Well it would pretty much force a rule change for the teams to again supply their own tires. No way Bernie is going to pay for an order of a season's worth of tires. They need to ditch the fuel load requirement so that teams make normal pitstops and the tire manufacturer doesn't have to design their product with a timed failure. Problem solved. And kills two birds by eliminating the fuel efficiency race at the end when they have to turn down the engines to save fuel.
That's right. And just to be clear on the sprinklers: I'm not proposing random sprinklers being turned on suddenly somewhere on the track. That'd be like "Games without frontiers", a reality TV show from Europe before there were reality TV shows. What I'm envisioning is a track equipped with sprinklers, which are tied to a computer system, which generates simulated bad weather. It would send a data feed to the teams where they would see on a generated radar screen the bad weather clouds moving in so they would react as if it was coming for real in e.g. Spa. This would only be used for places where there is zero chance of rain and normally a dull race, e.g. Bahrain. So teams who would read the simulated weather patterns would react to it like it was a real cloud approaching. Anyway, it'll never happen, but I still think it'd be neat idea.
Hmmm.... With apologies if not you, but aren't you one of the folk who claim DRS/KERS is too contrived? Now we're gonna **** with the weather too!?..... Spa is Spa. Bahrain is Bahrain. 'It is what it is'. They all present different challenges, be it weather, sand, track surface, temps, etc. Cheers, Ian
I actually like DRS and KERS or push-to-pass as I call it. People think this stuff is artificial and it is. But: All of F1 is artificial, that's why it is formula racing. Otherwise it would be libre. The only question is where you draw the line
Fair enough. Gotta be honest, your idea/argument gave me pause!..... I guess I draw the line before we reach ****ing with the weather. But, you make a good argument! Cheers, Ian
Well thank you. While sprinklers etc look gimmicky, personally I feel the sport is getting more castrated by eg next years fuel regulation rules. They go to the heart of the car/sport whereas the other stuff is more external. Kinda like gladiators in a circus vs clowns in an arena. Different strokes for different blokes
Obviously not Pirelli! [Mr Hembery; Sorry, no offense intended, but I couldn't resist! ] I still believe less than a handful of delams over a couple of races is no big deal. Further, they really have pretty much delivered on the "desired" 2-3 stops. And they continue to be pilloried. Cheers, Ian
Wasn't that put down to the cat's eyes on the road ?? They were blamed for someone's death in the late fifties
Hoosier A6. Although it looks like the widest they make is a 255. If they relaxed the wheel bead diameter requirement they could just put everyone on pilot supersports and call it a day. F1 would look sweet on 17's or 18's.
IIRC, when Pirelli first started they wanted to go to 17's. They (the FIA & teams) said no thanks; Partly so they can't install *huge* brakes but also because the "flexibility" with high sidewalls slows 'em down; Go to low profile tires and they'd have to slow 'em down some way.
Brakes are the least restricted and best performing tech on an F1 car. They're what most first time drivers are most surprised by.
That's interesting that the teams wouldn't want bigger wheels. Perhaps they don't want their drivers' eyeballs coming out of their sockets. I remember hearing Martin Brundle say that the tires account for 2/3 of the "suspension" or overall chassis flex in these cars. Pretty ridiculous. IMO they need to keep reducing aero and allow for greater mechanical grip, but that's a whole nother story
