Jump to content


Photo

New Tyre Rule for 2010


  • Please log in to reply
311 replies to this topic

#1 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 14:59

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/81069

The top 10 drivers (those who make it through to Q3) will have to start the race on the tyres they set their fastest lap on. It's not officially in the regulations, but the SWG has agreed it, and it just needs to be ratified by the WMSC. The rest of the grid can start on whichever tyres they want (new or used, hard or soft).

Advertisement

#2 domhnall

domhnall
  • Member

  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:02

This will really help the cars follow closely, fantastic news :well:

Edited by domhnall, 26 January 2010 - 15:03.


#3 beute

beute
  • Member

  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:03

that's stupid...

with the Refueling ban we finally had back our fastest-guy-on.pole Qualifying, and now they're ruining it before the season even starts...

#4 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,610 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:04

What the hell?

#5 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,770 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:05

Oh no, the one thing most of us here were happy to see the back of, namely race strategies influencing qualifying, they now re-introduce by voting in favour of this silly rule. :rolleyes:

Edited by lustigson, 26 January 2010 - 15:07.


#6 The Ragged Edge

The Ragged Edge
  • Member

  • 4,435 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:05

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/81069

The top 10 drivers (those who make it through to Q3) will have to start the race on the tyres they set their fastest lap on. It's not officially in the regulations, but the SWG has agreed it, and it just needs to be ratified by the WMSC. The rest of the grid can start on whichever tyres they want (new or used, hard or soft).


Those drivers who can get the job done on a single run, on the harder tires, will have the advantage. To be honest it seems a bit gimmicky.


#7 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,542 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:06

FFS we finally get the perfect qualy format where the guy on P1 deserves P1 and now they **** it up.

Jesus fing christ, it boggles the ****ing mind.

Fuckers.

#8 ex Rhodie racer 2

ex Rhodie racer 2
  • Member

  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:06

I´m totally against any rule that discriminates against someone because they are fast. It´s like introducing weight handicaps, or some other form of hindrance. That´s not what fair competition is all about. I call it socialist racing, you know, punish excellence and reward meritocracy. Anyway we could end up seeing trains going around because the guys with bad tyres just hold up those behind.
Not a good idea. :down:

#9 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:06

oh ffs stop changing things. Now drivers wont want to push for pole.

#10 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:07

I bet if noone attends f1 races in person nor watches on tv etc., then we'd show the fools we hate current F1!


Edited by Henrytheeigth, 26 January 2010 - 15:08.


#11 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:09

Oh fer chrissakes, why do they feel the need to create artificial racing its stupid.

It's Formula 1, not WWF.

#12 BiH

BiH
  • Member

  • 2,314 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:09

stupid rule.


but how bad will it be, considering driver can go out do one low fuel run on new tires and return to pit. they are not going to degrade that much in one lap.

#13 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,880 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:09

so, everyone on hards in Q3?

#14 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:10

FFS we finally get the perfect qualy format where the guy on P1 deserves P1 and now they **** it up.

Jesus fing christ, it boggles the ****ing mind.

Fuckers.


Exactly.

#15 Nuvol

Nuvol
  • Member

  • 654 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:10

stop messing with Q rules. Period.

Edited by Nuvol, 26 January 2010 - 15:11.


#16 raiseyourfistfor

raiseyourfistfor
  • Member

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:11

this sucks

#17 postajegenye

postajegenye
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:13

:down: :down: :down:

When it was announced that refuelling would be cancelled, I thought " at least now we'll see proper qualifying sessions with everybody pushing to the limits with an extra light car!" , just like before 2003.

But now it seems they'll ruin quali again.... :/ I want to see the fastest car/driver combo on pole position, not the one with the best tyre....

#18 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:13

Utter idiocy. :mad:


#19 bonjon1979

bonjon1979
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:14

Again, I really don't see why this is such a bad thing. Surely it adds another interesting dynamic to the racing. There were so many people on here bemoaning the fact that the removal of refueling took away an element of tactics from the racing. Now they come up with this solution to add interest and everyone complains again! Fact is that if the fastest car qualifies pole (which it should do) then in the race it's more than likely that that car would just pull away from the rest of the field leading to largely precessional races which everyone on here seems to be against. The main complaint is that there isn't enough overtaking - this rule has created a situation that mixes things up a bit and allows teams to take a gamble. Why must every change be greeted with outrage and indignation before it's even been tried out. Of course cars will still want to push for pole, last year there were some races where there wasn't a huge difference between the two compounds - do you risk losing a few tenths in qualifying going for the harder compound or do you risk compromising the first stint of the race by going out on softs? Come on, these are all interesting choices and we shouldn't damn the initiative without seeing how it pans out first...

Edited by bonjon1979, 26 January 2010 - 15:15.


Advertisement

#20 bonneville

bonneville
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:14

Oh no, the one thing most of us here were happy to see the back of, namely race strategies influencing qualifying, they now re-introduce by voting in favour of this silly rule. :rolleyes:


Exactly. To me this sounds like: "Oh my God, we might just as well get interesting racing this year. Let's do something to keep it boringly predictable".

#21 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:15

"Improving the Show" by punishing success.

Is this supposed to be Wrestling or MotorSPORT ?

#22 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:16

:mad:

Stupid as hell. You know, if there was no forced mid-race tyre stop it wouldn't be half as stupid, but really what the hell? Can't we just be RID of all this for once? We need to campaign against these ****-witted decisions.

#23 patgaw

patgaw
  • Member

  • 504 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:17

that is even more stupid then "must use wrong tyre" rule...
:/

#24 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,542 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:18

but how bad will it be, considering driver can go out do one low fuel run on new tires and return to pit. they are not going to degrade that much in one lap.


Hang on, you may be on to something.

Before too long someone will just do the last flyer on the softer tyre with maybe 90 second sleft int he session then will come in, change to hards and trundle around for a lap.

#25 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:18

Though nothing has been said, I'd assume that if qualifying is wet, and the start of the race is dry (or quali is dry and the start of the race is wet), that that rule will obviously be ignored, and drivers in the top 10 will be able to start on whatever tyres they want. Also I'd imagine if quali is wet and the start of the race is wetter than quali (say quali on inters but start of the race on full wets or vice versa) that again this rule will be ignored for obvious reasons.

#26 Jack-the-Lad

Jack-the-Lad
  • Member

  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:18

Ridiculous. Why this incessant diddling the rules? This isn't a freaking video game.

#27 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,151 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:20

Hang on, you may be on to something.

Before too long someone will just do the last flyer on the softer tyre with maybe 90 second sleft int he session then will come in, change to hards and trundle around for a lap.

"start the race on the tyres they set their fastest lap on"

#28 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:20

Hang on, you may be on to something.

Before too long someone will just do the last flyer on the softer tyre with maybe 90 second sleft int he session then will come in, change to hards and trundle around for a lap.


Nope, won't happen, because it's not the tyre they end the session on, it's the tyre they do their fastest lap with (so if your fastest lap is set using the softs, and then you do a couple of slower laps on hards, you'll still have to start on the soft tyres you used for that fastest run).

#29 shanser

shanser
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:20

this is not good.....
quali will be on super light fuel and the 2 tyres will be seperated by atleast 5tenths....
soft-pole and race compromised
hard- bad quali but race cant say....good or bad...

this is bad man :mad: :mad: :mad:

#30 domhnall

domhnall
  • Member

  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:22

Again, I really don't see why this is such a bad thing. Surely it adds another interesting dynamic to the racing. There were so many people on here bemoaning the fact that the removal of refueling took away an element of tactics from the racing. Now they come up with this solution to add interest and everyone complains again! Fact is that if the fastest car qualifies pole (which it should do) then in the race it's more than likely that that car would just pull away from the rest of the field leading to largely precessional races which everyone on here seems to be against. The main complaint is that there isn't enough overtaking - this rule has created a situation that mixes things up a bit and allows teams to take a gamble. Why must every change be greeted with outrage and indignation before it's even been tried out. Of course cars will still want to push for pole, last year there were some races where there wasn't a huge difference between the two compounds - do you risk losing a few tenths in qualifying going for the harder compound or do you risk compromising the first stint of the race by going out on softs? Come on, these are all interesting choices and we shouldn't damn the initiative without seeing how it pans out first...


I tend to agree with you. Complete over-reaction from most. My favourite has to be 'drivers won't push for pole anymore'. It probably won't change much as i expect the tyre compounds to be pretty similar and have good durability. However I do feel kinda annoyed that all this talk about improving the show leads to very small changes to areas that frankly have little effect. Everyone knows the problem is you can't follow the car in front closely. I'm desperate to see more energy and enthusiasm and innovation in this area. Even some simple things could be done like changing that awful chicane at Barcelona. Why are the people in charge of the sport so completely out of touch???

#31 Chomsky

Chomsky
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:23

Did they get rid of the rule that says they have two use both sets of tires (hard and soft) for the race?

#32 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:23

Surely it adds another interesting dynamic to the racing.


Spreading ball bearings on the tarmac and/or planting land mines below it would also add interesting dynamics to the racing.

#33 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:23

Oh for f*** sake. Stop pissing about with the goddamn rules. I thought FOTA's control was supposed to have stopped this sort of bullshit? I guess not.

#34 Ferrim

Ferrim
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:23

I was expecting them to make 2-stops mandatory. And they have been especulating about making races shorter, so...

...I guess it could have been way worse.

It will depend a lot on which track they are racing. There will be times when the soft tyre will destroy on a few laps; everyone will be on hards. And there will be other times when some guys will take the soft tyre and make a couple of stops, and the rest will take the hards and go on a 1-stopper late into the race.

I have way more trouble with other things about current Formula One racing than this one.

#35 Burai

Burai
  • Member

  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:24

Good to know that the FOTA era is going to be just as full of messy regulation tinkering as the Max era.

#36 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:24

Did they get rid of the rule that says they have two use both sets of tires (hard and soft) for the race?


Nope, from memory that's still there.

#37 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:25

I wouldn't know why someone would start a race on max fuel + soft tyres so basically it should mean that Q3 will be light fuel + hard tyres for everyone and the race would be as it would with max fuel + hard tyres.

It really doesn't change much except for the fact that Q3 will now race with hard tyres. You do get all the variations inbetween so it should be interesting as it's not all black/white or in this case hard/soft I guess seeing as the teams have a choice of four varying compounds so it throws some of that into the equation, but...

...I'm gonna have to go with the "Well it's not really needed is it" viewpoint.



#38 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,480 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:25

Quali 3 was never really going to prove anything anyway, because they had to use their quali setup for the race.

See this post: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=4093529

But now they've messed it up further.

It won't affect the front row, but drivers near the back of the top 10 will now be better off if they miss out on Q3.




#39 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:25

Why are the people in charge of the sport so completely out of touch???


I guess thier only main goal is money in pocket...

Advertisement

#40 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:27

But now it seems they'll ruin quali again.... :/ I want to see the fastest car/driver combo on pole position, not the one with the best tyre....

Well, it stands to reason that the car with the 'best' tyre will also be the fastest car/driver combo. Amazing how much people entertain the idea that everything needs to be complained about.

#41 depailler on tyrrell p34

depailler on tyrrell p34
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:28

this is the clear idication that fota and f1 are full of idiots!

#42 depailler on tyrrell p34

depailler on tyrrell p34
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:29

it's difficult to have a format of qulyfing with the faster man on pole without any interference (fuel or tyres)?


#43 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:30

Well, it stands to reason that the car with the 'best' tyre will also be the fastest car/driver combo. Amazing how much people entertain the idea that everything needs to be complained about.

Yes, but going all out to be the quickest in qualifying should be a benefit not a hinderance, pitting after 5 laps because your tyres are destroyed. Pole position will hold very little glory.

#44 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:30

If it helps make the races more interesting, I'm all for it.

Seems some of you must think that having a 'pure' qualifying session is more important, though. :lol:

Thank god you guys dont run the show. :smoking:



#45 depailler on tyrrell p34

depailler on tyrrell p34
  • Member

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:31

the problem is that they are happy with this decision..they are persuaded that this is a great idea if you reading the interview! no men...all fota and f1 have only idiots inside...
I'm still waiting for the reverse grid, ballast ecc
my god...

Edited by depailler on tyrrell p34, 26 January 2010 - 15:34.


#46 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:31

The stoopid, it HURTS, make it STOP!

Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 26 January 2010 - 15:32.


#47 hankalis

hankalis
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:35

Again, I really don't see why this is such a bad thing. Surely it adds another interesting dynamic to the racing. There were so many people on here bemoaning the fact that the removal of refueling took away an element of tactics from the racing. Now they come up with this solution to add interest and everyone complains again! Fact is that if the fastest car qualifies pole (which it should do) then in the race it's more than likely that that car would just pull away from the rest of the field leading to largely precessional races which everyone on here seems to be against. The main complaint is that there isn't enough overtaking - this rule has created a situation that mixes things up a bit and allows teams to take a gamble. Why must every change be greeted with outrage and indignation before it's even been tried out. Of course cars will still want to push for pole, last year there were some races where there wasn't a huge difference between the two compounds - do you risk losing a few tenths in qualifying going for the harder compound or do you risk compromising the first stint of the race by going out on softs? Come on, these are all interesting choices and we shouldn't damn the initiative without seeing how it pans out first...



exactly.
many folks around here don't seem to realize how bad is the idea of having a qualy formula that puts - with high probability - the faster car+driver on pole and allows him to use an optimal race tire strategy; that simply guaranties a processional race unless of course there is an accident or mechanical failure ....
it is really not realistic to assume that the fastest car starting from pole position and using the optimal tire strategy would loose - during the race- its speed advantage over the followers ...

#48 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:35

It won't affect the front row, but drivers near the back of the top 10 will now be better off if they miss out on Q3.

Erh, no.

#49 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:36

Yes, but going all out to be the quickest in qualifying should be a benefit not a hinderance

Pole position will still be the ideal place to start the race from, so I'd hardly call it a hinderance. And I doubt anybody is going to run a set of tires so hard that they can only go 5 laps into the race.

Besides, isn't the *race* supposed to be what matters? :well:

#50 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 January 2010 - 15:37

I know... let's make the top 3 guys start on rain tires, and then we can allow nitrous on the last 3 qualifiers, and, and.. then, if a team wasn't in championship points, we'll let them use turbos, and at Monza we'll force Ferrari to start last, but it's ok because we'll make Mercedes do the same in Germany, and then McLaren in Britain... then, we'll have team mate have to swap cars in Q3, to make sure it's fair, then we can

(etc. etc.)

WTFF????


I *was* looking forward to next year - they finally got qualifying right! Nooooo, we can't have nice things, WTF??????????????????????/



/ I blame it on the Large Hadron Collider being turned on.