45 replies to this topic

[anbeck]

Imagine we go back to a situation as it was in the past: drivers are limited to a certain number of tyre sets over the week-end, but can actually decide at the track, which compounds they want to use. Let's go as far as saying that drivers have to declare the compound for each set they use only at the moment it is put on the car: that is, until the last stint in the race the team can decide whether the last set is going to be soft or medium.

How would that change the races?

The supersoft would likely become a qualy-tyre, or maybe come on the car when a driver has a puncture. How the other three are used certainly depends on how they behave on a specific track. But would racing be changed?

I know, it would be a logistical nightmare for Pirelli, and it would certainly boost costs. But would races be more varied, more unpredictable? Or would it just be a more expensive version what we have seen with weekends being limited to two compounds: essentially, if you want to win, you have to follow not only more or less the "right" strategy throughout the race (with computers and engineers analyzing the data and putting the best strategy down to the lap each pitstop is optimally placed), but also throughout all the practice session. Ruin a set on Saturday morning could mean your qualy- and therefore race-strategy compromised.

Have computers taken out the variety of strategies? I think we would be unlikely to see more variety, and that there is a "right" (as per computer predictions) way to do it. We wouldn't see three-stoppers on softs, two stoppers on hards, or other big differences within a single race - at least at the front. I think in the past season I've heard at one or two races that guys like Ross Brawn said that two different strategies that the computers came up with were within a few seconds and that the team actually had a choice to go with one or the other. Would the use of all four compounds loosen up that situation? Probably not. It would be nice to see how it turned out, especially when we have a car in the leading pack that treats the tyres different from the other top teams and would like to choose softer or harder tyres than everybody else.

What do you think?

[mistareno]

Imagine we go back to a situation as it was in the past: drivers are limited to a certain number of tyre sets over the week-end, but can actually decide at the track, which compounds they want to use. Let's go as far as saying that drivers have to declare the compound for each set they use only at the moment it is put on the car: that is, until the last stint in the race the team can decide whether the last set is going to be soft or medium.

How would that change the races?

The supersoft would likely become a qualy-tyre, or maybe come on the car when a driver has a puncture. How the other three are used certainly depends on how they behave on a specific track. But would racing be changed?

I know, it would be a logistical nightmare for Pirelli, and it would certainly boost costs. But would races be more varied, more unpredictable? Or would it just be a more expensive version what we have seen with weekends being limited to two compounds: essentially, if you want to win, you have to follow not only more or less the "right" strategy throughout the race (with computers and engineers analyzing the data and putting the best strategy down to the lap each pitstop is optimally placed), but also throughout all the practice session. Ruin a set on Saturday morning could mean your qualy- and therefore race-strategy compromised.

Have computers taken out the variety of strategies? I think we would be unlikely to see more variety, and that there is a "right" (as per computer predictions) way to do it. We wouldn't see three-stoppers on softs, two stoppers on hards, or other big differences within a single race - at least at the front. I think in the past season I've heard at one or two races that guys like Ross Brawn said that two different strategies that the computers came up with were within a few seconds and that the team actually had a choice to go with one or the other. Would the use of all four compounds loosen up that situation? Probably not. It would be nice to see how it turned out, especially when we have a car in the leading pack that treats the tyres different from the other top teams and would like to choose softer or harder tyres than everybody else.

What do you think?

Jenson would still complain of balance issues.
Hamilton would still try and be Senna and run into someone.
Webber would blame someone.
Alonso would give up.
Massa would get told 'His tyres are faster than yours'.
Rosberg would be invisible.
Schumacher would try and be Schumacher and run into someone.
Kimi would try taking every corner flat out, sideways and blind on supersofts and hire a smoke machine to add to the challenge.
HRT and Virgin will run the super rock hard compound that will last the whole season...


Vettel would continue anhilating everyone....

Edited by mistareno, 29 February 2012 - 02:59.

[walkindude]

No points to guess who you support mistareno.Sadly this is not a vettel/kimi lovefest.

On topic,as the season goes all the teams will converge towards the same sort of strategies as they understand more and more about the tyres.

[mistareno]

No points to guess who you support mistareno.Sadly this is not a vettel/kimi lovefest.

On topic,as the season goes all the teams will converge towards the same sort of strategies as they understand more and more about the tyres.

You're right. No points for you. I'm neither a Kimi or Seb supporter (that said, I do now have an immense respect for Seb after his last 2 seasons)

FWIW, I just think these 'What if' threads are just futile and ridiculous.

What if the drivers could have a 2kg tank of nos that they could use at any time of the race?

What if ...

Edited by mistareno, 29 February 2012 - 03:44.

[Myrvold]

You're right. No points for you. I'm neither a Kimi or Seb supporter (that said, I do now have an immense respect for Seb after his last 2 seasons)

FWIW, I just think these 'What if' threads are just futile and ridiculous.

What if the drivers could have a 2kg tank of nos that they could use at any time of the race?

What if ...

... you just don't read the threads you don't find interesting!

[kedia990]

What if the drivers could have a 2kg tank of nos that they could use at any time of the race?

What if ...

Now that, sir, is more like it.

[muramasa]

How about give drivers no freedom of choosing tyres - only one compound per GP?

[mistareno]

How about give drivers no freedom of choosing tyres - only one compound per GP?

I'd prefer one step further.

One compound for the entire season.

Make the drivers drive around the deficiencies in the tyre.

[TheBunk]

Imagine we go back to a situation as it was in the past: drivers are limited to a certain number of tyre sets over the week-end, but can actually decide at the track, which compounds they want to use. Let's go as far as saying that drivers have to declare the compound for each set they use only at the moment it is put on the car: that is, until the last stint in the race the team can decide whether the last set is going to be soft or medium.

How would that change the races?

The supersoft would likely become a qualy-tyre, or maybe come on the car when a driver has a puncture. How the other three are used certainly depends on how they behave on a specific track. But would racing be changed?

I know, it would be a logistical nightmare for Pirelli, and it would certainly boost costs. But would races be more varied, more unpredictable? Or would it just be a more expensive version what we have seen with weekends being limited to two compounds: essentially, if you want to win, you have to follow not only more or less the "right" strategy throughout the race (with computers and engineers analyzing the data and putting the best strategy down to the lap each pitstop is optimally placed), but also throughout all the practice session. Ruin a set on Saturday morning could mean your qualy- and therefore race-strategy compromised.

Have computers taken out the variety of strategies? I think we would be unlikely to see more variety, and that there is a "right" (as per computer predictions) way to do it. We wouldn't see three-stoppers on softs, two stoppers on hards, or other big differences within a single race - at least at the front. I think in the past season I've heard at one or two races that guys like Ross Brawn said that two different strategies that the computers came up with were within a few seconds and that the team actually had a choice to go with one or the other. Would the use of all four compounds loosen up that situation? Probably not. It would be nice to see how it turned out, especially when we have a car in the leading pack that treats the tyres different from the other top teams and would like to choose softer or harder tyres than everybody else.

What do you think?

Wasnt it like this before 1995?

Edited by TheBunk, 29 February 2012 - 05:34.

[Nobody]

Vettel would continue anhilating everyone....

I just wonder where that finger's been...

[cheapracer]

Wasnt it like this before 1995?

Why yes it was, I watched the tyre wars and they were fun especially a guy way out in front on hards who hadn't stopped and had guys on softs catching him 2 or 3 seconds per lap with only 10 laps to go .... was bloody exciting stuff same as when you could choose to refuel or not during the race, guys tried to go the distance on full tanks while others did one or 2 refuels.

Jenson would still complain of balance issues.
Hamilton would still try and be Senna and run into someone.
Webber would blame someone.
Alonso would give up.
Massa would get told 'His tyres are faster than yours'.
Rosberg would be invisible.
Schumacher would try and be Schumacher and run into someone.
Kimi would try taking every corner flat out, sideways and blind on supersofts and hire a smoke machine to add to the challenge.
HRT and Virgin will run the super rock hard compound that will last the whole season...


Vettel would continue anhilating everyone....

I laffed and you're right, tyres shouldn't be a part of F1 to the degree it is today, let the drivers choose what they want to run not the tyre companies and preferably one rock hard set per race that the car and driver can go full speed without disruption.

[anbeck]

Wasnt it like this before 1995?

That's why I said "as it was in the past".

But I think computers and data analysis was quite some step away from today, and I am under the impression that 'tyre' windows have become smaller. So if a team has a hard time getting a specific compound to work, the whole season is compromised.

Because of these changes, I think the application from early-1990s rules would not result in early-1990s racing. No matter how many variables you throw in there, the computers and engineers would probably find the one right way to drive the race (bar any sudden weather changes or unforeseen incidents, such as safety cars, etc.). Qualify on this tyre, do a first stint on that tyre for x laps, then change to that tyre and stop on lap y.

As far as the comment on having only 1 compound is concerned: I'd like to see drivers adapt to that kind of situation. But you'd have to build a tyre that has a very wide window, otherwise a team that has problems with that tyre can close for the whole season.

[HoldenRT]

I liked 2006. The teams could choose 2 compounds to take to each race suited to THEIR specific car. That way a team that is light on it's tyres could go softer and not be punished for it in colder conditions.. and a team that is harder on it's tyres could go harder, and not be punished for it in hotter conditions.

[Stormsky68]

Have computers taken out the variety of strategies? I think we would be unlikely to see more variety, and that there is a "right" (as per computer predictions) way to do it.

This. Whatever tyres rules you employ, taking laps times and pit stops into account, there is usually a fastest way to run a race.

I'd like to try one change from the current rules though: anyone who goes out in Q1 or Q2 does not have to use both types of tyres, they can have totally free choice. Should close the field spread up a bit.

Edited by Stormsky68, 29 February 2012 - 08:18.

[Lee Nicolle]

One word. Better.
All trhe artificial gimmicks that they have to run 2 different tyres etc is so garbage. Say 3 compounds, at the start of the seasonng and let the teams and drivers work out what their car needs.

[Blutch]

What about one compound / one race, they choose what they want ?

[TheBunk]

That's why I said "as it was in the past".

But I think computers and data analysis was quite some step away from today, and I am under the impression that 'tyre' windows have become smaller. So if a team has a hard time getting a specific compound to work, the whole season is compromised.

Because of these changes, I think the application from early-1990s rules would not result in early-1990s racing. No matter how many variables you throw in there, the computers and engineers would probably find the one right way to drive the race (bar any sudden weather changes or unforeseen incidents, such as safety cars, etc.). Qualify on this tyre, do a first stint on that tyre for x laps, then change to that tyre and stop on lap y.

As far as the comment on having only 1 compound is concerned: I'd like to see drivers adapt to that kind of situation. But you'd have to build a tyre that has a very wide window, otherwise a team that has problems with that tyre can close for the whole season.

AH, didnt see that note. Agreed on the computer sims being much more advanced nowadays. Imo they should not ban test restrictions, but 7 post rigs, all computers than run anything higher than win 95. ANd introduce tyres that last 6 or 7 races and can take a beating, and perform more or less the same for 400 laps.

[The Ragged Edge]

Pirelli should be ashamed of themselves for designing tyres they way they have. They are nothing more than a gimmick and makes a mockery of a facet F1 had. The ability to drive 100% flat out for a stint. Under Pirelli racing has become a tyre management exercise.

Edited by The Ragged Edge, 29 February 2012 - 08:47.

[onewingedangel]

Pirelli should be ashamed of themselves for designing tyres they way they have. They are nothing more than a gimmick and makes a mockery of a facet F1 had. The ability to drive 100% flat out for a stint. Under Pirelli racing has become a tyre management exercise.

Tyres are a resource to use - the strategic addition of when and how to use your tyres life, and indeed how to manage the tyres is an additional skill.

Why should tyres be a non-factor in the race?

[icecream_man]

Why yes it was, I watched the tyre wars and they were fun especially a guy way out in front on hards who hadn't stopped and had guys on softs catching him 2 or 3 seconds per lap with only 10 laps to go .... was bloody exciting stuff

Exactly the reason why I'd like to see that return, I've been missing those battles, it was real edge of the seat stuff

[roadie]

I'd prefer one step further.

One compound for the entire season.

Make the drivers drive around the deficiencies in the tyre.

Yeah, not a bad shout. One of my favourite season was 2005 with the one set of tyres per race rule. I especially remember the end of the Monaco GP. Fred's tyres were going off badly, allowing Webber and Heidfeld to close in and then pounce after the tunnel.

[The Ragged Edge]

Tyres are a resource to use - the strategic addition of when and how to use your tyres life, and indeed how to manage the tyres is an additional skill.

Why should tyres be a non-factor in the race?

A factor yes, but not to the degree we have now. There simply is no real choice due to a lack of tyre longevity between the compounds. New vs old tyres is not even a contest. New tyres going off as quick as 6 laps is a joke. The most common dialog between race-engineer and driver last year was, "look after the tyres" Technology moves on and we should accept this. This includes tyre technology. Is DRS not enough to aid overtaking? To boost the show, next we'll be asking engine manufacturers to build their engines with materials they used 10+ years ago, because if a driver doesn't use his engine sparingly, there is a high probability of the engine failing. Seriously, there was a time in F1, when I use to bite my nails wondering if my favourite driver would make it to the end, or would his engine blow up. Yes it was exciting stuff, but I wouldn't want to see a return to that.

From Touring cars, to Moto GP, to Endurance racing, tyre management is not employed to anyhere near the same degree it is needed in F1. Technology has moved so far that Engine and gearboxes last for 4/5 races. Drivers once had to take care of their cars and all major components. Are you really asking for a return to those days, because it was once a skill needed to be employed? If the answer is no, then why are tyres deliberately being manipulated/designed to wear out faster. If MOTO GP, became a tyre management exercise, you can forget Stoner winning the title with his style and the way he abuses tyres. It would be a shoot-out between Pedrosa and Lorenzo, because they are light on their tyres, especially Pedrosa. Thankfully Le Mans is no longer a tyre management exercise thanks to Michellin. The fastest driver should win, not the one who balances driving to a target time in order to conserve tyre wear. This is F1 FFS.

Edited by The Ragged Edge, 29 February 2012 - 11:23.

[Sakae]

How about give drivers no freedom of choosing tyres - only one compound per GP?

Methinks the same. Your really need dry, intermediate and wet threads. These new tire specifications drive me nuts, so I am exiting <runs for cover>.

[Watkins74]

Pirelli should be ashamed of themselves for designing tyres they way they have. They are nothing more than a gimmick and makes a mockery of a facet F1 had. The ability to drive 100% flat out for a stint. Under Pirelli racing has become a tyre management exercise.

Pirelli is just doing what the FIA wants. The FIA is doing "entertainment" tires based on fan input that they wanted more passing.

[mistareno]

Technology has moved so far that Engine and gearboxes last for 4/5 races.

Do you believe that if there was no rpm or mileage restriction (and more importantly a limit on the number of engines) that engines they would still last 4/5 races?

If the engines were a free for all like the old days, we'd have engines revving to 25k an blowing up every race because if they didn't - others would - and one of those others would finish most of the time.

In an uncontrolled formula, the engineers will always push the limits of technology in a bid to win. That doesn't matter if it's 1980's tech or 2012 tech.

If there had been the same set of rules in place in the 90's I'm sure you would've seen a similar coma inducing reliability trial as we see now.

F1 was supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing where driver and engineers alike pushed the boundaires of what could be done.

Alas, that time has past.

[Watkins74]

Have computers taken out the variety of strategies? I think we would be unlikely to see more variety, and that there is a "right" (as per computer predictions) way to do it. We wouldn't see three-stoppers on softs, two stoppers on hards, or other big differences within a single race - at least at the front. I think in the past season I've heard at one or two races that guys like Ross Brawn said that two different strategies that the computers came up with were within a few seconds and that the team actually had a choice to go with one or the other. Would the use of all four compounds loosen up that situation? Probably not. It would be nice to see how it turned out, especially when we have a car in the leading pack that treats the tyres different from the other top teams and would like to choose softer or harder tyres than everybody else.

What do you think?

The whole reason that Pirelli has reduced the difference between tires this year is to bring back the strategies.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97477

When asked if the laptime differences and degradation data put in into the window Pirelli was after to make the racing exciting, Hembery said: "Absolutely. That is what we want to do, and even the initial indications are that that will happen.

"A team will make a decision, to make one pit stop less and stay out longer on a medium/hard tyre. Last year everyone pushed the maximum performance out of the soft tyre as there was no advantage elsewhere because the gap was so big. Teams could not overcome the 1.5 seconds through degradation."

Edited by Watkins74, 29 February 2012 - 12:02.

[Sakae]

Pirelli is just doing what the FIA wants. The FIA is doing "entertainment" tires based on fan input that they wanted more passing.

Has that objective been achieved? I really doubt that.

We must have grooved tire (well, now we do not have grooved tires)
We must have KERS
We must have DRS
We must have tire variants

Gimmick after gimmick, failing to recognize that if you get a deadly combination of a good Chief Engineer and a driver, there will be not change on a score board, just wasteful, and avoidable expenses for the teams.

[mistareno]

Yeah, not a bad shout. One of my favourite season was 2005 with the one set of tyres per race rule. I especially remember the end of the Monaco GP. Fred's tyres were going off badly, allowing Webber and Heidfeld to close in and then pounce after the tunnel.

+1.

One of the few GP's from that long ago that still sticks in the memory.

Make a tyre that will go a race distance structurally and still be safe at the end and that is that.

If a driver has to pit for a puncture, that's fine bit if a driver overheats the tyres in the first 20 laps and goes down to the rock hard compound underneath and then gets gobbled up, then so be it.

I'm a Renault fan and was biting my nails hoping for Fred to hold on despite the fact that the tyres were like jelly, but it was hugely entertaining to see how the different cars and drivers used their tyres.

[Watkins74]

Has that objective been achieved? I really doubt that.

We must have grooved tire (well, now we do not have grooved tires)
We must have KERS
We must have DRS
We must have tire variants

Gimmick after gimmick, failing to recognize that if you get a deadly combination of a good Chief Engineer and a driver, there will be not change on a score board, just wasteful, and avoidable expenses for the teams.

I agree. However for someone to blame Pirelli to be the source of this problem is inaccurate.

Edited by Watkins74, 29 February 2012 - 12:08.

[Sakae]

I agree. However for someone to blame Pirelli to be the source of this problem is inaccurate.

I will go alone with the understanding that writing specs is a partnership effort, but I would like to have better understanding to what extend FIA really went beyond stating we want x-number of compounds, because looking at it from outside, this man Hembery likes nothing better than to have consultations with McLaren, and his name in headlines. Put it mildly, I think Hembery on behalf of Pirelli exceeded his mandate, and I would not be surprised that this will be last season before clamp-down. (Ross B. said several months ago, paraphrasing, let’s try another year before we change it. Sounds like he might not be on board with this mess as well).

Edited by Sakae, 29 February 2012 - 12:21.

[apoka]

I think Pirelli has made racing more exciting. The whole point of having different tyres is to stipulate different strategies, which lead to speed differences in the race. It is not completely fair, of course, but made the races less predictable and increases the number of battles on track. I don't see why using a single compound provides better racing. Pirelli is already making tweaks to make tyres more durable (=> allows drivers to go flat out more often) and decrease the difference between different tyres (=> more variable strategies), which seems right to me.

I am also happy to have a single tyre manufacturer in F1. Some may have liked the tyre war, but I found it silly to put hundreds of millions Euro in cars to squeeze out the last few tenths when being on the right tyre could make more than a second difference.

So there is no problem to fix, which cannot be done with smaller adaptations of the Pirelli tyres in my opinion.

[The Ragged Edge]

Pirelli is just doing what the FIA wants. The FIA is doing "entertainment" tires based on fan input that they wanted more passing.

The FIA asked Michelin and Bridgestone to provide these type of tyres too and they declined, because their reputation was more important.

[Tenmantaylor]

Whatever is available there will always be a single fastest way to finish a race and if someone qualifies on pole and executes the right tyre choice they will win no matter what. In this respect it wouldn't make much difference, the way I foresee it being desirable for racing is that it makes it harder to pick the right compound and will introduce a tyre lottery meaning the person who picked the right tyres near the front wins. Is this what we want F1 to be?

[muramasa]

Make a tyre that will go a race distance structurally and still be safe at the end and that is that.

If a driver has to pit for a puncture, that's fine bit if a driver overheats the tyres in the first 20 laps and goes down to the rock hard compound underneath and then gets gobbled up, then so be it.

Bridgestone was perfect tyre in this aspect - can last the whole race if you wanted to, yet considerable performance difference between new tyre and old (Valencia, Singapore 2010 etc is good example).


Anyway, blaming tyres and tyre manufactures is abit off the mark imo. Nowadays tyres can be made whatever you want it to be. When tyre gets too much focus and needs to be tweaked, the problem is on car side, not tyres. Artificially making tyres to degrade after 10-20 laps is not 21st century ish, and simply not the natural progression direction for tyres, , and it's not Pirelli fault. Problem is car characteristic, esp aero, it's too difficult to overtake with modern cars. They need to look into basic car configuration, mainly aero, namely use more underbody downforce specifically (doesnt guarantee it will work and make things better, but quite a few tech savvy people (both journos and fans) are claiming this, so just look into it or give it a try I'd say).

Edited by muramasa, 29 February 2012 - 16:07.

[davegp3]

I'd prefer one step further.

One compound for the entire season.

Make the drivers drive around the deficiencies in the tyre.

What about 1 set of tyres for the entire season?

[fieraku]

I liked 2006. The teams could choose 2 compounds to take to each race suited to THEIR specific car. That way a team that is light on it's tyres could go softer and not be punished for it in colder conditions.. and a team that is harder on it's tyres could go harder, and not be punished for it in hotter conditions.

This.Also I don't like the notion drivers have to adapt to tires,it's BS imo,tires should adapt to drivers so he can show his full potential.

Before the usuals get on this and say ''It's always been like this",yeah I know,30 years ago,the world has evolved now,cell phones aren't the size of bricks and brakes are made of carbon,and engines have to last FOUR races,so everything has gotten better,every material used in an F1 car is better so the Stone Age tires don't really fit with everything else that has evolved since.

[fieraku]

Tyres are a resource to use - the strategic addition of when and how to use your tyres life, and indeed how to manage the tyres is an additional skill.

Why should tyres be a non-factor in the race?

They should,just not predetermined.
Let drivers use whatever,whenever with no mandatory 2 compound use,if a driver likes to ''manage'' let him,but if another likes to "race" let him as well.

Now everyone has to manage.

[Seanspeed]

Pirelli should be ashamed of themselves for designing tyres they way they have. They are nothing more than a gimmick and makes a mockery of a facet F1 had. The ability to drive 100% flat out for a stint. Under Pirelli racing has become a tyre management exercise.

They should be ashamed of doing exactly what was asked of them and largely succeeding? ugh

There's pros and cons to every approach, but I like the way it is now. Seems to be good for the racing.

Edited by Seanspeed, 29 February 2012 - 15:56.

[RealRacing]

The mandatory use of 2 different compounds is just another way by FIA of artificially trying to influence races. If we look at last year, many times teams stopped only because they had to use the other compound. Eliminating refuelling was a move in the right direction, so that we could see more racing on track. Why not let teams and drivers decide on their preferred strategy. If Button, for ex. drives better with hards and Hamilton with softs, let them see who finishes first with one doing zero stops and the other three...

[Tsarwash]

The FIA asked Michelin and Bridgestone to provide these type of tyres too and they declined, because their reputation was more important.

Didn't Michelin used to make qualifying tyres in the past ? Tyres that give excellent performance for just a few laps is not new to F1.

[Tsarwash]

And remembering 2005 with the single set of tyres for a whole race. It largely made for very boring races because nobody wanted to risk flat spotting their tyres, so everybody raced conservatively. Not allowing people to change tyres unless they are punctured is not racing, it's just ****. F1 is not a 100 metre sprint but nor is it a marathon.

[fieraku]

I think Pirelli has made racing more exciting. The whole point of having different tyres is to stipulate different strategies, which lead to speed differences in the race. It is not completely fair, of course, but made the races less predictable and increases the number of battles on track.

The Top Ten drivers the one's that got in Q1 were 99% of the time on equal strategies,it actually became so predictable that even fans could accurately tell what lap the pitstops were coming,especially the ones that watch with live timing.

I don't know where you saw this "unpredictability and excitement",I sure as heck didn't.

[Fastcake]

The Top Ten drivers the one's that got in Q1 were 99% of the time on equal strategies,it actually became so predictable that even fans could accurately tell what lap the pitstops were coming,especially the ones that watch with live timing.

I don't know where you saw this "unpredictability and excitement",I sure as heck didn't.

I don't think that's true at all, but regardless that's what the Bridgestones did. You could quite easily say what laps the entire field would pit over. Not because of times of course, but because the things never wore out and as one person came in, everyone did to get the slower ones off.

Unpredictability doesn't have to come from drivers at the back finishing at the front, but from not knowing the order the top 10 will finish in. Most races the lower podium slots were wide open.

[fieraku]

I don't think that's true at all, but regardless that's what the Bridgestones did. You could quite easily say what laps the entire field would pit over. Not because of times of course, but because the things never wore out and as one person came in, everyone did to get the slower ones off.

Unpredictability doesn't have to come from drivers at the back finishing at the front, but from not knowing the order the top 10 will finish in. Most races the lower podium slots were wide open.

I do!

source

[Watkins74]

This.Also I don't like the notion drivers have to adapt to tires,it's BS imo,tires should adapt to drivers so he can show his full potential.

Before the usuals get on this and say ''It's always been like this",yeah I know,30 years ago,the world has evolved now,cell phones aren't the size of bricks and brakes are made of carbon,and engines have to last FOUR races,so everything has gotten better,every material used in an F1 car is better so the Stone Age tires don't really fit with everything else that has evolved since.

Well it's 2012 so quit crying about the good old days in 2008.

[fieraku]

Well it's 2012 so quit crying about the good old days in 2008.

I take it you skipped the thread title.