Are too many tire choices making things worse?

Yes lets bring back the nightmare of the 2005 tire regulations. Some of us are still bitter about what happened at the USGP at Indy that year when all the Michelin runners pulled into the pits after the FIA would not let them have there way because Michelin did not do there homework for the race.



The current rules work fine the team that figures out the best strategy and responds properly to others pit tactics win the race.

 

Don´t worry: if things go like this year, they will only use the softer tyres and they´ll only need to do the mandatory pitstop in most of the races.

Pirelli doesn´t want more bad publicity and play it safe. They´d do stone hard tyres that would last three races if FIA didn´t force them to soften them to encourage pit stops.

 

Pirelli reveal 2030 tyre line-up!!!! .....

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So long as the announcers don't really mention tires too much then its been done right.

 

Yep I made the same point earlier (not sure if here)...but all these extra colours, stupid names and stuff for these tyres (and all other bits of course but lets not get into that now). The HARD tyre has NOT been used this year. So what is event he point of adding in a superhard? It's gone completely mad.

We have Hypersoft, UltraSoft, SuperSoft, Soft, Medium, Hard, Superhard....but only 3 tyres to a track, and as far as I can work out, only 2 sets are actually being used with 1 set being used in first half hour of a practice session...which has to be given back within 30 minutes for some reason I can't be bothered finding out why.

It's so needlessly pointless as teams can't even pick the tyres they want. A set of mediums (And Softs even!) can last the entire distance and still churn in respectable lap times. So why have 2-3 compounds harder than that? The medium is only ever used when someone needs to replace tyres very early on).

It's all a pathetic excuse to paint the tyres in yet more colours, and they're using pink as an excuse as it's popular at the moment to be open and accepting. No one truly gives a **** remembering the colours, they don't care what an MGUH is or what a K does. No one knows what the Turbo is called, and we've had the current regs for 4 seasons now.

What's wrong with soft medium and hard? Red Yellow Blue. Easy to remember, easy to distinguish and all compounds can be brought to any gp. I'm getting more and more fed up with this sport.

 

I say the more compounds the better allow all the teams to choose whatever compounds the want up to 12 sets. Might make for some interesting racing when the Sauber team runs the "Harder than Steel" compound for the majority of the race and then runs the "Super Glue Sticky" compound for the last 2 laps. They manage to pull off a last corner pass for the win after breaking the track record by 45 seconds each lap.

Unfortunately the winning driver had to celebrate from the hospital as he crashed due to G force loss of conciseness crossing the finish line

 

"Are too many tire choices making things worse?"

Making what things worse???
What is wrong with more choices for the teams to nail what they need? I'm confused not by more choices in compounds but, rather, why spectators feel it necessary to be concerned about more options for the teams.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Don't forget super-duper-mega soft & the stickiest of all: LUDICROUS SOFT

 

Coming to a track near you in 2019

 

Very funny distraction. However, 'doesn't address the reason for disdain for more choices for the teams.

 

Having lots of choices, but only bringing three to each race is dumb. Either have ten types, and allow teams to pick the sets that work best, or don’t. Also, why limit the number of sets..... this is formula one, not some feeder series or rookie teaching session..... it’s supposed to be the richest sport, who involved really gives a damn if they run 20 sets in a race weekend, or 2.? We just want racing, how the achieve it is not that important.

Same as testing being limited, and engine parts - what for? If you can afford new parts every session, use em, if you can’t, maybe formula Renault, or Ford, or banger racing is more your wallet type. For the pinnacle of the sport, it should be a free for all. In soccer, the best teams are those that spend the most money, and it produces the most exciting teams and matches that can be, who doesn’t love to watch Paris st German destroy teams 5-0...... footballs about goals, and formula one is about speed and tactics...... neutering either makes them boring, hence viewership being on its knees and dropping these days. All the rules have achieved is one team able to get it right, and the rest have zero possibilities to catch up in FOUR SEASONS. FFS, enough is enough of these rules.

I hope ferrari form a breakaway, buy sauber and call if Alfa, and get a series up with lamborghini, Porsche and others that go back to real, seat of the pants racers with the ability to develop throughout every season so we see proper challenges for championships like the old days (you know, up until 2006). Once they started actively making artificial cost and part controls this sport lost 90% of its excitement. The odd rule change to hamper a tram was bad enough, but arguably necessary, the entire raft of hobbling these days is a joke

 

Pirelli: "We choose the 3 compounds for each weekend"

@CroftyF1: "Half of our audience has already turned off because of this confusing explanation"


Why not just let the teams choose?

 

They currently have the ability to develop throughout the season. Sure, they're limited in how much track testing they can do and they are penalized if they use more than a certain number of components...but remove those constraints and all of a sudden we have three teams in a spending war and seven or eight new teams in other series. Two of the "spending war" teams are notorious for threatening to take their ball and go home the moment something sniffs of adversity...

The slow (or rapid) decline leading up to a three team series would resemble a regional NASCAR sanctioned dirt track race where a (very) few teams show up with fancy trailers and shiny, new engines while the rest of the field is running the same taped together scrap metal they ran last week.

I keep saying it: things are not perfect, but they're not as broken as so many imply. Things are improving and I believe that Liberty with Brawn are moving in a careful and considered way towards better racing. Thankfully, they see the damage that a knee jerk reaction would do to the show.

I am not bothered at all by new tire compounds. Who cares. Not news.

 

Many developments of the size performance advantage necessary to catch up with Mercedes can’t be tested due to regulations, and even where they can, not enough to be certain of reliability, hence you get stupid breakdowns causing an artificial gap to build up worsening Mercedes lead over the teams, and grid penalties to boot, so some developments go nowhere

 

That's a good idea. Let the team engineers decide which compounds are best for the track. If they screw up, tough beans. How long would a Hypersoft tire last? 10-15 laps?

 

I think having tire choices is great !

The problem is mandating the car uses at least 2 different compounds (in a dry race). This is pure stupidity.
Another problem is making cars start on the set of tires they used in Q2. I understand this, but it remains problematic.

Let the cars start on whatever tire their engineers think will get to the end of the race the fastest.
And if there is a compound that can survive a full race distance, the cars should be able to run without a pit stop.

 

Too many tire options will result to a need for more free practices. which results to more $$$. Give to the teams 3 choices of tires and let them decide which one they want to use without any restrictions.

 

DECEMBER 6, 2017

New hard tyre is insurance says Pirelli


Pirelli has defended its decision to introduce a 'super hard' tyre in 2018.

After a full season with the new, faster cars, F1's tyre supplier is now introducing a 'hyper soft' and 'super hard' at each end of the compound spectrum.

But some have criticised Pirelli for coming up with a new hard tyre that is unlikely to be ever suitable for use.

"Quite simply, it's our insurance," Pirelli boss Mario Isola told Speed Week.

"Basically, we assume we will never use the super hard tyre. But it's still difficult for us to assess how quickly these new cars will be developed, and whether some corners could become critical.

"The hard tyre is enough on the circuits that put the tyres through a lot, but according to the regulations we may add another compound during the season. It's better to be safe than sorry," Isola added.

 

The hard tyre got only 74km of use for 2017 compared to the US(4,674km), SS(6,261km), and S(4,696km). Both wet compounds got more use than the hard....433km (green) and 242km (blue) respectively.

I don't see the use for the hard and now a super hard tyre.....

 

What team are you on?

 

I think there's a lot of knee jerking happening without understanding the situation...

They shifted the whole range towards the softer end of the spectrum. That is, the new hard tire will resemble the old medium tire more than it does the old hard tire. The new super hard tire will resemble the old hard and Pirelli has been very up front that they don't plan to use it, but want to have a tried and tested solution if the cars' performance is greater than expected.

In a nutshell, they really added two more levels of soft tires while simultaneously having a known entity as an insurance policy.

They are also talking about using non-consecutive compounds for races...e.g., ultra soft, soft, and hard (skipping over super soft and medium). I like the potential strategy implications of this.