Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tyres: conservative or aggressive aproach? What you prefer?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut
  • Member

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 30 March 2015 - 21:33

Yesterday, after a long time again we have seen a race with many changes of position, several pit stops, and it was largely due to high temperatures of the track in Sepang, which had tyre degradation problems.
 
Although it sounds 'unpopular', I always liked the racing with Pirelli 2012-2013 spec tyres, needing 3 or even 4 stops in the pits at times.
 
I don't like the conservative approach of Pirelli, with very hard tyres, races where just a pit stop is needed, strategic options are null and most often contribute a large percentage do the boring races.
 
The question: you prefer softer tyres, and have 2-3 pit stops per race like yesterday, or hard tyres for everyone to go flat out but with only a pit stop?


Advertisement

#2 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 30 March 2015 - 21:43

Hard tires.

 

I don't like drivers going at 50% of the car's speed because the tires can't handle any more.  



#3 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 6,582 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 30 March 2015 - 21:45

I would abolish the Pirelli nomination and simply allow each team to make their allocations for the next 2-3 races. I would simply specify that you can use "x" sets of tyres for every event, and you can make your own choices.

 

Therefore, a team that might use their tyres better will not be forced to race a bad, hard tyre, and concentrate on a good race tyre for them. Also, occasionally someone might make a bad choice and shuffle the pack.



#4 drag

drag
  • Member

  • 162 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 30 March 2015 - 22:04

aggressive approach 



#5 Nemick

Nemick
  • Member

  • 31 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 30 March 2015 - 22:13

Aggressive for me.



#6 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 30 March 2015 - 22:14

Multiple tyre manufacturers allowed to build tyres with the purpose of winning a motor race.

 

Failing that, then the teams to pre-nominate ahead of time the tyre compounds that will facilitate getting their car from A to B as quickly as possible and Pirelli Competizioni bringing them for each.

 

Managing being aggressive and managing being conservative are two sides of the same crappy coin and I genuinely have no preference.


Edited by FerrariV12, 30 March 2015 - 22:16.


#7 Scuferrari

Scuferrari
  • Member

  • 645 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 30 March 2015 - 22:18

Aggressive which doesn't mean the tyres have to be like in Spain 2013 (melt down). 2-3 stops is perfect, just like Malaysia this year. 1 stop races are utterly boring and don't offer any different strategies.

One wish I have...make the tyres as fast as you can...it's been 9 years since the tyre war and I'm sure that Pirelli can make the tyres another couple seconds faster.

I want fast cars. 5-6 seconds slower than in 2004-05 is too much (Q Malaysia...record in the 32's...pole in the dry would have been a low 38...that's 5.5 seconds)

 

And the argument that aggressive means the car is driven at 50% - on the contrary. Durable tyres are slower. Under the same regulations....a tyre made for lasting 20 laps will be faster than a tyre made for 35 laps. A (reasonably) aggressive approach is needed. The tyres just have to ensure 15 laps of good grip and then start to drop off. Perfect.

Early 2013 was just a big quality problem. Soft tyres doesn't mean cheesy tyres.


Edited by Scuferrari, 30 March 2015 - 22:33.


#8 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:26

Aggressive. We pay to see them drive flat out. Not saving this and that. 



#9 MikeMM

MikeMM
  • Member

  • 884 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:49

Hard tires.

 

I don't like drivers going at 50% of the car's speed because the tires can't handle any more.  

 

Do you like drivers going at 70% of their engines(Honda and Renault)?


Edited by MikeMM, 31 March 2015 - 07:50.


#10 MikeMM

MikeMM
  • Member

  • 884 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:51

I prefer softer tyres with 3 stops.


Edited by MikeMM, 31 March 2015 - 07:52.


#11 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 March 2015 - 08:06

People are calling the current tires 'aggressive', but how much of that was just due to extreme temps in Sepang?

Have we forgotten that in Melbourne, we had soft tires yet people were comfortably one-stopping?

#12 quaint

quaint
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 31 March 2015 - 10:10

Hard tires.

 

I don't like drivers going at 50% of the car's speed because the tires can't handle any more.  

 

But you still like cars sliding around at 50 % of the car's “speed” due to too hard tyres not giving enough grip? At least it makes for a less difficult driving experience, with not that much of those pesky g forces, and with the lack of tactics.

 

As long as the tyres are not indestructible, there's always going to be a balancing act between a time loss for an extra pit stop and time gained due to driving on the limit. (People should remember that the pre-Pirelli Bridgestones were never indestructible; passing on the track was just so hard that track position was everything, and well worth not pushing too much).



#13 rasul

rasul
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 31 March 2015 - 10:24

I like races with more pit stops. They're far more interesting strategically than races with 1 pit stop when everyone pretty much knows the outcome of the race after the pit stop.



#14 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 March 2015 - 10:40

Since the Pirelli tyres are a spec-part, I strongly oppose making them the key to success and/or the main talking point of the Grand Prix.

 

Like all other spec-parts the Pirelli tyres should barely be worth mentioning.



#15 MensRea

MensRea
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 31 March 2015 - 13:37

My two cents:

 

In the current formula , where it is quite difficult to follow and overtake (cue DRS too) , i suppose we need tyres to allow for strategic competition.

Is this ideal racing? I'd prefer on-track battles , rather than engineers crunching numbers ...but again , i think that where we currently stand , aggressive tyres choices are important.



#16 kimster89

kimster89
  • Member

  • 1,413 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 31 March 2015 - 13:46

Since the Pirelli tyres are a spec-part, I strongly oppose making them the key to success and/or the main talking point of the Grand Prix.

 

Like all other spec-parts the Pirelli tyres should barely be worth mentioning.

 

I disagree. Making tyres, which are the same for everyone, work better than anyone else is also a skill. Just like making a good PU or Aerodynamics.



#17 Geizterfahrer

Geizterfahrer
  • Member

  • 40 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:15

Since the Pirelli tyres are a spec-part, I strongly oppose making them the key to success and/or the main talking point of the Grand Prix.

 

Like all other spec-parts the Pirelli tyres should barely be worth mentioning.

Which is impossible with something like tyres. They are what connects your beast with the track. Mishandle them and you'll suffer, no matter how "good" your car is. Make your car work with the tyres and Perez seems like a driver worthy of a McLaren cockpit   ;)

 

@topic

I liked how it was in Malaysia. Just move the border a tiny bit more towards 2 stops (1 or 2 extra laps per stint).



#18 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 14,150 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:29

Aggressive tyre choices, thank you.

#19 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 22,649 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:32

I never understood the diesginatoin "aggressive".

Why is it aggressive to run sticky tyres for a few laps at a time vs running hard tyres for a longer distance?



Advertisement

#20 alframsey

alframsey
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:40

I'm not sure tbh, aggressive gives a more unpredictable race but leads to cars driving to the speed of the tyre and not the machine. I like to see cars going flat out 100% of the time!

#21 Donkey

Donkey
  • Member

  • 947 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:52

TBH I thought Malaysia was fine. Mix of 2 and 3 stoppers and tyre degradation varied depending on the car meaning that Ferrari could make a 2 stop race work out whereas it would not have been possible for Mercedes at that pace.

 

I would hate to go back to the days of 1 stop races, and even races where the whole field does 2 stops can be quite predictable. But 3-4 stop races are a bit silly over F1 race distances imo.



#22 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,236 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 31 March 2015 - 14:58

I would prefer soft tyres that last 25–60% and hard tyres that last 67–100% of the race distance. And no drivers experiencing a total lack of grip.



#23 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,653 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:34

I'd be quite happy to see tyres that lasted the whole race to put more emphasis on, you know, racing.

But failing that, I don't think Pirelli should be bringing different tyre compounds to each race. It means they're making an arbitrary decision that could favour one team over another. However many compounds they have (two, three, four or whatever), they should be available everywhere. Don't mandate that teams have to use more than one compound, and let it be decided on how good the tyres are.

Obviously you would force Pirelli to think competitively if there was another manufacturer, but also brings its own problems.

#24 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:40

People are calling the current tires 'aggressive', but how much of that was just due to extreme temps in Sepang?

Have we forgotten that in Melbourne, we had soft tires yet people were comfortably one-stopping?

 

But Hembrey is already saying they will go softer as season goes on.  :up:

 

It's not sportscar racing, the tyres should be aggressive IMO.



#25 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 1,149 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:40

Hard tyres but refueling. Different strategies make the races much more interesting as we could see in Malaysia.



#26 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:41

It means they're making an arbitrary decision that could favour one team over another. 

 

This is inevitable with one supplier, and likewise with 3 suppliers...

 

The teams should design their cars to maximise use of the tyres IMO.



#27 alframsey

alframsey
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:41

I do think there is something to the idea that you open up all compounds for teams to use at each and every race weekend, I think that could be quite interesting.

#28 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,250 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2015 - 16:11

I do think there is something to the idea that you open up all compounds for teams to use at each and every race weekend, I think that could be quite interesting.

 

Although Pirelli are quite happy to incur the cost of shipping totally redundant wet tyres around the world, it's a bit much to expect them to ship all compounds. Abolishing the Pirelli nomination sounds great, but they know their product better than the teams. They should still be in a position to make recommendations given that it's their brand on the line. The teams should then have totally free reign over which tyres to use from those recommendations. The mandatory two-compound nonsense is all that needs abolishing.

 

With regards to the question, 2013 was such a complete farce of a season that I can only really vote conservative given that they've never ruined an entire season. It's been so nice not to have to give two shits about Hembery and his soft cheese circus.



#29 Scuderia312

Scuderia312
  • Member

  • 135 posts
  • Joined: August 14

Posted 31 March 2015 - 16:19

Since we have no refuelling then hard tyres have no place in F1. I prefer 2-3 stops, 4 is a little bit too much. Someone mentioned on other F1 site - give them tyres for full race distance and they can push. Great idea... if you have frontrunners at the back of the grid. Normally the best cars start at the front and that means no overtaking, no action, nothing, not for me. Maybe someone like procession but it's not me.



#30 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,653 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:20

This is inevitable with one supplier, and likewise with 3 suppliers...
 
The teams should design their cars to maximise use of the tyres IMO.

Presumably the teams do do that the best they can. But inevitably some cars will work better on some tyres and worse on others. And if different tyres are offered at each race, that gives arbitrary power to the tyre manufacturer, whether it's used intentionally or not.

If the same tyres are offered at each race, and they remain consistent over a period of time, then it becomes fair and transparent, and you can then blame teams if they don't get on top of the tyres.

#31 mgs315

mgs315
  • Member

  • 613 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:24

I'd prefer to allow the teams to buy the best tyres they can find from any manufacturer and bolt them on to the car. Specify tyre widths only, apart from that there's no rules. Rim sizes, wheel sizes, sod it, allow it all.

#32 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:40

Towards the second half of last season, most if not all races were 1 or 2 stoppers and we hardly have 3 stoppers these days bar Malaysia where track temp is an issue.

 

So we want to see tyre poker to spice up the show. The so called exciting races in recent years with change of position is usually a car on newer tyres overhauling a car on older tyres. If we really need a show, all we need is two things and I dont know why anyone who wants to see the show spiced up would have a problem against these:

1. Randomly timed water sprinklers for dry races

2. Random safety cars

 

If we get these two in, all races would be crackers from start to finish and we will never discuss tyres again to spice up the show.



#33 Donka

Donka
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:44

Although Pirelli are quite happy to incur the cost of shipping totally redundant wet tyres around the world, it's a bit much to expect them to ship all compounds. Abolishing the Pirelli nomination sounds great, but they know their product better than the teams. They should still be in a position to make recommendations given that it's their brand on the line. The teams should then have totally free reign over which tyres to use from those recommendations. The mandatory two-compound nonsense is all that needs abolishing.

 

With regards to the question, 2013 was such a complete farce of a season that I can only really vote conservative given that they've never ruined an entire season. It's been so nice not to have to give two shits about Hembery and his soft cheese circus.

Pirelli won't have to ship a ton of extra tyres, simply the teams pre-nominate the 2 compounds they want that weekend, instead of Pirelli doing it for them.

 

Seems only fair considering the teams are forced to pay Pirelli millions per year, including the shoddy rubber they bring, if they want to race.



#34 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,054 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:50

No. Not again. Conservative. The crap Pirelli made for three seasons was beyond farcical. I think it is about ok now.



#35 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,236 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 31 March 2015 - 19:20

Watching some grands prix from the 80s and early pre-refueling-90s, there are plenty of non-stoppers, and I don't see the problem with that.

 

What's so exciting about watching cars come into the pits and fit new tyres?



#36 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 31 March 2015 - 19:43

Pirelli has hit the spot this season, judging by these two races only.

 

Their tyres sem hard yet not imune to high temperatures and stress. So far it has worked very well. Both races were different and allowed us to gauge the value of outright speed one time and strategy plus preservation the other.

 

I'm sure I'm alone, but I think this is their best start to the season yet. Every other time it seemed as if they always went at least one step too soft.

 

If the stewards weren't so chickens, we might have seen their real wet tyres in action too.



#37 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 March 2015 - 20:01

I disagree. Making tyres, which are the same for everyone, work better than anyone else is also a skill.

 

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the teams are forced to race whatever Pirelli cooks up and that this isn't always clear when the teams are developing their cars.

 

Due to Pirelli thinking they are more than just a supplier of spec-parts they have even convinced themselves that it is OK for them to talk about having a specific 'approach', which is something they can even change during a season!

 

Which is impossible with something like tyres. They are what connects your beast with the track. Mishandle them and you'll suffer, no matter how "good" your car is.

 

Indeed, which is why I consider it such an unfortunate situation that the teams are not able to chose whichever tyre suits their car and drivers best.

 

As long as the teams are saving costs, I guess. :p



#38 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 6,582 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 31 March 2015 - 21:01

Pirelli won't have to ship a ton of extra tyres, simply the teams pre-nominate the 2 compounds they want that weekend, instead of Pirelli doing it for them.

Seems only fair considering the teams are forced to pay Pirelli millions per year, including the shoddy rubber they bring, if they want to race.


Exactly!

Teams must give adequate warning to Pirelli about their allocation, and then the total number of tyres shipped will be exactly the same.