Printable View
...by changing the compounds of tyres on supply in the next 5 grands prix, that in theory will make things more interesting like in canada.
well done on bridgestones part, should make F1 even more entertaining. providing the choices are right ofcourse for the particular track for the tyres to not quite be as optimum as could be.
link:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/06/2...xciting-races/
What a load o crap F1 is becoming. An expensive load of crap on top of that. :down:
Dont suddenly expect a more races like Canada, that was a one off because of the very specific conditions to the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve.
The tyres have been too hard this year, as we've seen from people doing almost all of a race on one set, so BS have just realised that they might as well just bring the soft and medium compounds to most races from now on as long as they think they wont fall apart. Might give the teams a few more options on strategy, but I'm doubtful that there will be any noticable change.
We seldom agree - this is a time when I am in absolute agreement with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Ayrton Senna thought that ALL racing involving pit stops was rubbish and rewarded those incapable of being good drivers - he would have HATED f1 today.
It was bad enough as it was, this now is the equivalent of reversing the grid or some other artificial idiocy.
The tyres OUGHT to be designed to last an entire race distance only and there should be only one compound for all the tracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper
This is supposed to be grand prix racing where drivers are presumed to be the best with ability to not only race quickly but also take care of their equipment.
This is after all what the junior formulae are supposed to sort out.
I reckon Enzo Ferrari would have a few choice words to say over this and probably LEAVE f1 and take his team to go race sports cars instead.
Yes, but he'd say that if his espresso wasn't strong enough in the morning also........Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Along with 'gertcha', probably......... ;)
Not sure I'm with St.D or you on this one. I can understand why you dislike the "artificial" aspect of this, however F1 must change and adapt and has not been a tyre endurance race for decades (that one off year in '05 excluded). More to the point, a "super soft" that lasts 20-30 laps doesn't do what it says on the tin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
As I've said before (and will no doubt be boring and repeat this many more times) my ideal F1 tyre rules do not mandate a set number of stops, but offer tyres of sufficient difference that a hard can do an entire race if driven carefully and a super soft that can only manage a handful but is massively faster and let the drivers choose to go long and smooth or flat out and pit 2 or 3 times to make the distance.
Tyre rules are stupid. Allow the teams and tyre manufacturers to bring whatever they want.
Daniel is correct.
Why are tyres subject to such draconian restrictions? I can understand why there ios a standard ECU (To stop all teams cheating basically!!) but with tyres, they should just say a size and let each team work with which supplier they want.
If we also allow different compounds between front and back tyres, I think we could slash the amount of required Aero and keep the same speeds.
Easier said than done though. There would be a very fine balance point where the soft and hard tyres are comparable over a race distance. If the tyre manufacturer didn't hit it perfectly, then all the teams' simulations would tell them which one was faster and everyone would end up on the same strategy. Which I guess was why the FIA felt they needed to force the teams to use both tyres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
I wonder if a better idea might be to only have super-softs that last 15-25 laps. Then you might get some variation between teams that can make it with 2 or 3 stops while others need 4.
On the other hand... competition is much closer now. In the days of tyre wars, there were often seasons where if you weren't on the preferred tyre, then you had no chance. Or even if you were on the preferred tyre, but that manufacturer was focusing their development around another team. Control tyres remove a variable from the mix and create a more level playing field. Whether that's a good thing is open to debate of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
I'm sure it reduces costs substantially as well, which I suspect is the main reason why most high-profile race series have moved to control tyre regulations.
On the other hand - looking after tyres is something that Jenson is amongst the best at doing :-]]]
Idiots at work again.
Tyre choice is a skill and mixes things up more.
I'd rather let them bring multiple compounds and allowing teams to run on whatever they want whenever they want, instead of forcing teams to run on unfavourable tyres. It brings another element of unpredictability into the races, which is good.
Now this is the big problem with everything in F1 (they've got just too damn smart for their own good!). I had written a long piece on this in my original post but ended up deleting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
The general gist was that, yes, the compounds would need to be engineered to be similar over a race distance total time or else as you say everyone would figure out the optimum. The other option (IMO) is to starve the number crunchers of information. Perhaps remove or restrict telemetry (hmmmm can of worms that one) or have an intermediate compound tyre that won't be used on race day allowing set up and general data gathering but still making it a punt based on driver feeling.
Thing is though, in recent years a three or even four-stopper was usually theoretically fastest. And yet you only rarely saw three stops, and virtually never four. Why? Track position - the risk of getting bottled up in a race ruining Trulli-train scenario behind a one-stopper was far too high.
And - for that exact reason - if you balance things on a knife-edge between X-stops or Y-stops, leading teams will almost ALWAYS choose the option with fewer stops, even if more stops is nominally faster.
I think thats a good idea. The only logisticl issue would be the massive quantity of tyres that would have to be brought to every grand prix for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
All top drivers adapt to situations - I have already discounted that. The tyre issue is now closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The Mclaren drivers are pretty well matched and this is why Whitmarsh signed Jenson. It is the teams primary goal to win the Conatructors title this year.
The driver's title is all well and good, but Ron Dennis wants the Constructors more, as does Dietrich Mateschitsz.
:rotflmao: :laugh: :rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR
okay let me be serially serious...
bad tires are not enough....
also need to have the pavement being in poor shape...maybe have a few m1 tanks run down the pavement,,,wash the track down with some chicken fried grease from the stove...
but on the other hand,
:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
.....and they could take that load of crap and spread it around, as well.......
hey, don t get me wrong, i ain't saying it ain't fun....but i enjoyed it even more when the old master of the whip and machevillain politics was still in power, whacking on Mac, but none of that crap, now or then, had anything to do with actual real racing as it was intended in the days of fangio, moss, clark, gurney or even andretti, peterson, JV..... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
but racing on a track smeared all over, would be (1) lots of fun with sliding everywhere, (2) very green (in both color and bio friendly) and (3) very smelly, providing some ambiance to the event that is presently missing....
What a bunch of crap, Williams aside, all the teams care about is the WDC because it has a MUCH bigger profile. OK. the other teams know that the constructors is worth a bit to them, but Williams is the only team that I know of that purposley hunts for the WCC and WDC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote