65 replies to this topic

[RichardVirenque]

Hi, I kind of enjoyed the big difference between the two spec tyres.

I don't know if at Sepang we will have the same compound and the same delamination (after 8 laps), but it would be fun if so.
It really will allow two different strategies
- Put the soft tyres at the end and hope that you have a big enough gap after your last stop.
- Put the soft tyres at the beginning thus allowing you to overtake cars at the start, try to stay in front of them until your first pit stop and catch them at the end. But unlike today, if you choose this strategy, you must qualify with the exact amount of fuel (10 laps, so be closer to the front) because today Ferrari and Kubica were too heavy in qualy for this strategy.


Today, it paid off for the second strategy because of the safety car. Massa, Kubica, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Trulli (if no problems) would have finished in front of faster cars because the safety car deleted the big gap that for example Vettel put on them in just 10 laps.
In Sepang, there is hardly any safety car as there are run off areas.


And this difference between the two compounds should actually spice the show until the very end of races (even if they all choose to adopt the same strategy since between two used soft tyres, we actually saw big differences between teams).

Good idea Bridgestone or FIA (I heard it's them who recommended the specification of the tyres).

Your say...

[wordsby]

I agree very much. It is exciting to have such a difference in the tyres and will make the teams plan their strategy much more carefully. I don't mind if they degrade so badly after 6 laps or so; it will make the teams think and the drivers too.

"Today, he paid of for the second strategy because of the safety car. Massa, Kubica, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Trulli (if no problems) would have finished in front of faster cars because the safety car deleted the big gap that for example Vettel put on them in just 10 laps." - Perhaps, that would have been so, not sure - but the great thing is it would have been really tight, even tighter than it was before 2 and 3 took each other out.

Most important thing is great racing and overtaking at long last. 'Spice': spice is the variety of life and I hope that today is a sign of more great racing to come this year.

[alfa1]

Originally posted by RichardVirenque
And this difference between the two compounds should actually spice the show...

What about the standard ECU manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different ECU chips during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel cell manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel cells during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio transponder manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio transponder during a race. One they like, and a crap heavier one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the seat belt manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different types of seat belt during a race. One they like, and one the driver might feel was a bit uncomfortable. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the tyre manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different tyre types during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio antenna manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio antennas during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their radio gear. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the shock absorber manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different shock absorbers during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fireproof overall manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if the pit crews were also FORCED to use two different sets of fireproof overalls during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has one arm missing. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel rig manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel rigs during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has a 30% slower flow rate. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.



To me, all of the above ideas are stupid. Even the 5th one.

[SevenTwoSeven]

What about the Driver. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different drivers during a race. One they like, and a crap one that is 20% slower . A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.


Now that might work

[RichardVirenque]

Originally posted by alfa1



What about the standard ECU manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different ECU chips during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel cell manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel cells during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio transponder manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio transponder during a race. One they like, and a crap heavier one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the seat belt manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different types of seat belt during a race. One they like, and one the driver might feel was a bit uncomfortable. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the tyre manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different tyre types during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio antenna manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio antennas during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their radio gear. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the shock absorber manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different shock absorbers during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fireproof overall manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if the pit crews were also FORCED to use two different sets of fireproof overalls during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has one arm missing. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel rig manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel rigs during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has a 30% slower flow rate. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.



To me, all of the above ideas are stupid. Even the 5th one.

Maybe you are responding to the wrong person.

Currently, there is an obligation to use both compounds, as it was last year. Like it or not.
Today, Bridgestone came up with two tyres that actually made the show better. That was the point because in following races, Bridgestone may come again with tyres of similar behaviour.

I don't know what is the goal of formula 1 for you, but the quality of the spectacle (ie the show) must be part of it. So if you want to cry against FIA, etc... maybe you can open a topic of your own.

Thanks

[RichardVirenque]

Originally posted by SevenTwoSeven
What about the Driver. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different drivers during a race. One they like, and a crap one that is 20% slower . A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.


Now that might work

same answer.
The rule already exists (about two types of tyres). I am not demanding for tyres that behave different. I just notice that today, with such tyres, the show was actually better and I hope it stays the same.


And your proposal can't be applied because WDC will no longer exists.

[eoin]

Can't agree. It just turns the race into a lottery. Having an odd race like that is fine but I don't want to see a 5-6s dropoff after 8-9 laps.

[SevenTwoSeven]

erm.....i wasnt been serious with that one, but i guess you didnt see that - apologies. I for one am quite happy with the tyre situation ;)

[RichardVirenque]

Originally posted by SevenTwoSeven
erm.....i wasnt been serious with that one, but i guess you didnt see that - apologies. I for one am quite happy with the tyre situation ;)

I saw that you were not serious (hence my last sentence about your proposal) but the meaning of your "joke" as I understood it was that "artificially spice the show in F 1 is useless; (same as alfa1)" and I was responding to that.

No pb mate

[Ferrim]

Originally posted by eoin
Can't agree. It just turns the race into a lottery.

You can plan for it, at least it's better than last year's SC rules.

It's the same for everyone and it's up to the teams to decide which strategy is best for them, including the tyres. If we had great races in the past it was because of the big differencial performances in the same race. You can't have great racing if all cars have pretty similar performance during the whole race.

I agree it looked a bit ridiculous today, but a 1-2s performance drop would be nice.

[Alfisti]

I am with Alfa, it'll be exciting for a race or two then they will all figure out the best strategy and will all be on the same tyres at the same time .... just like last year.

I have never been a fan af farking around with tyres, we finally get to a spec tyre and they run two compounds. RBR Fer, BMW, Toyota, williams are all SO CLOSE the racing would be better if they were on the same rubber from the start. That is 10 cars that would be all over each other for 90 minutes.

[stevvy1986]

it made it interesting-but whether dry tyres will be used during the malaysian race is another matter.........and remember, if the track is declared wet, you don't have to use both compounds

[Anomnader]

As it was on TV you could visibly see both Ferraris performance going off at the end of the softs, what we didn't get to see was how Lewis performce went, there didn't seem to be any mention of his times dropping, did they?

[jk]

If they insist on keeping this stupid rule about using both compounds, at least make them very different. Good change

[HoldenRT]

It's true that we will see a new strategy this season.

However what made it more possible was the SC. SC's rarely happen unless it's a street circuit or rain.

Do you know that today when Vettel and Button pitted they were 25+ seconds infront of the 3rd car? Kubica train gave them a huge gap.

It wouldn't have mattered what Ferrari or BMW did with soft or hard tyres, they were nowhere. Same with Lewis.

But it's true that we will see new strategies this season. It's a whole new ballgame. You can see cars qualify 11th, they can fuel up, but instead of 1 stop, they will have two long stints and then one super short stint. Glock and Alonso did this and had good pace at the end (but again SC helped).

But I can't help but think that optimum will always be what Vettel and Button and Rosberg did.

[alg7_munif]

The trick here is to be consistent on both compound. In Aus, McLaren and Toyota are suprisingly consistent with their pace.

[Alfisti]

Originally posted by HoldenRT
But I can't help but think that optimum will always be what Vettel and Button and Rosberg did.

I am noc convinced. If they really do last just 5 or so laps it's half tempting to qualy super light, run 5 laps with stivky tyres for a good start then pit with the right tyres. You pull out a gap anyway and come in maybe 8th or 9th place which is where you may be mired anyway if you qualy with 20 laps of fuel instead of 5 or 6.

[Madras]

I dont like how they have to use a tyre that doesnt work very well. It's just a stupid artificial rule and just messes things up.

[Alfisti]

Originally posted by Madras
I dont like how they have to use a tyre that doesnt work very well. It's just a stupid artificial rule and just messes things up.

Agreed 100%

[HMV]

Originally posted by HoldenRT
Do you know that today when Vettel and Button pitted they were 25+ seconds infront of the 3rd car? Kubica train gave them a huge gap.

Wasn't that mainly due to the fact Kubica (and the Ferraris) were on softs? Kubica was something like 5 seconds of the pace by the end of his 1st stint.

I think I like the extremely different compounds. If we have the 2 compounds rule in place might as well make it meaningful.

[JuanF1]

Interesting point of view, alfa1. It is true that is the way the FIA "spices up" the show these days. Forcing the teams to do something they would never do, and artificially making things interesting.

Nevertheless, this rule reminds me of the SC rules of the last 2 years. Shall we take the risk of leaving the softs for a last, short stint but knowing that a SC after others have used the softs could ruin our race like today? Or shall we use them in the first stint and get them out of the way?

Another interesting fact: when Vettel stopped for the last time, Button was in some way forced to pit as soon as possible (never mind the fuel level) because Vettel could gain quite a lot of time in the first few laps with the softs, so by the time Button stopped he could be well ahead.

[alg7_munif]

Originally posted by Madras
I dont like how they have to use a tyre that doesnt work very well. It's just a stupid artificial rule and just messes things up.

What they need is a car that is fast on different compounds, not a car that is uber fast on a compound but totally **** on the other.

[Anomnader]

Originally posted by alg7_munif
What they need is a car that is fast on different compounds, not a car that is uber fast on a compound but totally **** on the other.

Totally agree, but which type of tyre was they supposed to be uber fast today?

It seemed witht the softs they were really fast for about 4 or 5 laps and then dropped badly, then average on the hards.

[J2NH]

Surprised Bridgestone went along with this. Bringing a decent Prime tire and then an Option tire that is not close to Prime, either way too hard or too soft, is going to make them look bad. Wait until we have a race where the Option starts delaminating and the FIA and BStone my rethink the strategy.
If I was Bridgestone I would not want comments from race weekends about how the tires were graining, or only lasted 4 laps etc.

Personally I don't like it cause its fake. Okay if the Option/Prime are close to each other but F1 racing is good enough in my book without this mickey mouse stuff.

[Alfisti]

Originally posted by alg7_munif
What they need is a car that is fast on different compounds, not a car that is uber fast on a compound but totally **** on the other.

Not really, theoreticcally it's faster to have a car 1 sec a lap faster on the hrads than a 'compromise' car 'cos you can do say 60 laps on the hard tyre, saving you a minute over a car that is 'just ok' on both tyres. Let's say you lose 30 seconds due to the heavier fuel loads you need to carry using this strategy and you're still 30 sec in front.

[Yellowmc]

It created a safety risk, look at Kubica and Vettel, an incident caused by running two different compounds and huge differences in speed and braking distances.

We have that on the grid as it is when lapping backmarkers but the difference here is that these are guys fighting for wins and podiums and will not back down.

FIA and Bridgestone -

[Tenmantaylor]

I think its good. Whats stopping the teams running a 10 lap stint on the softs? That would have been the fastest way.

If they dont do it like this they may aswell scrap the rule cos last year I didnt see a single race where it had the desired effect.

[pingu666]

Originally posted by Yellowmc
It created a safety risk, look at Kubica and Vettel, an incident caused by running two different compounds and huge differences in speed and braking distances.

i think it made the race more interesting, but the stripe doesnt show up well

[Craven Morehead]

Originally posted by Madras
I dont like how they have to use a tyre that doesnt work very well. It's just a stupid artificial rule and just messes things up.

absolutely agree stupid, contrived, and artificial. Imo teams should run whatever tires work best for them. These stupid tire rules irked me last year too.

[BugTomek]

the question is: will it always be like today, that one of the compounds is that "bad"??
on a sidenote: from all the things that were done to increase the number of overtakings (KERS, aero changes, tyres) I like the tyres one the best - yes, it is a bit artificial but I prefer this over cars flying all around the track because of the poor grip (aero) or things that are hardly helpful (KERS). The thing with the tyres concept is that is cheap, clean, simple and easy to understand - and it don't cause a pathetic row like the one over the diffusor.

[4MEN]

Originally posted by alfa1



What about the standard ECU manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different ECU chips during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel cell manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel cells during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio transponder manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio transponder during a race. One they like, and a crap heavier one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the seat belt manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different types of seat belt during a race. One they like, and one the driver might feel was a bit uncomfortable. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the tyre manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different tyre types during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the radio antenna manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different radio antennas during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their radio gear. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the shock absorber manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different shock absorbers during a race. One they like, and a crap one that doesnt really suit their car. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fireproof overall manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if the pit crews were also FORCED to use two different sets of fireproof overalls during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has one arm missing. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.

What about the fuel rig manufacturer. One could say that the 'show' would be improved if teams were also FORCED to use two different fuel rigs during a race. One they like, and a crap one that has a 30% slower flow rate. A colour coded band on the car would tell the crowd which one they were using.



To me, all of the above ideas are stupid. Even the 5th one.

Agreed. It was pathetic to see cars using tyres that lasted less than 10 laps.

[inox]

Although I'm Ferrari fan and the softs really messed up Maranello squads race, this new tire policy is what I want to see in the future also.

I think we are going to see very fast qualifying times soon, as teams may prepare even for 5 lap first stints. It would not be a bad option to use middle stint for softs and stop immediately when they begin losing grip. Thats propably the safest way around.

[wingwalker]

Balls! I will look forward to see how teams with the mixing supersofts with mediums and softs with hards. And am I the only one who finds it puzzling this change (from supersofts-softs, softs-medium, medium-hards as sets of mandatory compounds) wasn't on the news as much as it should be? I don't think it was on the news at all, I saw it first mentioned in some article and was like "wait, is that for real?". But here we go. It is very chaotic for now, but there are clever people in F1, they will figure out to use it in their strategies. But the softs drop-off is unheard of, take Kubica times:

5 1:29.530
6 1:29.854
7 1:30.156 (supersoft, 27 kgs of fuel in car)
8 1:30.994
9 1:31.634
10 1:32.751
11 1:34.518
12 P 1:51.650 (pits)
13 1:34.907
14 1:30.294 (medium, 60 kgs of fuel in car)
15 1:30.002
16 1:29.900


He started with 45 kgs of fuel on board, so at the beginning of lap 8th he had circa 27 kgs of fuel in the car (2.6 kgs per lap). He came in early and after the pitstop had 27 laps of fuel, together with SC, let's say that's 25 normal laps. that's 65 kilos of fuel when leaving the pits, 60 kilos two laps later. And yet, his time on the second lap after the pit (lap 14th) matches the time he clocked on 7th lap! And he has about 28 kgs of fuel more on lap 14th, this is how **** the supersofts were at this point.. and they went downhill from that! And I take Kubica as example, look at other times, it's the same story. This is perhaps the biggest story of this GP, as this how it going to be for the entire season!
At this point it looks like the best strategy is to leave supersofts for circa 10 laps stint before the flag, but miscalculation even by 2 laps could cost dearly, so the safest option is to make the stint as short as possible.

This is also why RK was a real threat to Button in the last laps.


edit: all numbers are estimated surely a bit off, but it paints the picture of what is going on.

[inox]

Originally posted by Yellowmc
It created a safety risk, look at Kubica and Vettel, an incident caused by running two different compounds and huge differences in speed and braking distances.

We have that on the grid as it is when lapping backmarkers but the difference here is that these are guys fighting for wins and podiums and will not back down.

FIA and Bridgestone -

Apparently you don't want to see overtaking then?

Had they been on the same compound they would have driven nicely home, most probably without any action.

Perhaps its then better to drive cars home safely in that order they started the race, so that there is no danger and excitement involved. After all, our HEROES are actually cowards that don't like to take any sort of risks. Thats why they drive a F1 car...

[Snap Matt]

I don't like the artificiality of this rule, it did help liven things up today. The safety car also played nicely in to the hands of people that were getting the softer option out of the way early in the race, although some of the other people running the medium tyre had also stopped at that stage... maybe it didn't completely skew the race in favour of people changing early.

The green stripe is bloody difficult to see on television and if they really think it is an appropriate colour to represent F1's newfound eco-friendly status (ha ha ha), maybe it should be painted on the tyre that lasts more than 30km.

[jeze]

These super-softs are dangerous, you can't have sprint-tyres in F1, this is not WTCC! The tyres should be reliable enough to run at a decent pace for 1/3 of the race, just like before.

[Tenmantaylor]

Originally posted by Snap Matt
I don't like the artificiality of this rule, it did help liven things up today. The safety car also played nicely in to the hands of people that were getting the softer option out of the way early in the race, although some of the other people running the medium tyre had also stopped at that stage... maybe it didn't completely skew the race in favour of people changing early.

The green stripe is bloody difficult to see on television and if they really think it is an appropriate colour to represent F1's newfound eco-friendly status (ha ha ha), maybe it should be painted on the tyre that lasts more than 30km.

Lol at ur last bit good point. Problem is alot of people whinged it was dangerous in 05 when you had to make the tyres last a whole race even if worn. That was a much greener option so its obviously not for eco reasons.

I like this new approach as it introduces another unpredictability that is managable via differing strategy. There is nothing stopping the teams running a short stint on the softs to optimize strategy.

[howardt]

Forcing 2 different tyre compounds effectively makes it mandatory to do at least one pitstop*. Forcing 2 very differnt tyre compounds effectively means they all have to do at least 2 pitstops, because they can't last half the race on the 'wrong' tyre. The rule therefore is limiting in terms of strategic options.

*I know the cars don't have big enough tanks to complete a race without stopping, but they definitely won't design one now because it's not legal to complete a race without stopping.

[MrAerodynamicist]

It may or may not be safe, but it's not artificial lottery . It's an engineering/driving challenge that's the same for everyone and they know about in advance. The advantage will lie with those who have the most skill and make the best decisions.

The safety car is a lottery because it appears at random and there's only so much you can do to try to mitigate it's effects.

The two bare no comparison.

[JuanF1]

Before the race I mentioned in another thread what I thought possible strategies could be.

Originally posted by JuanF1
Maybe we see some changes in the typical race strategy. Since softs don't last, we might see lighter cars (top 10) do a very long second stint and a very short third stint in softs.

Heavier cars might not go for a 1 stopper but do two short middle and last stint.

Now I can refine this "theory": for circuits were extra softs are used, obviously a 1 stopper is unthinkable. The best strategy would be to do a very short stint on softs, and it would seem logical to do it at the start, so you don't put much fuel and you get pole. However, after the first pit stop you might be stuck behind slow drivers. So I think we will end up seeing a similar strategy to what Button and Vettel did today, but perhaps taking it to the extreme: very long second stint and 6-7 laps in softs at the end of the race. The only risk is the chance of a SC situation.

When softs and extra hards are used, maybe we see 3 stops?

[metz]

Originally posted by J2NH
Surprised Bridgestone went along with this. Bringing a decent Prime tire and then an Option tire that is not close to Prime, either way too hard or too soft, is going to make them look bad. Wait until we have a race where the Option starts delaminating and the FIA and BStone my rethink the strategy.
If I was Bridgestone I would not want comments from race weekends about how the tires were graining, or only lasted 4 laps etc.

Personally I don't like it cause its fake. Okay if the Option/Prime are close to each other but F1 racing is good enough in my book without this mickey mouse stuff.

Exactly
Why anyone should be forced to do something stupid, just to spice up the show, is beyond me.
Bridgestone should insist that they always bring the best options. Isn't that what racing is all about?

[Chiara]

A bit ridiculous and a waste of money no, to make tyres that only last a handful of laps before becoming about as much use as a chocolate teapot. By all means have different compounds with different characteristics, but at least make them viable to use and last a decent proportion of a race.

[Turn 1]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
I think its good. Whats stopping the teams running a 10 lap stint on the softs? That would have been the fastest way.

If they dont do it like this they may aswell scrap the rule cos last year I didnt see a single race where it had the desired effect.

Look at they key overtakes from the last two years, the majority of them have been influenced, in some way by the 2 cars running different trye compounds.

[zooropa21]

Looks like nobody told Sam Michael about soft tires and race strategy. One more race for Williams where he does not have a clue what to do. Its time they give a chance to someone else.


Zooropa21

[Alfisti]

Yeah Williams and RBR just cannot follow the race, i do wonder if they need someone offsite, away from the hubub, to run it.

[BootLace]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
It may or may not be safe, but it's not artificial lottery . It's an engineering/driving challenge that's the same for everyone and they know about in advance. The advantage will lie with those who have the most skill and make the best decisions.

The safety car is a lottery because it appears at random and there's only so much you can do to try to mitigate it's effects.

The two bare no comparison.

Optimal strategy appeared to be to leave the softer tyre for a short final stint. The safety car coming out, made the optimal strategy to run soft at the start. This feels like a tactical lottery to me, in much the same way as last year's SC rules (you could avoid the risk by carrying more fuel for all but final stint), but with a higher chance of a pay-off.

I don't think it's going to be much of an issue for most of the season though. The super soft's durability issues were accentuated by the green nature of the circuit, and with the exception of Monaco and possibly Valencia, I don't really see there being such a great difference in performance levels between prime/option again.

[roadie]

Exactly. It's my belief that a short final stint on a rubbered in track with the soft tyre will produce the quickest overall time if there are no safety cars.

I just wish they would go back to a single tyre for a race, like on 2005, as that was a real engineering and driving challenge.

[Dalek Caan]

Saw something on JA's blog which got me thinking, what about a Brawn doing an opening stint on supersofts option tyres? They would be maybe 20-30 seconds ahead of other cars by lap 7 or 8 in Sepang, then have an early pit stop for primes, thus covering the factor of a safety car, and rejoining pretty much in the lead. Over the course of the season their advantage will disintegrate, but in Malaysia it should work ok.

Any news on what option tyres BS are bringing to Malaysia?

[Alfisti]

Originally posted by Dalek Caan
Saw something on JA's blog which got me thinking, what about a Brawn doing an opening stint on supersofts option tyres? They would be maybe 20-30 seconds ahead of other cars by lap 7 or 8 in Sepang, then have an early pit stop for primes, thus covering the factor of a safety car, and rejoining pretty much in the lead. Over the course of the season their advantage will disintegrate, but in Malaysia it should work ok.

Any news on what option tyres BS are bringing to Malaysia?

That's what i said 35 posts ago.

[Youichi]

Originally posted by wingwalker
Balls! I will look forward to see how teams with the mixing supersofts with mediums and softs with hards. And am I the only one who finds it puzzling this change (from supersofts-softs, softs-medium, medium-hards as sets of mandatory compounds) wasn't on the news as much as it should be? I don't think it was on the news at all, I saw it first mentioned in some article and was like "wait, is that for real?". But here we go. It is very chaotic for now, but there are clever people in F1, they will figure out to use it in their strategies. But the softs drop-off is unheard of, take Kubica times:

5 1:29.530
6 1:29.854
7 1:30.156 (supersoft, 27 kgs of fuel in car)
8 1:30.994
9 1:31.634
10 1:32.751
11 1:34.518
12 P 1:51.650 (pits)
13 1:34.907
14 1:30.294 (medium, 60 kgs of fuel in car)
15 1:30.002
16 1:29.900


He started with 45 kgs of fuel on board, so at the beginning of lap 8th he had circa 27 kgs of fuel in the car (2.6 kgs per lap). He came in early and after the pitstop had 27 laps of fuel, together with SC, let's say that's 25 normal laps. that's 65 kilos of fuel when leaving the pits, 60 kilos two laps later. And yet, his time on the second lap after the pit (lap 14th) matches the time he clocked on 7th lap! And he has about 28 kgs of fuel more on lap 14th, this is how **** the supersofts were at this point.. and they went downhill from that! And I take Kubica as example, look at other times, it's the same story. This is perhaps the biggest story of this GP, as this how it going to be for the entire season!
At this point it looks like the best strategy is to leave supersofts for circa 10 laps stint before the flag, but miscalculation even by 2 laps could cost dearly, so the safest option is to make the stint as short as possible.

This is also why RK was a real threat to Button in the last laps.

The SS weren't that bad, the differences in the cars/drivers just made them look that bad.

Compare Buttons SS times:-

47 P 1:52.089
48 1:33.783
49 1:29.395
50 1:29.576
51 1:29.296
52 1:29.868
53 1:29.497
54 1:29.807
55 1:29.636
56 1:37.817 -SC deployed
57 2:55.654 -behind SC
58 2:32.873 -behind SC

His 3rd to 9th lap on the SS are all within 0.5 seconds, where's the tyre drop off here ? Button drove a slow out lap and first lap, to give them chance to warm-up slowly, then they stayed consistant.

God forbid we might have something which is influenced by driver skill.....