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

[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.