The "Tire spread" thread - Good or bad thing?

First off, i wasn't a fan of the BS-Michelin tyre war. I prefer performance, engine, aero, driver wars. Not tyres.

Secondly, i have mixed feelings about the option tyres. Sometimes it's good, but when u get it wrong, u will really f*** it up. Just remember how Kubik was flying with the harder tyres in Melbourne.

 

Bad. Potentially dangerous to be forced to use tires unsuitable for the racing conditions.
Why don't they do something equally moronic like put some oil on the track at some random time during the race, or randomly distribute tires with slow leaks to the teams.

 

LOL.. I'd settle for water sprinklers.

 

what if they do something like this...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Only if Bernie can get "product placement" fees from the bomb makers.

I was opposed to spec tires, at first. I'm a firm believer that competition improves the breed.
But after reviewing some race replays from the last BS/Mich year, I had to agree with going spec on F1 --- those flyweight tires were *dangerous*.
But I don't think that's why Bernie made the change.


You wouldn't take your street Ferrari out in the winter on A048s, would you?

And requiring F1 cars to run tires not suited to the track is just as stupid as running racing slicks in the snow.

 

Has anyone done a one stop race yet? With the super softs going away after a few laps, how can anyone do a one stopper?

Bourdais or Kubica might benefit from a one stop. Massa is heavy on fuel, but one stoppers don't seem viable anymore.

I think if teams are forced to use two compounds, then no matter how soft, the tire should be able to last half a race.

What do you guys think?

 

Note the comments from Bridgestone about Brawn cars working better than others with this "handicap" tyre.
Combined with no clear statement why the super softs were selected, that implies the fix is in for more than just adding challenge to the show.

Thats my objection.

 

I think you have a great idea, but I wonder if the tire design forces more pitstops as part of an overall plan to achieve more passing on the track (which seems to be the goal this year).

 

I don't like it because it creates completely contrived passing on track.

All the other things they did - the wings, the KERS, the aero, all of that... at least it's equal. So if you see a BrawnGP passing a Renault, you know those guys are really duking it out and other than fuel load, it's all about the driver and how fast a car they're in.

But when they make you use 2 sets of tires, and mandate they be 2 grades apart, that's just totally contrived. It would be like if they had an arbitrary 15,000rpm rev limit that each car would randomly get for 30 seconds at a time, 5 times during the race. Would it be exciting racing? Or would we just roll our eyes when Barrichello suddenly slows up and Fisichella squeezes by to unlap himself?

I'm all for genuine action, but when they mandate that one set of tires will really suck donkey balls, and that every car must use them at least once, it's just contrived passing and I don't find it all that exciting, to be honest.

 

It's like the tire war, but without the benefit of constant development on the tires. I hate it.

 

Personally I think they should bring all 6 componds (supersoft / soft / med / hard / inters / wets) to each race and let the teams do what they want.

let the team choose the tires that works for them.

 

Fair enough.

 

+1000

 

The only reason they don't is because the FIA won't let it happen.

Max wanted Michelin out of F1. He drove them out to satisfy his own personal agenda.

But Bridgestone knew that if they were the only supplier, the tires would be irrelevant and nobody would talk about them. That would make it useless for them to spend the $$$ on supplying F1 tires if nobody cared and there was no coverage.

So, the FIA came up with this faux tire situation. They mandate you use different tires. This gets people talking about tires... and they do, it's brought up during every event about who is on what tires. They magnified this even more when they mandated the tires be two compounds apart.

It will never change, because if it did, then the tires would be irrelevant to the race. And if that happened, b-stone would bail out. And Max has a promise to them that he will make it interesting, it was part of his deal when he ousted Michelin.

 

Oh, I don't disagree... I meant the only reason they don't let the teams run the compound they want is the FIA won't allow it. I am sure that pretty much all the teams would know one (or max two) compounds they would want at any given race, of course in addition to the wets and inters. But the FIA won't allow that... they are mandating they use non-optimal compounds even though the teams don't want it.

No doubt, but how much are the tires talked about? Think about Le Mans or NASCAR or other series where they use a single stock tire.. you only hear about tires in so much as a situation arises about them - like punctures or graining. Having tires that work and those that don't adds a very big unknown to every race... it also affects pit stop strategy (i.e. if one tire is really bad, run it for a short stint). If they had one tire, all that goes away. And I believe it is B-Stone who wants to keep some sort of "tire situation" alive, but doesn't want a tire competitor. It's a win-win for B-Stone, IMO.

No source, other than something I read (which was speculation) in BusinessF1 that someone reposted. The gist was that Max was very upset at Michelin (remember him laying blame for Indy '05 squarely on them)... after that, Michelin and Max got into a bit of a tussle, with Max announcing soon after that they would be going with a single tire supplier, and much speculation in the F1 world that this was retaliatory and the supplier would be B-S, regardless of any proposal Michelin put together. This was followed by Michelin announcing they were leaving F1, and B-S announcing they would continue to supply.

You've got to consider that without the tire "issue", people stop caring about tires. They cease to be a point of interest or difference between teams, and become simply a commodity. Think of brake rotors... were know there are 2 suppliers. Do we care who runs which ones? But imagine if there were multiple types of pad and each team had to run each type for at least 2 races. Suddenly it would be the talk of the town... "will McLaren run the crappy pads at Spain so they can use the good ones at Monaco?", etc, etc. B-S was afraid that if tires were only a commodity, then their investment would lack ROI. Hence, the tire "situation".

FWIW and all that

 

Ermm interesting points by all.

 

Gimmick pure and simple.
No pit stops next year so no problem right?

 

I hear ya Ian... I guess I just prefer genuine unknowns instead of fabricated ones. If we were going to fabricate unknowns, then I think the sprinklers on all tracks that may or may not go off would be good. Or, connect the KERS batteries to the drivers balls, and have a 1 in 10000 chance the power flows that way instead of into the engine. 15 turns per lap, 50 laps per race, that's 750 turns/accelerations and potential for KERS usage. 20 drivers is 15,000 KERS usages. That would be 3 nardo zaps every 2 races... guaranteed hilarity (especially when it happens to Massa or Alonso).

 

Since when isn't going faster than the world's best drivers in the world's most sophisticated cars enough of a challenge?
If we're going to add complications let's at least make them humorous.
How about requiring every driver to park at some point of the race and hop around the track for one lap? Equally foolish but more fun to watch.