Tire rules are too clever by half

[ClarkFan]

Am I the only one who thinks the current tire use rules are too complex and spoiling diverse race strategies? In particular, the requirement that the teams run a stint on the "soft" Bridgestone compound has essentially eliminated the one-stop strategy. When a car must run one stint on the softer tire, that tire wears out too fast for the car to make the rest of the race on one stint.

Yesterday, Button had gotten up to 5th after makng his first stop well past halfway in the race. But he still had to make a 2nd stop to put on the soft tires. There have been at least a couple of other races when cars have made it up into the points from the second division, only to lose the spot when they had to make an additional tire stop. I would ad Massa in Albert Park to that list. He would likely have been able to move up further with a true 1-stop race.

If no team likes the soft compounds, why do they have to race on them? I would prefer either a limit to the use of the soft tires (1 stint) or a rule that a car must race on the same compound it used to set a qualifying time. If that tire is only good for a short stint, the car will suffer with more pit stops.

ClarkFan

[N. Jones]

Bridgestone is happy to be the sole tire supplier then cries about being a "non-factor". Well, tough! You won! If you want competition then ask for another tire supplier to be allowed back into F1.

I want to see what happens when the tires are NOT the issue. I agree with Bob Varsha who says - lets remove one component (tires as an excuse) and see if it helps determine who really is the better driver.

[janneppi]

Am I the only one who thinks the current tire use rules are too complex and spoiling diverse race strategies? In particular, the requirement that the teams run a stint on the "soft" Bridgestone compound has essentially eliminated the one-stop strategy. When a car must run one stint on the softer tire, that tire wears out too fast for the car to make the rest of the race on one stint.


I've been thinking the same thing, i was going to start a shiny new topic about it myself Saturday but i was bit hungover and lacked English skills because of that. :)

It's a bloody stupid rule, and hasn't really created interest to the name Bridgestone as it was supposed to do.
Instead lot of people think the company is ruining races to get a name.

[wedge]

At first I wasn't too keen on the new rules. I thought it was a silly gimmick but now I quite like it.

It's added an element of unpredictability.

Certainly you can't make use of the one-stop strategy but look what Alex Wurz did in Canada. Everyone was suffering huge graining and tyre degradation with the supersofts and yet Alex Wurz was untouchable with his podium finish.

We still see driver skill because its down to the driver how hard he should push and make use of the tyres he's given.

[truefan72]

At first I wasn't too keen on the new rules. I thought it was a silly gimmick but now I quite like it.

It's added an element of unpredictability.

Certainly you can't make use of the one-stop strategy but look what Alex Wurz did in Canada. Everyone was suffering huge graining and tyre degradation with the supersofts and yet Alex Wurz was untouchable with his podium finish.

We still see driver skill because its down to the driver how hard he should push and make use of the tyres he's given.


I don't need an element of unpredictability when it comes to tires. Besides it is very predictable by race day. -One tire will perform better, another faster-
just let teams decide their own tire strategy without mandatory rules of using both compounds.

...and I really don't want to hear complaints from Bridgestone either. They got what they wanted.

[tinchote]

My opinion on this is in my signature :D

[V12]

Am I the only one who thinks....

Yesterday, Button had gotten up to 5th after makng his first stop well past halfway in the race. But he still had to make a 2nd stop to put on the soft tires.

No - you're not the only one, the exact same thought occured to me when I realised what position Button had gotten himself into with his long first stint - this tyre rule was ridiculous when it was brought into Champ Car and has no place in F1 either.

If you ask me the rules just need to be brought back to basics and let the drivers go racing again - strategy will ALWAYS be a part of long-ish races, but artificially-induced strategy calls necessitated by this rule should NOT be.

EDIT: Bring back Michelin!

[RaikkonenRules]

Bring back no tyre changes. Tyre ware issues make exiting races.

[BDunnell]

I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, I would go further and do something — I don't know exactly what, but it would obviously involve making larger fuel tanks practical propositions — to allow cars, if their teams deemed it advantageous, to go for an entire race without stopping at all for either fuel or tyres. Then you would get a real mixture of strategies.

[ojciec dyrektor]

In my opinion, FIA should allow every company that fulfill basic safety rules to deliver tyres. Moreover teams should be able to change tyre supplier for every single race. That will cause fast technology development, more entertainment, more fun and more unexpected results.

[wmcot]

I think the rule should be simplified back to the way it used to work. You use Friday to pick which compound you want to race and then you must use that type of compound through qualifying and the race. Tire changes during the race are still allowed, but they must be the same compound tires. That way, a team can decide to go for the softer compound and more pitstops or use the harder compound and do less pitstops. Seems fair, doesn't it (...so the FIA will never accept it!)

[leopard]

In my opinion, FIA should allow every company that fulfill basic safety rules to deliver tyres. Moreover teams should be able to change tyre supplier for every single race. That will cause fast technology development, more entertainment, more fun and more unexpected results.
With a view to aforesaid subject maybe yes, but for the sake of diver's safety...please hold on. The single tires supplier currently implemented was made to accommodate this the most important issue.

[ojciec dyrektor]

With a view to aforesaid subject maybe yes, but for the sake of diver's safety...please hold on. The single tires supplier currently implemented was made to accommodate this the most important issue.

If some tyres won't be safe then nobody will use them.
Competition will make the tyres more reliable and safe.

[Hondo]

Not only do I think the rule forcing the teams to use both types in each race ridiculous, I think the teams ought to be free to buy or obtain their tires from any company that wants to build a tire to Formula 1 specifications.

[Rollo]

I remember the "bad old" days when Goodyear would supply as many as 5 different compounds of tyre, rated A, B, C, D and Q. Qualifying Tyres were super sticky things that would barely last three laps and the differences between an A and D compound tyre was actually noticable.

Of course there was the counter rule of no refuelling and some races turned into mileage marathons... provided they didn't chill the fuel before it went into the car, causing burst tanks on the start line.

[Valve Bounce]

Am I the only one who thinks the current tire use rules are too complex ..................

ClarkFan


I don't think that they are too complex - I just think they are too stupid.
I couldn't care less if they simply supplied just the one tyre, one tyre compound for the entire season, and everybody has to develop their cars around that single tyre compound for the entire season to suit every track. What's wrong with that?

[call_me_andrew]

What's wrong with that?

Hard compounds tend to create a lack of passing.

I kinda like the rule.

[Valve Bounce]

Hard compounds tend to create a lack of passing.

I kinda like the rule.


OK, give evryone a super soft compound and make them change tyres. Why the heck does there have to be two different compounds which they MUST use during each race. That's just plain rigged, and stupid.

[ClarkFan]

I remember the "bad old" days when Goodyear would supply as many as 5 different compounds of tyre, rated A, B, C, D and Q. Qualifying Tyres were super sticky things that would barely last three laps and the differences between an A and D compound tyre was actually noticable.

I remember those days, too. That is why I would include the requirement to race on the same compound you used in qualifying. The "Q" tires led to all sorts of dangerous behavior in qualifying, as drivers tried to get in a hot lap before the tires went off. That pressure may have even contributed to Gilles Villeneuve's death.

I would even reduce the size of crew allowed to work on the car during stops, which would increase the effective cost of softer compounds. But let the team choose the compound they want to race on, then live with that decision, good or bad.

ClarkFan

P.S. And Tinchote, I am reminded of the wisdom of your signature line often.

[jens]

About one tyre supplier. IMO it has made F1 more boring, because in the past the competitiveness of teams differed more from race to race as different circuits and conditions suited different tyre manufacturers. Now there is no difference. Now practically always McLaren and Ferrari are in front and behind them comes BMW. Such thing like a team finishes 8th in one race and wins the next one (hint: Ferrari 2003: Hungary -> Italy) is in current conditions quite inconceivable. And even last year - Bridgestone got better in the second half of the season and Ferrari became fastest and even Toyota managed to put in some good performances. But at the moment I think McLaren, Ferrari and also BMW will remain more or less the fastest ones in every race to come.