165 replies to this topic

[Button4life]

OO7, on 31 Aug 2016 - 19:39, said:

Tyres dropping off is fine, but what many want is a tyre that can be pushed before it drops off, even if that's for 15 laps.  At the moment these tyres can't be driven hard without suffering excessive levels of degradation.  During races all we currently tend to see is merely different levels of tyre conservation taking place.

I disagree with this. Atm the drivers can push hard with the tyres but the tyres will of course degrade quicker. That's why they conserve the tyres so their race time will be faster. I'm pretty sure drivers could push 15 laps hard on mediums for an example and then have a big drop off in time, but they don't do this because it's slower. Instead of this they drive a consistent pace so their the tyres can last 30 laps. It's not like you can't push the tyres in the the current F1, you can do it but it's slower like I just explained.

 

Also do people prefer races like Russia 2014 where Rosberg did the whole races on Mediums without any drop off in time? The most exciting races are usually the races with 2-3 stop and different stratagies. This because it's make overtaking much. If the tyres are as durable as Bridgestones then it makes overtaking almost impossible with the current cars.

Edited by Button4life, 31 August 2016 - 19:49.

[Dr. Austin]

Button4life, on 31 Aug 2016 - 19:24, said:

I want cheesy tyres. When we had tyres who dropped off after 15 laps in 2012 I saw a lot of people complaining. Now we have a lot of 1 stops and the same people are complaining because everyone is running the same stratagy. Some people just can't be pleased...

 

Everyone running the same strategy means it's a race instead of Stratego.

[Button4life]

Dr. Austin, on 31 Aug 2016 - 19:57, said:

Everyone running the same strategy means it's a race instead of Stratego.

No a race isn't about who's the fastest/best driver in the race. It's about how to get the fastest to the finish line. Like I said earlier, the drivers are allowed to push very hard and make 4-5 pitstops every race but this isn't the fastest way to get to the finish line. Conserving the tyres and making 1-2 stops is faster so that's why they chose to this. And tbh I liked the 2012 season much better than the 2010 season and that's only because of the tyres. 

Edited by Button4life, 31 August 2016 - 20:04.

[Atreiu]

Cheese or bricks, there is only so much a tyre can do, which does not include negating the effects of turbulence and also magically nullifying the technical advantage of dominant teams.

 

People are looking at Pirelli to solve an impossible puzzle.

 

That being said, I liked the 2010 tyres. Between grip and durability, they seemed to strike a nice balance. The main reason races weren't better was because of the mandatory pit stop and use of both compounds rules. Teams and drivers were strongarmed into a single strategy for most of the time and that was it.

[muramasa]

Button4life, on 31 Aug 2016 - 19:45, said:

I disagree with this. Atm the drivers can push hard with the tyres but the tyres will of course degrade quicker. That's why they conserve the tyres so their race time will be faster. I'm pretty sure drivers could push 15 laps hard on mediums for an example and then have a big drop off in time, but they don't do this because it's slower. Instead of this they drive a consistent pace so their the tyres can last 30 laps. It's not like you can't push the tyres in the the current F1, you can do it but it's slower like I just explained.

 

Also do people prefer races like Russia 2014 where Rosberg did the whole races on Mediums without any drop off in time? The most exciting races are usually the races with 2-3 stop and different stratagies. This because it's make overtaking much. If the tyres are as durable as Bridgestones then it makes overtaking almost impossible with the current cars.

you cannot push because compound irreversibly degrades with heat easily. Once degrade, done.

No drop off IS drop off, u go lighter go faster, that is normal and that's what it used to be with non-pirelli tyre in pre-Pirelli era

 

If tyres were bridgestone now, race would be tight, where we count and focus on 0.1sec every single lap which was how it used to be, with exciting battles with the existence/help of DRS and with tyres that can be pushed. Resolve sensitive aero and it would be even better.

 

You are forgetting that in bridgestone era it was full of non-tyre related factors that prevented racing - cars were very close to each other, 15 cars in 1sec in Q2 was norm (why Q2? because in those years, Q2 used to be proper speed indicator where all cars had to make full attack to go through to Q3 without thinking about race tyre or preserving tyre for race), no DRS, no KERS, rev-limited, equalized V8 and, hyper sensitive aero. Nothing to do with tyre. But people naively attributed all these factors to bridgestone and bashed them.

 

Bridgestone (as well as Michilin) tyres was fine, you could push and go fast but last shorter if you wanted to (proper wear-out), speed difference between going fast / more stop and going slow / less stop was significant (Webber in Hungary in '10), speed difference b/w old and new tyre was significant like 2-3 sec/lap (Kobayashi at Valencia/Suzuka, Kubica etc at Singapore/etc in '10 etc). All these without current bullsxxx of cheese/degradation and high tyre pressure. Bridestone was really ideal tyre, or what normal tyre should be.

[Dr. Austin]

[muramasa]

Atreiu, on 31 Aug 2016 - 20:16, said:

 

That being said, I liked the 2010 tyres. Between grip and durability, they seemed to strike a nice balance. The main reason races weren't better was because of the mandatory pit stop and use of both compounds rules. Teams and drivers were strongarmed into a single strategy for most of the time and that was it.

plus

1. extremely tight pecking order (more than 10 cars in 1sec in Q2 was norm in 2010. In 08/09 it was even more extreme with 15 cars in 1sec was norm)

2. no DRS

3. no KERS

4. equalized and rev-limited V8 (engine capped at top speed range hence making slipstreaming difficult)

5. sensitive aero that is the main culprit

[CountDooku]

OO7, on 31 Aug 2016 - 15:34, said:

This is a shout out to CountDooku:

This is so full of win!

Props for knowing the origins. Probably a kid of the 90s!

[TheCaptain]

The current issue isn't so much as with the tyre wear per se, but the very limited operating temperature window that the tyres seem to have.     Different strategies do offer excitement, but when cars are adversely affected by their tyres going off from the higher temps of following another car, or pushing too hard, it's not really great for the racing.    

 

Limiting variables to strategy will only lead to duller races.    Ultimately the fastest cars should qualify first so if you limit strategy then you're just going to end up processional races.    

 

Personally I feel a bigger problem is that the teams these days have so much data that they can simulate and compute strategies so precisely that there is very little variation.     

[markelov74]

Button4life, on 31 Aug 2016 - 19:45, said:

I disagree with this. Atm the drivers can push hard with the tyres but the tyres will of course degrade quicker. That's why they conserve the tyres so their race time will be faster. I'm pretty sure drivers could push 15 laps hard on mediums for an example and then have a big drop off in time, but they don't do this because it's slower. Instead of this they drive a consistent pace so their the tyres can last 30 laps. It's not like you can't push the tyres in the the current F1, you can do it but it's slower like I just explained.

Also do people prefer races like Russia 2014 where Rosberg did the whole races on Mediums without any drop off in time? The most exciting races are usually the races with 2-3 stop and different stratagies. This because it's make overtaking much. If the tyres are as durable as Bridgestones then it makes overtaking almost impossible with the current cars.

I 100% agree with that. Just imagine qualifying for lets say Monza this year. For sure it will me a mercedes one two, hamilton ahead of rosberg and then the Ferrari's and Red Bull's behind and then Force India and Williams. After the start there will be no overtakes. That's because they are all in the same performance order.

An other idea is to potentially allow teams to pick two compounds for the weeekend with choice of ultra softs to hard

[FPV GTHO]

That's what Force India wanted last year, but Pirelli only allowed from a choice of 3 over a weekend for safety.

[Clatter]

FPV GTHO, on 01 Sept 2016 - 08:29, said:

That's what Force India wanted last year, but Pirelli only allowed from a choice of 3 over a weekend for safety.

The choice of three is a better idea.

[minime]

Can we have a free choice of suppliers please? The problem the also rans have (those not coming first or even maybe second) is that they have to use the car more aggressively and thus the tyres suffer while those at the front controlling the race get to drive with less aggression and subsequently tyre wear is better on those cars so if your PU is better and gives you an advantage you in effect have a head start on tyre wear. If the lead cars are not dominate like the MB pair are now then that advantage goes away because they are being pushed by the field. Why F1 has become a sole supplier exercise for  tyres is a mystery to me. 

[septerra]

Refueling too please

[f1paul]

SenorSjon, on 31 Aug 2016 - 12:02, said:

Well, pit fires due to refuelling were also very rare, yet it was banned.

When the fires happened though they were pretty scary and dangerous

[ExFlagMan]

Probably on the grounds that often the Paddock Club was situated in the suites above the pits and BCE was a bit worried about the insurance cover costs for the 'celebs'....