165 replies to this topic

[f1paul]

I've noticed a lot of discussion about this in the Pirelli 2016 thread so here's a thread just for this type of discussion. 

 

Pirelli changed their structure of their tyres after the 2013 British GP and some fans say that was the turning point towards the racing we see now, I would have to agree. 

 

For me 2011 and 2012 was the best years for F1 in recent time and I would like to see a return to that.

 

 

[chhatra]

How about both.

We need durable tires which keep giving grip, up to a point.

They should last x amount of laps, and then start losing performance quickly.

At the moment, they don't give a huge amount of grip and they last forever.

[realracer200]

I'd rather have no DRS and not so much electronics in the cars. IMO the tyres aren't a problem.

[OO7]

Given the current aerodynamic characteristics of the cars, I'd rather have more durable tyres (still with pitstops for tyres being the fastest way to run a race) and extended DRS zones (with the possible exception of Baku, the others aren't long enough in my opinion.).

[SenorSjon]

I've noticed a lot of discussion about this in the Pirelli 2016 thread so here's a thread just for this type of discussion.

Pirelli changed their structure of their tyres after the 2013 British GP and some fans say that was the turning point towards the racing we see now, I would have to agree.

For me 2011 and 2012 was the best years for F1 in recent time and I would like to see a return to that.

For me, 2011 and 2012 ment I could have a lot of free Sundays if they continued on that path...

[Lights]

Tires that make don't make 1 stop strategies the norm.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I'm not entirely sure which one we have at the moment...

[D28]

F1 pays lip service to ecological concerns to some extent at least, then dictates racing tires which last as little as 12 laps; there is very little consistency there.

I would like to see one or more tire suppliers providing a variety of compounds with the teams left to choose and manage their own rubber. The only rules F1 need be involved in is declaring tires for the start of wet race. This has worked quite well in the past, even supplied some interesting racing and results. An extreme example is Moss's victory in Argentina 1958, but there have been lots of  more recent examples.

I think the tire companies should be allowed to produce the best, racing tires they can design without undo interference.

[Risil]

I think we have the worst of both worlds now. We've got tyres that you can't really push or punish, but if you treat them right they'll last most of the race.

 

The freedom to choose different compounds should in theory have been a good thing, but in practice I find those races really confusing and a bit bloodless.

[SonnyViceR]

NON-SPEC tires that manufacturers are allowed to develop to wherever direction they want and get the customer feedback from.

[Clatter]

I think we have the worst of both worlds now. We've got tyres that you can't really push or punish, but if you treat them right they'll last most of the race.

The freedom to choose different compounds should in theory have been a good thing, but in practice I find those races really confusing and a bit bloodless.

The freedom to choose is hobbled when they still have a compulsory compound in the mix. I do feel the steps between the compounds are too close as they all seem to last as long as each other, but without a large enough performance difference.

[Szoelloe]

If anything should be clear by now is that 'cheese' tyres are not a viable route. It is not possible to engineer tyres that are faster, last a given amount of maximum laps, is safe to use, and all teams ( at least up to the lower midfield) can use them to race, meaning it is not too temperature and suspension sensitive. First three years of Pirelli made F1 a huge farce. Give them one tyre type per race, a type that is guaranteed not to last a race distance.

[ConsiderAndGo]

The problem is the softest tyre....it does half the race.

That type of tyre shouldn't last anymore than 10-15 laps (track dependant). Mix that with a harder tyre that's easy to switch on and lasts half the race, you have a good combination.

What we have now are just poorly thought out and poorly manufactured products - they are not in any way fit for purpose.

[TomNokoe]

The problem with Pirelli's tyres are they are only durable you coast, and there's not enough of a pace advantage if you push.

[Timstr11]

Who says we have durable tyres now?

I believe it's the teams who have figured out how to keep the tyres alive in order to complete a race in the fastest way.

[Mat13]

Tyre war! Two manufacturers, one making durable, slow tyres, one making fast cheese tyres.

[muramasa]

　

tyres were never a problem until Pirelli came. It was car side (aero sensitivity etc) that was problem. Something is wrong when you have to tweak tyres like that. Tyre is easy to tweak while addressing aero issue is a matter of easier said than done, but recent F1 is good example of if you take easy route you only make it worse.

[Szoelloe]

Who says we have durable tyres now?

I believe it's the teams who have figured out how to keep the tyres alive in order to complete a race in the fastest way.

 

I do. What you say is the definition of durable tyres.

 

edit:

to clarify: I like durable tyres up to a point.

 

Tyre war! Two manufacturers, one making durable, slow tyres, one making fast cheese tyres.

 

Oh no, not that please. That would end in a farce too, with people pointing the finger at some teams who they - rightly or wrongly - accuse of being a prefrred customer of any given manufacturer. It was hateful.

Edited by Szoelloe, 26 June 2016 - 17:03.

[DaddyCool]

Freedom of choice.

 

Drop the stupid qualy and mandatory two-compound rules. If someone wants to nurse the hardest compound all throughout the race without stopping or make 3 sprint stints on the softest, let them do so.

[THEWALL]

Each type of tyre is appropriate for a certain operating window. The important thing IMO is that any tyre should, in theory, give the driver the possibility to push as close to maximum as possible  for the duration of the window. Another rather obvious thing is that cars and drivers should be allowed to chose the compound that best suits them among a choice of, for example, 3 compounds, without having to use one just because FIA´s ass is itching. However, in theory, the probability for the best real, on track racing would be maximized if only one compound is used for a whole race. 

[Szoelloe]

Freedom of choice.

 

Drop the stupid qualy and mandatory two-compound rules. If someone wants to nurse the hardest compound all throughout the race without stopping or make 3 sprint stints on the softest, let them do so.

 

Either this too. It is expensive though on the long term I think, with only one supplier.

[Timstr11]

I do. What you say is the definition of durable tyres.

edit:
to clarify: I like durable tyres up to a point.


Oh no, not that please. That would end in a farce too, with people pointing the finger at some teams who they - rightly or wrongly - accuse of being a prefrred customer of any given manufacturer. It was hateful.

As long as the cars are driven far below the chassis' potential to keep the tyres alive, which is still the case in races, we cannot speak of durable tyres.

[Szoelloe]

As long as the cars are driven far below the chassis' potential to keep the tyres alive, which is still the case in races, we cannot speak of durable tyres.

 

No, I think you're wrong there. Tyres are not the limiting factor nowadays, but hardware lifespan. We would have seen some pretty spectacular and successful startegies the past 2 years if what you say would be right. But that is not the case.

[Yamamoto]

Durable I guess. I mainly want tyres that aren't too much worse for wear in dirty air than in clean.

[muramasa]

　

there is nothing like "durable tyre", maybe for roadcars practically but not for racing.

In refuel era they didnt push because they knew others would refuel soon plus aero was too sensitive, in 2010 they didnt push because again aero sensitive cars forbid that so push hard made no sense. In 2010 Hungary Webber was 3 stopper while others were 2 stopper and he was 1-2sec faster. In several races those who shod new tyre due to safety car timing and odd strategy etc were massively faster than those with old tyres and a lot of overtaking happened due to that (kobayashi at valencia, kubica etc at singapore, and so on). So tyres were never problem...until Pirelli came. No other racing series has joke tyres like pirelli but that's what some people wanted.

[Lone]

If the tires that we have now, were not; hard, extra hard, super hard, ultra hard and stupid hard I don't think it would be a too bad product that Pirelli provides. And if they could get the tires in to an operating window just a little bit easier all would be fine and dandy, in my humble opinion.

Yes, the tire pressures could need a second look into also. Other than that I think Pirelli is doing a world class job as a tire supplier.

Edited by Lone, 26 June 2016 - 17:49.

[Tuxy]

Tailored tires.

 

If performance is so dependent on tires, it's a crap-shoot which teams will benefit from either formula.  Let the teams run what they want to run without a control tire, and allow more tire testing.

[BRG]

Who the hell cares about tyres?  Give them all the same hard tyre that lasts the whole race.  No tyre changes needed, get on with the racing.

[Kev00]

Performance tyres. Soft tyres designed to go fast, a wide operating window and ones which allow the teams to run run whatever tyre pressures they like. Maybe it will result in 2-3 stops or maybe 0 stops, but I want to see the drivers pushing. The problem with Pirelli's current tyres is not durability but fragility. A small operating window and stupidly high mandatory pressures.

[PiperPa42]

I like the Indycar system, red and black tires. Red are only used in qualifying and race and are slightly faster and degrade quicker than the standard blacks which are used throughout the weekend.

[Gorma]

I think you screwed the poll with the third option. You should make a new one that forces you to choose one or the other.

[RekF1]

It depends.I get the impression the drivers and the manufacturers disagree on tyres. Long story short, nursing the tyres masks the need to nurse the PU's.

[PiperPa42]

I think you screwed the poll with the third option. You should make a new one that forces you to choose one or the other.

Why? What about the 34% who dont want either of the two options?

[MikeV1987]

Little bit of both, tires that aren't so fragile when they are pushed, but I don't really want to see a 1 stop every race either.

[Anderis]

Why? What about the 34% who dont want either of the two options?

Because that answer doesn't fit to the question. The question suggests we want to know what people prefer WITHIN these two options (hence it sounds "which would you RATHER have"). Either change the question, or possible answers IMO.

 

What would I have in F1? I definetely don't want 0 pit stops to be the fastest possible way to finish the race unless some unusual circumstances occur.
 

[FPV GTHO]

I want tyres that degrade through tread wear not temperature.

[ANF]

I'm not entirely sure which one we have at the moment...

Hard cheese?

[HP]

I blame it all on Mosley. After the FIA took charge of the bidding process, tire development started to stagnate since FIA mandates the tire characteristics.

 

FIA give more freedom again, and we'll get better tires no matter hard, soft, etc.

[William Hunt]

For sure tyres that have a cliff and heavy drop off.
Ever since tyres are so durable as they now are the racing is much more boring and the results much more predictable.
It's just so exciting when a car in front his tyres are losing grip quickly and a car behind is gaining fast.
I really dislike races with tyres that don't lose grip.

Edited by William Hunt, 27 June 2016 - 00:32.

[dbltop]

I would rather they had a god damn choice between the two or other options besides. 

[RECKLESS]

Simply a range of choices between faster less durable ones and slower more durable ones.

Plus a little freedom on camber, pressures etc.

Just let them work on the setups a little: the car's are different so they should have access to setup to make the tyres work/suit the car/driver.

The engineering race is hampered by current set of tyre rules/restrictions.

Edited by RECKLESS, 27 June 2016 - 07:00.

[Henri Greuter]

Durable: Rock hard.

 

Perfect manner to keep the speeds and corner speeds in particlar under control and lower than they are right now if reducing areo to achieve such is no option.

 

Henri.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Hmmm, why not design tyres that result in the lowest possible race time under the given technical regulations? Bring in the tyre that is the fastest when refuelling isn't allowed but tyre changes are allowed. No need to manufacture artificial degradation to spice up the show!

[JeePee]

Those 2004 tyres where fine. Push for 15 qualifying-esque laps, pit, be quicker again.

 

The operating window of the current Pirelli's is just too wrong now. 

[A.Fant]

Durable tyres with at least two tyre manufacturers and without the two-compound rule enabling the 0-stopper and making sure multiple tyre strategies are viable without artificially fragile tyres. The issue in 2010 with durable Bridgestone tyres was not the durability itself, but that the two-compound rule forced everyone onto a 1-stopper which made the only strategies option-prime and prime-option where the latter was only available to the lower half of the field.

[ViMaMo]

Choice of super grippy but short lived say 15 laps cheese tyres vs hard tyres (1 sec slower) that last for 30 laps. 

[Timstr11]

No, I think you're wrong there. Tyres are not the limiting factor nowadays, but hardware lifespan. We would have seen some pretty spectacular and successful startegies the past 2 years if what you say would be right. But that is not the case.

 

Disagree there.

The comments from drivers and teams regarding tyres still indicate the cars are run below the potential of the chassis in the race.

I will try to find some comments to that extent.

Teams have become so good at it that there is less said about, but it's still the case. I'm convinced of that.

Spectacular races were happening when teams were still learning about how to use the tyres.

Edited by Timstr11, 27 June 2016 - 09:57.

[myattitude]

If you make a tyre that lasts 20 laps at full push then the treads run out, you'd still get drivers conserving the tyre to make them last longer.

 

I'd say make all compounds available (all able to be pushed), dump the mandatory use of one tyre, let the strategies play out with flexibility. Put those rules in 2012, then some cars like Merc who eat their tyres more will go for certain number of pit stops and tyre compounds, while Ferrari will go for something different. But both teams should be able to push hard though.

[Ijsman]

I think we have the worst of both worlds now. We've got tyres that you can't really push or punish, but if you treat them right they'll last most of the race.

This. 

 

And the racing that results from it is less exciting than it could be, probably.   

[Jejking]

No, I think you're wrong there. Tyres are not the limiting factor nowadays, but hardware lifespan. We would have seen some pretty spectacular and successful startegies the past 2 years if what you say would be right. But that is not the case.

 

The tyre life is being decided by temperature wear. If you with the tyre surface go above the operating temperature, they will go off seriously fast. Last time I checked, the thread surface is part of the tyre. My point is: construction is not the problem. They aren't falling apart continuously, although Spa was suspicious to say the least. Quick but careful is the way to go, but it doesn't allow for flat-out pushing. There is no forgiveness for mistreating a tyre, and there should be SOME margin of error. These slopes are way too steep.