85 replies to this topic

[wingwalker]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91893

Pirelli director of motorsport Paul Hembery thinks that the freedom to change tyres robbed fans of an entertaining finish to the race – and believes the rules should be tweaked to prevent teams from switching rubber if there is a late red flag and restart



YES, PLEASE. Yay for Pirelli.

[lustigson]

+1

[Mila]

what's Hembrey's position on switching tire manufacturers so that every GP isn't ruined?

since Pirelli, with the FIA's blessing, is turning this into a gimmick formula for the sake of entertainment, maybe it's time to stop rooting for favorite drivers and start cheering on favorite tire compounds?

[Velocifer]

+1 Tyre warmers only, nothing else to be done to cars if placed on the grid.

[zeph]

+1

[Bren]

the rule should be clarified that tires can be changed, but only in the pits and on restart, pitted cars start from the pits.
the reset of the whole tire strat is a total waste.

[Jordana]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91893

Pirelli director of motorsport Paul Hembery thinks that the freedom to change tyres robbed fans of an entertaining finish to the race – and believes the rules should be tweaked to prevent teams from switching rubber if there is a late red flag and restart



YES, PLEASE. Yay for Pirelli.

Mr. Hembery is English and Pirelli is Italian... Funny!

[Stormsky68]

door horse bolt shut

[Clatter]

what's Hembrey's position on switching tire manufacturers so that every GP isn't ruined?

since Pirelli, with the FIA's blessing, is turning this into a gimmick formula for the sake of entertainment, maybe it's time to stop rooting for favorite drivers and start cheering on favorite tire compounds?

Same old whinge, and yet the racing this season has been the best for years. I havent seen a single GP ruined because of the tyres and just because some teams\drivers have struggled to adapt is their own fault not the tyres, as proven by the fact that others have managed very succesfully on the exact same tyres.

As to the comment, well it's spot on. The late SC and change of tyres killed the race stone dead. They might as well have not bothered with the restart.

[jee]

When was the last time a race was stopped and restarted after at least more than half the distance?
This is a very rare case, spoiled this GP though.

[Marbles]

Works for me.

A red flag in dry conditions should result in parc ferme rules.

Edited by Marbles, 30 May 2011 - 12:39.

[Owen]

Yes Mr Pirelli. We're with you.

[Atreiu]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91893

Pirelli director of motorsport Paul Hembery thinks that the freedom to change tyres robbed fans of an entertaining finish to the race – and believes the rules should be tweaked to prevent teams from switching rubber if there is a late red flag and restart



YES, PLEASE. Yay for Pirelli.

I've been critical of them this seaoosn, but I completely agree with Henbry on that issue.

[ocp]

Big up for Pirelli for this and for the tyres this year

It's just common sense.

[Touti]

I hope they are listened to, it doesn't have to be overly complicated, just add an article to the "Suspending a race" section to specify that no tyres change shall take place on the grid.

And congrats to Pirelli for coming up with ideas and suggestions to improve the show and mostly for not being afraid of speaking up.

Edited by Touti, 30 May 2011 - 12:59.

[wingwalker]

I hope they are listened to, it doesn't have to be overly complicated, just add an article to the "Suspending a race" section to specify that no tyres change shall take place on the grid.

Unless there is a weather change in the meantime.

[Touti]

Unless there is a weather change in the meantime.

Wouldn't that already be covered by the "wet race rule", although I agree that to avoid confusion and debate it would be best to be clear on it.

[Mila]

it depends on the things we see as constituting "racing," Clatter. if all the cars took the re-start with no tires--only wheel rims--the final laps would have been much more entertaining.

I agree that all the drivers should have been rewarded, or punished, for the strategies they adopted. for me, parc ferme rules should have been imposed, but not for the sake of entertainment.

look at it this way. if the top three positions had been reversed--with the freshest rubber on the first-placed car and the oldest on the third-place car--would those same people who complained to Hembrey about the tire changes have complained if no tire changes were allowed? I bet that they would have, and so would have Pirelli.

Edited by Mila, 30 May 2011 - 13:03.

[engel]

It'd be silly, you can change the whole rear wing or I don't know a whole corner of the car but not tyres?

[Boing 2]

what's Hembrey's position on switching tire manufacturers so that every GP isn't ruined?

since Pirelli, with the FIA's blessing, is turning this into a gimmick formula for the sake of entertainment, maybe it's time to stop rooting for favorite drivers and start cheering on favorite tire compounds?

The FIA demanded it, this wasn't Pirelli's idea.

[wingwalker]

Wouldn't that already be covered by the "wet race rule", although I agree that to avoid confusion and debate it would be best to be clear on it.

Yeah I was going to add 'but I think its already covered' but then I recalled I thought race is over with a red flag after 75% of the distance

[johnmhinds]

If they can change parts of the cars for safety reasons then they have to be allowed to change the tyres.

If the race has been stopped because of a big crash and all the cars have driven through the area that is full of broken carbon fibre it'd be insane to force them to race again on the same tyres all in the name of "entertainment".

[Mila]

fair enough, Boing 2. thanks.

[Longtimefan]

door horse bolt shut

^^ This..

[karlth]

Bless you Pirelli.

[trogggy]

It'd be silly, you can change the whole rear wing or I don't know a whole corner of the car but not tyres?

There's a difference between repairs and replacing tyres - and there's a good argument for doing neither, or saying if you want to work on the car (other than using tyre warmers, leaf blowers and the like) then park up in the pits and exit from there at the back. It wouldn't be silly at all as long as teams knew the rule beforehand though.

[Dunder]

It'd be silly, you can change the whole rear wing or I don't know a whole corner of the car but not tyres?

Hembery is only talking about the tyres here but I would guess it would have to be combined with "parc ferme conditions whilst the race is suspended" clause.

[windtravels]

Thumbs up to pirelli, have to say. Doing a top job.

[LuckyStrike1]

There must be more important things in F1 to focus on and fix rather than this non-issue that maybe occurs once every ten years or something and is relatively unimportant.

I think it was fine. The rules were clear, they have been in effect since a long time and everyone knew what was allowed so not really an issue. It's not like anyone based their strategy on this rule anyway.

Now an accident happened and they could just as well have stopped the race there and then instead of running the remaining lapson overtime and it would not have been discussed.

Or when it comes to forums like this. It would have been discussed and raged about and argued the race should have been restarted until maybe someone would have discovered the rules for red flags and we would have been back to square one again.

[MrAerodynamicist]

It'd be silly, you can change the whole rear wing or I don't know a whole corner of the car but not tyres?

I think that's fair. Tyre changes and strategy are a fundamental part of every race; every team has to have a plan. By allowing the tyres to change, there is an inherent favouritism to those trying to conserve tyres. Red Bull *decided* to go with less pitstops, and got thrown a freebee relative to Button & Alonso. That was an unfair advantage to RBR. By banning tyre changes you are not being fair or unfair, you're just putting fate back in the hands of the team strategists.

Car damage is not something a team/driver *decides* to have. Sometimes it occurs through a driver's own incompetence, but it is as often if not more so, due to blameless racing incidents or other drivers' incompetence. I imagine most red-flags are followed by at least one person who needs a new nose.

Putting aside the Lewis Punchbag for a moment, if there was one thing he wasn't to blame for yesterday, it was the way his rear wing got damaged. Now it's clear he wouldn't have been allowed to restart the race as it was. Given that he wasn't to blame for the damage, forcing him to retire would have been unfair (that's would what would have happened if there was no red-flag, and it would have been an 'unfair' end to the race for Lewis. I know there are people who hate Lewis and want it all to be his fault, but that doesn't change the fact. It's always an unfair end to a race when a driver retires through no fault of his own.). You could argue it was unfair to the drivers behind Lewis that he was able to remain in position in a way that he couldn't have had there been no red flag. But I would turn that around and say somebody like Rubens who was further back had no inherent right to automatically gain a place at Lewis' expense.

Edited by MrAerodynamicist, 30 May 2011 - 13:37.

[BRK]

Common sense. But I'd like a proper rule that's strictly implemented, limit changes to repairs and ban everything else.


It's not like we're going to have red flags every race, so it's not that a big deal anyway.

[dav115]

The FIA demanded it, this wasn't Pirelli's idea.

That's the idea at Pirelli are pushing on us, but the simple fact is they are currently incapable of producing as good a tyre as Bridgestone were by the end of their time in F1. Hell, even their harder compounds last barely any longer than their softer ones and offer significantly less grip. It's nothing to be ashamed of given that they've been out of F1 for so long, tyre development is probably one of the most complicated aspects of Formula 1, but this idea that they are purposefully under-developing the tyres for more excitement is just PR speak. The 2010 Bridgestones were ridiculously well developed tyres.

[MrAerodynamicist]

The 2010 Bridgestones were ridiculously well developed tyres.

And gave us ridiculously well boring races. The fact one driver has managed 1-1-2-1-1-1 suggests that it's still about talent and its not been turned in to a lottery.

[BenettonB192]

What if some drivers got a puncture from debris? They must then drive behind the safety car and restart with a flat tyre?
What if they change the rules and next time the excitement gets destroyed because the guy in the lead has to give up for that reason? You demand a rule change again then?

I agree that the rule destroyed the excitement of the last couple laps yesterday but it would be premature to mess around with the rules because of that. First they have to go back and look why it was implemented in the first place. I'm sure there was a reason because i don't think it was always like that. Even the commentators and some drivers were confused.

[Dunder]

That's the idea at Pirelli are pushing on us, but the simple fact is they are currently incapable of producing as good a tyre as Bridgestone were by the end of their time in F1. Hell, even their harder compounds last barely any longer than their softer ones and offer significantly less grip. It's nothing to be ashamed of given that they've been out of F1 for so long, tyre development is probably one of the most complicated aspects of Formula 1, but this idea that they are purposefully under-developing the tyres for more excitement is just PR speak. The 2010 Bridgestones were ridiculously well developed tyres.

Fact?
As an opinion it is not unreasonable but stating this as a fact is facile.

[ocp]

That's the idea at Pirelli are pushing on us, but the simple fact is they are currently incapable of producing as good a tyre as Bridgestone were by the end of their time in F1. Hell, even their harder compounds last barely any longer than their softer ones and offer significantly less grip. It's nothing to be ashamed of given that they've been out of F1 for so long, tyre development is probably one of the most complicated aspects of Formula 1, but this idea that they are purposefully under-developing the tyres for more excitement is just PR speak. The 2010 Bridgestones were ridiculously well developed tyres.

You are wrong, they can easily make a tyre last for the whole gran prix.

[MrAerodynamicist]

What if some drivers got a puncture from debris? They must then drive behind the safety car and restart with a flat tyre?

Red Flags are pretty rare, it's nearly always just SC these days. With a SC, that's a risk decision the teams must make. Personally, I'd say a driver can either (a) not change tyres (b) demonstrate actual damage to the FIA and be allowed to change tyre(s) without penalty © change tyres and drop to the back of the queue.

[sv401]

Of course, a knee-jerk rule change could produce other unfair or unpopular situations, unless the cars are restarted with the same gaps as before the red flag. Here is an example:
- at an easy to overtake on track (e.g. Montreal with two DRS zones), Hamilton leads the race with about 10 laps remaining, followed by Button, then Alonso, the Red Bulls, and then a large gap to the rest
- Alonso breaks his front wing, and pits, also getting fresh tyres; he drops back to 5th far behind the leader
- shortly after that, some backmarkers have a big crash, and the race is stopped
- at the restart, the gaps are erased, but tyre changes are not allowed
- Alonso easily overtakes the Red Bulls on the much faster new tyres, then the McLarens, and wins the race by luck
I can already see the threads started by McLaren fans demanding the rule to be changed back again
This same situation could also occur with a safety car period, but in the case of a red flag, it is avoidable. The point is that if gaps are reset, then it may be fair to reset the tyres too. If someone is really faster under equal conditions, he can still try to overtake (like Webber on Kobayashi in Monaco).

Edited by sv401, 30 May 2011 - 13:56.

[Dusty]

We lost out a bit but there's always going to be something to complain about when such a fantastic race is interupted. I guess we have to take that one on the chin.

[sosidge]

I disagree with Mr Hembrey.

A red flag is not for the show, it is for safety. The cars are allowed to make a number of changes on the restart grid to make sure they are safe to compete in the conditions ahead. A tyre change should be one of those.

OK, so Vettel got the advantage this weekend. But what if Vettel's tyre had been cut in avoiding the accident that closed the track? What value in a win against a car whose tyres have gone over debris.

[dav115]

You are wrong, they can easily make a tyre last for the whole gran prix.

Of course they can, but expect the laptimes to skyrocket. It would take a long time for them to get anywhere close to what Bridgestone finished on.

[SPBHM]

I disagree with Mr Hembrey.

A red flag is not for the show, it is for safety. The cars are allowed to make a number of changes on the restart grid to make sure they are safe to compete in the conditions ahead. A tyre change should be one of those.

OK, so Vettel got the advantage this weekend. But what if Vettel's tyre had been cut in avoiding the accident that closed the track? What value in a win against a car whose tyres have gone over debris.

they should allow the cars to be repaired and change tyres for safety, sure, but those who decided to do that should restart at the back.

[ocp]

Of course they can, but expect the laptimes to skyrocket. It would take a long time for them to get anywhere close to what Bridgestone finished on.

Teams would then change how the car uses the tyres and they will find more grip, just like what they are doing by nursing them.

I see your point and I don't agree because basicly we can't know but why are we talking about Bridgestones

[Sakae]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91893

Pirelli director of motorsport Paul Hembery thinks that the freedom to change tyres robbed fans of an entertaining finish to the race – and believes the rules should be tweaked to prevent teams from switching rubber if there is a late red flag and restart



YES, PLEASE. Yay for Pirelli.

Hembery (Pirelli) should do what teams will ask Pirelli to do, and stop medling in business of sporting regulations. Period.

Edited by Sakae, 30 May 2011 - 14:18.

[pingu666]

id say that pirelli would struggle to get near bridgestone endurance and grip, they couldnt really do it in sportscar racing compaired to michlin and dunlop.

the tyre would also need tobe a entirely new design philosophy aswell

[engel]

I think that's fair. Tyre changes and strategy are a fundamental part of every race; every team has to have a plan. By allowing the tyres to change, there is an inherent favouritism to those trying to conserve tyres. Red Bull *decided* to go with less pitstops, and got thrown a freebee relative to Button & Alonso. That was an unfair advantage to RBR. By banning tyre changes you are not being fair or unfair, you're just putting fate back in the hands of the team strategists.

Car damage is not something a team/driver *decides* to have. Sometimes it occurs through a driver's own incompetence, but it is as often if not more so, due to blameless racing incidents or other drivers' incompetence. I imagine most red-flags are followed by at least one person who needs a new nose.

Putting aside the Lewis Punchbag for a moment, if there was one thing he wasn't to blame for yesterday, it was the way his rear wing got damaged. Now it's clear he wouldn't have been allowed to restart the race as it was. Given that he wasn't to blame for the damage, forcing him to retire would have been unfair (that's would what would have happened if there was no red-flag, and it would have been an 'unfair' end to the race for Lewis. I know there are people who hate Lewis and want it all to be his fault, but that doesn't change the fact. It's always an unfair end to a race when a driver retires through no fault of his own.). You could argue it was unfair to the drivers behind Lewis that he was able to remain in position in a way that he couldn't have had there been no red flag. But I would turn that around and say somebody like Rubens who was further back had no inherent right to automatically gain a place at Lewis' expense.

That's incredibly myopic. I can punt somebody off the road on lap 10, never bother to pit for a replacement nose cone. Lap 70 comes about, red flag, I get a free nose change. Or I can go off the road all by myself while half way around the lap Petrov crashes, wreck my car in a completely unrelated incident and get free repairs. You either keep the cars in park ferme (which in my opinion would be silly) or you don't. Limiting tyre changes cause somebody might benefit while completely ignoring all the other permutations where somebody might benefit is, like I said, myopic.

[Slyder]

Not just ban tires, ban repairs too.

NASCAR, for all the criticism has it nailed right when it comes to red flags. When the red flag is issued all activities are stopped, no repair, no new tires, nothing. You're allowed to look at the damages but that's it, and only resume repairs or tire changes when the red flag is lifted.

You can't take one thing (tires) and leave the other one (repairs). That's just ridiculous double standards and teams and drivers would argue against it on safety grounds.

Best to rid of repairs and tire changes and everything on the red flag, that way, everything is kept fair 100%.

[HAM]

When was the last time a race was stopped and restarted after at least more than half the distance?
This is a very rare case, spoiled this GP though.

Think it was Malaysia 2009 = heavy rain and thunderstorms, then they did a 75% score finish because the wet pussycats were too afraid to race again. But of course Lewis wanted to race as one of the few.

New tyres after red flag with rain should be fair and safe, but in normal conditions like yesterday NO NEW TYRES! They scr.wed the race and the racewinner who would have won it: Alonso or Button.

Edited by HAM, 30 May 2011 - 14:45.

[engel]

Think it was Malaysia 2009 = heavy rain and thunderstorms, then they did a 75% score finish because the wet pussycats were too afraid to race again. But of course Lewis wanted to race as one of the few.

No he didn't ...

http://www.grandprix...5sunquotes.html

When the rain came down, it was impossible to drive. I was aquaplaning everywhere - these were the most dangerous conditions I've ever raced in. All I could do was try and keep the car on the track. It was the correct decision to stop the race because it was just too dangerous for everyone. I love it when it rains, but this was just too much.

Edited by engel, 30 May 2011 - 15:05.

[Clatter]

it depends on the things we see as constituting "racing," Clatter. if all the cars took the re-start with no tires--only wheel rims--the final laps would have been much more entertaining.

I agree that all the drivers should have been rewarded, or punished, for the strategies they adopted. for me, parc ferme rules should have been imposed, but not for the sake of entertainment.

look at it this way. if the top three positions had been reversed--with the freshest rubber on the first-placed car and the oldest on the third-place car--would those same people who complained to Hembrey about the tire changes have complained if no tire changes were allowed? I bet that they would have, and so would have Pirelli.

In that situation I very much doubt we would have had the first 3 cars nose to tail, they would have all been pulling away from each other and the race pretty much decided. And changing to new tyres woudnt change that.