Let us pray for all the people on all of the F1 teams...

The danger lies in the fact that the FIA have not defined the minimum safety aspects of the tyre. Thus it has nothing to do with the teams.

If the FIA are going to permit more than one tyre supplier then obviously competition will occur ... thus they will take risks and we will have failures (or though this particular case is not the tyres fault ... but simply bad driving by KR, and thus he did not deserve to win the race).

Like the chassis and many other components of the car the FIA need to define design goals for safety ... maybe a minimum weight for a tyre. Thus if the make the weight heavy enough there is guaranteed extra safety in the tyres.

If the FIA do not regulate at all ... then the tyre manufacturers will keep pushing for any advantage and thus this will continue. To point the blame at the teams is very odd ... after all we have crash testing, minimum weights, etc. of the tub to stop this completely natural competition evolution.

I think Bambi is running the FIA!
Pete

 

I think they should change the rules to benefit Ferrari!! I'm serious...I loved the past 6 years and I hate this one. Ferrari is all I had to look forward to this year..you see, I'm a Miami Dolphins Fan (basement last season), a Detroit Tigers Fan (Basement last season), a Philadelphia Flyers Fan (No season)...so I was really looking forward to F1 this year to see some more domination. Competition is great, but I really liked Ferrari winning most races. IT'S ALL I GOT LEFT.

I love the idea in a previous post...manual shifting (get rid of the F1 system). Ahhhh, what the heck do I know...look at the other teams I follow.

 

yes i'm sure the top brass at M and B are thanking their lucky stars that someone reminded them

 

Anthony C,

You've expended alot of words trying to explain why you want the tyre rules changed, apparently because they are dangerous.

Let's separate your concern into two segments. Firstly the tyres themselves (1), and secondly the rules surrounding the tyres (2).

1. You say the tyres are dangerous. Why? Raikkonen's failure was not caused by the tyres. There have been no catastrophic tyre failures this season which have resulted in a high speed accident or injury. The tyres themselves are no more dangerous than they have ever been. In fact, they last longer than before!

2. You say the regulations are a time bomb waiting to go off and will result in a death... but why? It was McLaren-Mercedes' choice not to bring Raikkonen in. Okay, they wanted the win. And that is their choice. They are taking the risk. They didn't have to stay out. They could have brought him in and had the tyre changed for 'safety' reasons. The fact they didn't shows they weren't really worried about his safety; there was no real concern in their minds. They calculated the risk and it was acceptable to keep him out.

Your reasoning makes as much sense as saying we can't have F1 races, because the drivers may be injured or killed in the process of taking the risk of driving the car to get to the end and win.

When James Allen became hysterical and asked whether or not Raikkonen should pit a few laps before the end of the race, Brundle rejected the idea immediately. He put it very succinctly: "Nahh, If he hits the wall, he hits the wall." Racing is all about taking calculated risks, and it is something you have to accept.

 

The one tire rule in F1 is like putting in a "One Driver rule" at Le Mans. Sure, you could do it with no problems, but the longer you o, the more chances of something going wrong.

The scariest thing to me about Kimi's accident was when the tire came off. If you look, that thing came up, and nearly hit him in the head. Had that been the suspension end of the tire, we would have had another Senna. Aren't those cars supposed to have wheel tethers on them, to keep them from coming off like that?

 

Watch it again: The tether is actually what kept that wheel from flying off and also from hitting Kimi on the helmet.

 

Having re-read all of this, I've realised it's not the tyres at fault, nor the FIA's rules therein. Nor even the Ice Boy's driving.

They need to revise the rules of suspension design and dictate to all teams that there suspension must be able to take equal loads in all directions.

That would have stopped the little brown trouser moment Kimi had and made the sport safe again.

Until the next time. When one of 10 (or 8. Or 6. Or 12) cylinders going round at 19.8k revs a minute pops out of the car it's in on an overtaking manoeuvre and hits someone in the kazoo.

At which point, the FIA should issue clause 1,027,638b which stipulates all engines will not rev beyond 19k a minute. Oh, OK, 10k a minute. Oh, no, 5k.

"Hey, the rules are set, it is the team's resonsibilities to follow, dame the human factors that can come in play and if something happens, so be it. Am I correct?" Give or take Anthony, this is just it.

The humans involved (drivers, engineers, designers) are all pushing the envelope. And they all know the risks far, far, FAR better than we all do (they analyse them every minute of the day in their jobs).

And *that* is the whole point of F1. You legislate away their ability to be creative and push the bounds and you get....well, just what we have now. A series that most think is becoming dull, and soulless.

Thank god that racing teams think more like Martin Brundle and less like James Allen (though it wasn't too long ago when Big Ron would have made tha calculated move and brought his boy home 6th rather than not at all). F1 might be saved yet.

 

The new rules arent just difficult for Ferrari you know...they effect every team! I dont think there is some sort of evil conspiracy to end Ferraris domination. We just have a slightly off the pace car this year...no big deal...it happens! It doesnt even mean Ferrari sucks, it just means that everyone else has raised their game to a much more competitive level!

 

Interestingly enough Briatore in an interview said, that he'd welcome a single tire manufacturer for F1 because today the tires have too much of a deciding role in winning or loosing. That's not good for a car or engine manufacturer either way.

 

Kimi's crash was eerily similar to Senna's in the way his front suspension/tire was going straight for his head!!! Luckily the tether did its job, but what a shame it would be to lose a life over a stupid rule such as this. I understand some of the other rules are an attempt to make things more competitive, but this is ridiculous and should be changed.

 

Barrichello was asked to comment on Kimi Raikkonen’s Nurburgring accident, when his suspension broke, as a result of excessive vibration caused when the Finn flat-spotted a tyre. “There are two ways of looking at it,” said Barrichello. “We know that the new tyre rules are the same for everyone and, in my opinion, it is more dangerous because you don’t know if the tyres are going to hang on or not. On the other hand, if I was in Kimi’s position I would have stopped to change the tyre.”

 

murph7355's has the right idea, and is basically saying the same things I was try to get across in my posts.

If the FIA did everything the American armchair experts shouted whenever there is a mechanical failure or they perceive the slightest risk, we'd have the rules changed every race and F1 would be beyond boring.

I find it ironic there's all this hysteria about safety over this one incident yet many of the American tracks and catagories have been very slow to catch on when it comes to safety.

No it was nothing like Senna's accident. He hit a wall (which are still very common at high speed American tracks....funny that). Kimi's tyre swung around because of the tethers.

"Luckily the tether did it's job. But what a shame it would be"... if the tethers had failed? You put them not failing down to luck? Wouldn't it also be a shame if his helmet/chassis/HANS device/harness/brakes etc etc also failed? Hmm... lots of things that could go wrong. We might be unlucky and something might go wrong. Better not go racing then!

As murphy pointed out, the FIA can't keep changing the rules every time you or any other viewers perceive the slightest danger or come up with the next worst-case scenario.

 

Anthony C.,

Put down the crack pipe mate. You want to legistrate or rule out the racing from the sport.


Motor racing is dangerous ... it has to be, otherwise we are not pushing any limits, not pushing ourselves, not pushing the engineering, etc.

The problem with F1 today is it is TOO safe, and thus drivers (like MS) use their car as a weapon.

The only thing regarding safety that needs to happen is the driver and spectators are okay AFTER an accident ... if you try and rule out that accidents can never happen you are just plain fncken stupid!

Again there is nothing wrong with the tyre rules ... and you can equate what McLaren and KR did to any other part of the car damaged in an off. Driver error lost KR that race ... and nobody was hurt or going to be, any more than a driver just spinning off through trying too hard.

Pete

 

Pete, I'm with Anthony on this one.

The rules as they are would be ok if the teams would use good judgement. But as we have seen with Mc Laren and Kimi they don't when the title is at stake. And if a top notch team like Mc Laren and a top tier driver like Kimi don't use their good judgement, who's to say that anybody will?

I was all ok with the rules as they were until I saw Sauber calling in Massa for a tire change but Kimi sticking it out laying his and others lifes on the line. Crazy!

Yes, motorsports is dangerous and I'm actually in favor of getting rid of some of the boring Tilke tracks and bring back some tracks for "real men" like the old Nordschleife or a banked version of Monza, heck even the banked turn in Mexico would do it.

One of the reasons these guys are being paid big bucks is because they lay their lives on the line. And that's ok with me and for that reason I'd like to see some cool track revived, which would thrill me to the extreme. But as a spectator I have no gain if they risk their lifes for not changing their tires. That's just plain stupid. Like driving without seat belts.

Go do dangerous things and challenge dangerous tracks, but do it with the best equipment possible.

 

Anthony ... no name calling , just think you are a bit off track with this one

Agree with you 100% here ... but it is not currently deadly at all.

This is where you are taking it too far. Again KR made a huge mistake and flat spotted his tyre ... thus are you suggesting that because he made a mistake he should have parked his car and stopped racing?

This was NOT, I say again NOT or nothing to do with the tyre rules.

KR could have flat spotted a brand new tyre with the same results. Would he have pitted even if the rules allowed ... NO!@!, cause he would have still lost the race. Thus like any racer he would have continued going for the win.

Heck even I have taken that risk. Many, many years ago I did the second stint in Dad's BMW 2002 in a Classic event. After about 10 laps in I realised that my front left tyre was going ... I could have pitted, heck no rules stopped me, but instead I changed my driving style/lines and made it to the end. When we looked at the tyre it was right through to the canvas ... and very, very dangerous!!!! ... and there was no prices or money or anything, just natural competition.

That is my point. Lets remove the tyre equation completely. Say this race had been at Monaco and KR had clipped the wall ... probably damaging his suspension, you say he should pit and have the part replaced ... he won't he will continue hoping that it will hold together. That is what a racing driver does.

In fact remember many years ago (in the late 90's) at Spa when MS told his team that the steering had developed more than normal play ... what did the team do, they told him to hang in there and everything should be okay. Now we all know that Spa has some bloody big load corners so that was HEAPS more dangerous than what KR and McLaren did.

Thus you cannot rule out this ... otherwise you do not have racing.

Oh come on Anthony, KR was in absolutely no danger of dying. All he had was a crash.

Heck I left the racing area for a while cause you all have become so pathetic with Ferrari not winning all the time and this weird attitude about the current tyre rules, with no allowance for real thought ... all starting to sound like Imperial .

Point taken .

I do not think there is a higher risk of somebody getting hurt. Again even if Kimi could have changed that tyre without penalty he would have still lost the time it takes for the tyre change pitstop ... thus he would not have chosen to loose the race and thus taken the risk and hoped for the best. That is what racing is all about, balancing the risk versus potential results.


Pete

 

Always has been like that. Again read my previous reply about MS at Spa and the play developing in the steering. It is not just tyres ... if anything starts to fail on the car they will balance the risk.

No it is not ... if the suspension had hung together KR would have won the race. Again if say Kimi had hit JV and damaged a wing or suspension component he would have still struggled on hoping for the win.

We need (and they have) to make the cars safe for when they have an accident ... not force the teams to give up a potential win just because the car has a vibration. Heck are they supposed to stop if the enging is loosing oil pressure too?, after all the following car might hit the suddenly slowing car that's engine has just blown.

Yes we have to most degree solved the injury risk ... now lets return to real racing .

Again KR would NOT have changed his tyre even if he could (without penalty) as he would have still lost mucho time to his competitors and thus lost the race. Think about ... your car has a vibration but you are first! ... I know exactly what decision any racer (including me) would make. I'd take the risk and go for the win.

Agree ... but this has nothing to do with the tyre rule.

Many posts back I pointed out the problem we currently have are:
- New tyre rules thus the tyre companies are taking a while to get it right. Thus we are experiencing a few teething issues. Next year it will be better, etc.
- 2 tyre companies. If we only had one, tyres would be much safer and heavier and the cars much slower. Because we have competiting companies they are pushing the design boundaries and making them too light, too weak, etc.
- The FIA (as far as I know) has not specified a minimum weight for each tyre. If they did this then a safety margin would be designed in. Instead they have left it to the tyre companies. Because of the point above they will go as light and fast as possible with safety last.

Pete

 

In closing what I am trying to say is this:

A real racer will keep on racing his car, even if it is falling to bits around him/her, they do not stop if there is a vibration. The win is what drives them, they do not do this for the money, for the girls, etc. but due to inner drive that makes them want to win like crazy.

Currently you guys say the tyres a the weak link in a F1 car ... I say that many, many races over the years have been won with cars close to failing.

Thus making tyre changes legal ... changes nothing!, 'cause they won't just pit when they think 'Hmmm, a weee bit dangerous here', instead they will still make the same assessment: Pit and loose race or continue and hopefully win!

Maybe racing does not mean that much to you guys ... but it does to me, and I've struggled on to the end of races suffering dehydration and having to open my helmet visor to get cool air, etc., I've struggled on with failing oil pressure and tyre issues (as discussed before) and I did not win any money, or get the grid girl ... I did it to win or do as well as I could. That is what drivers real racers and allowing or not tyre changes does not change that fact.

Pete

 

Anthony C,

you've got to take a step back and look at your own thread and the posts
that you've made on this issue.

you name your thread , as 'Let us pray ........." and expect a discussion.

you get a discussion but its not to your liking.

now , you've upped and gone ballistic.

you're looking like the fool here , not the others.

reflect.