyre that lasts the race, but there needs to be a noticable time penalty in running and it must be the hardest tyre of the range.

I'm stuck in two minds. First off, I dont imagine in the 1980's they had these highly powered simulation machines, running millions of races per minute, so if we introduced a choose a compound and stick with it for the weekend, would we end up with 12 teams, typing the info into there machines and then 20 of them all going for the same strategy with a rogue Toro Rosso, Force India or something trying something contrary, sometimes picking up a 5th, other times picking up 19th.

But I do think that Pirelli, who seem to be looking for more "on the edge" tyres, along with the teams and FIA need to make sure that the tyres are playing their part.

[pingu666]

its hard to know if bridgestone did it on purpose, or it was acciedental, but the degredation is pretty minimal on those tyres. Im not sure if anyone really destroyed a set of tyres this year, i guess shumi and webber in canada spring to mind, but elsewhere?

the use the tyres you qualified on comes from sportscars, its used in the ALMS and works quite well, but they can actully pass, which helps. plus a le mans style pitstop you fuel then change tyres, so qualy on harder tyres means you could double stint easier and gain a big chunk of time there vs people who change. didnt really work in f1 with manditory stop and quick pitstop and 2 tyre rule

[Tenmantaylor]

The tyres last a long time and for this you think they suck? Does your TV suck for lasting a long time too? Do you cheer when your car runs out of petrol?

[DILLIGAF]

Canada was exciting for the reasons you state, but I wouldn't want it every race. Turning the whole season into more of a tyre management lottery than it already is is not the way to fix any perceived 'problems' with F1. As a one-off it was fabulously exciting, but not for a whole season.

Good point smitten. How about 3 or 4 Canada type races rather than one though!!

[Buss]

I don't understand this argument that Bridgestone makes such high quality tyres and thats why they last. Their so call super soft compound is relatively hard and their hardest compound is really super hard. It is probably a conscious choice on their behalf because they are of the view that if their tyres are seen to degrade it is bad PR, and it really nothing to do with high quality. If we had a tyre war I am sure Bridgestone could make tyres that on average could deliverer a 2 second quicker average lap time. This would be higher quality (quality equal to optimal performance over a race distance including pitstops, not making the longest lasting tyres). I hope we will see softer compounds next year that will degrade more quickly but deliver a quicker average lap time over a race distance.

[korzeniow]

Don't worry, there is no way Pirelli will make tyres of quality of the Bridgestone's

[engel]

People keep saying that ... make tyres less durable and racing will be good etc etc ... IMO it's wishful thinking in the same vein as take away refueling there will be better racing.

If teams need 2-3-4-164 pitstops in a race they will all adapt quickly and everything will back to where we are now, just with more pitstops. There is 1 quicker way to finish a race, even the worse teams on the grid can afford 4 computers and 2 computer geeks to build them an optimizer. I don't get why people think we will suddenly see 20 different strategies in the race

[korzeniow]

People keep saying that ... make tyres less durable and racing will be good etc etc ... IMO it's wishful thinking in the same vein as take away refueling there will be better racing.

If teams need 2-3-4-164 pitstops in a race they will all adapt quickly and everything will back to where we are now, just with more pitstops. There is 1 quicker way to finish a race, even the worse teams on the grid can afford 4 computers and 2 computer geeks to build them an optimizer. I don't get why people think we will suddenly see 20 different strategies in the race

No one is talking about 20 strategies. But there is high possibility of more strategies than currently.

In Canada Kubica and both Red Bull decided on diffrent strategy and it didn't payd of.

And ban on refueling did improve racing.

[pingu666]

some of the best nascar races are where the tyres have a big degredation, and some of the worst are when the tyres are more consistant, then you got people who are better on old tyres but poor on new, and the other way around, pace wise f1 is too consistant to have that

[WilliamsFWPH]

Th best races this year were Australia, China, Canada, Korea

- wet races

- tyres degradation

[J2NH]

If the tyres work, i.e. last, then no one is going to say anything about them. Bridgestone is not in the sport to have announcers drone on about a driver ruining his Protenza's. Nor do the ever want to be associated with an Indy fiasco. Who can blame them?

Maybe the answer is for the FIA to assume the role as tyre manufacturer and develop a wider range of tyres.

Abandon the rule requiring teams start on the tyre they qualified on for the top 10. Might see some mixed grids if they did.

Don't depend on tyres for good racing. The root cause is the cars that are increasingly becoming spec with areo that does not allow drafting. If cars could follow and gain an advantage from being in the tow the problems would go away.

[Donka]

Or an entire race, like Vettel at Monza. That's just not right.

Yep, wrong with your understanding of quality engineering!

If each compound went off after a certain # of laps what good is that, all the front runners would be forced to pit, further screwing any semblance of strategy that is left after the refueling ban. Might as well just add a 4 second mandatory stop and call it a day, have full race tires. (We're going Green right, right!) Except the full race tire strategy that was implemented and then quickly abandoned (during the Alonso gimme and the Indy fiasco) forced Bridgestone to invest millions into a longer lasting tire. Now those benefits are shamed.

Funny thing is the new Pirelli's are reported to go off much sooner than the current Bridgestone's.

So, the question becomes, how ridiculous is it to continue the refueling ban due to the "excessive cost of transporting fuel rigs around the world", when they're now poised to transport and consume double the amount of tires/rubber than present due to new a manufacturer and "spicing up the show". Why not just bring back refueling if you want multiple stops and strategy to once again play a greater role, this whole "Green initiative" will prove to be the joke that it is.

Edited by Donka, 15 November 2010 - 05:21.

[Hairpin]

Does Pirelli plan to use two compounds as well?

It's not Pirellis choice I think, it's in the rules nowadays.

[unoc]

It's good because then drivers and team can go for a longer harder tyre that will save tehn 20 seconds in the pit lane but will be slower and make it harder to overtake and defend. If there is just over a second a lap at most races between the two I'll be much happier. The softs going off after 15 odd laps aswell.

When both tyres are hard enough to do entire races then you might as well just do a 4 second stop and go as suggested above rather than actually having tyre stratergy. The stratergy shouldn't be

Drive
Saftey car - change tyre
Finish

OR

Drive
Wait for gap and then change
Finish

It should be
Drive
Soft tyres go away - change tyre to soft again
Overtake cars because you aven't pulled out 20 seconds yet,
hard tyres - change
finish

or

drive
soft go awa - change to hard
run with the front of the mid
change to the soft to challenge the soft soft hard runners.
finish.


Much more exciting.


Added to that if the tyres are going away quickly then the driver can save them or use them more. If they last the whole race anyway everyone just needs to go smashing tyres, run them hard run them fast, no need to change as you have to change them anyway and you wont kill them before th change.

making a really soft compound go 5 laps longer is then really important and being able to make a set of tyre use all there go in 5 less laps to gain extra time and jump a car in the pits is also important. Currently button and hamilton generally go on the same stratergy most of the time.

Edited by unoc, 15 November 2010 - 06:48.

[stevewf1]

No, it isn't the tires, it's the racing that's destroying racing...

It's been said a million times before. Get rid of the aero and build tracks where drivers can pass.

Let's add yet another rule to F1: A single set of tires must last for the entire season - see what happens.

Edited by stevewf1, 15 November 2010 - 07:12.

[Daniel Lester]

Would be good to have little more random tyre performance, the Bridgestones are obviously good tyres - well built, durable, offer reasonable performance. However I think tyres should be designed more closely around a grand prix distance, provide a soft option that will last around 80km and a harder option that will go 180km and see who can make them last and who can't. Might facilitate some more agressive strategies, but if track position and the ability or lack of ability to overtake with a given car or at a given track are the main strategy drivers then the tyres are irrelavent. Ironically the closer the cars get in terms of lap time the more important field spread becomes in the first few laps for the leaders as they look for a gap to drop back into. Car aero, evenness of power outputs, tyre grip and track design need to be looked at as one to get the right balance - the Tilke tracks seem to have too many corners which leaves the drivers in turbulence for too much of the lap meaning they aren't close when they arrive on the straights, which in turn is even harder when you all have the same power and similar top speeds.

[pingu666]

I think they would need to go more aggressive on the soft tyres tbh, nearly every race we where told, oh the softs are good for 12 laps. in the race it turns its 12 laps + 50% or more...

[Mox]

did we really need another thread?

So the tyres suck because they're too good now? I wont be surprised when we start complaining about how artificial racing becomes because of bad tyres.

There are different kinds of "good". There is "grippy" good and there is "lasting" good.

If the tyres last forever, with perfect consistency, then they disappear from the equation and make no difference. The purpose of having 2 compounds and forcing use of both, completely vanishes, when the speed differential is marginal and the tyres can last the entire race anyway.

As someone wrote, Rosberg pitted on lap 1 and set the third fastest lap of the race on lap 52 on the prime tyre. That is just ridiculous.

I'm sure there are problems with the aero and the tracks as well, I'm not disputing that, but the lack of tyre degradation makes the tyre rules irellevant.

[Mox]

It should be
Drive
Soft tyres go away - change tyre to soft again
Overtake cars because you aven't pulled out 20 seconds yet,
hard tyres - change
finish

or

drive
soft go awa - change to hard
run with the front of the mid
change to the soft to challenge the soft soft hard runners.
finish.

Spot on!