The tyre conversation

[kals]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Hards should be 1 second per lap slower than mediums and last all race.
Mediums should be 1 second per lap slower than soft and last half the race.
Softs should be 1 second slower than supersofts, and last a quarter of the race.
Ultra/hyper/ubersofts should be 1 second faster than supersofts and last an eighth of the race.

When any of these compounds 'drop off' it should be like the car goes from being glued to the track to like being on ice in the space of a couple of laps, not that there is an occasional lock up.

What's the point in having different compounds if the rewards and risks are barely discernible from each other?

How many times since Pirelli took over as the sole tyre provider have we seen severe/instant tyre drop off decide a race result?

So you are saying the tyre manufacturer should build a set of tyres for each track the series visits?

That’s not far off what Pirelli do now

[John]

I'm more annoyed by the fact that the teams have to run two compounds during the race. Let them choose freely.

Thats where I sit too. I remember in the mid noughties, at Monaco (2005? in particular), when teams made their choice of compounds and lived with it. Some went aggressive, others went less so. There was no compulsory use of all the options.

Yep - fully agree. Wanna no-stop? Go ahead. Want super-sticky rubber that's fast but forces you to pit three times? Go. Wanna one-stop? Use these tyres right here.

While we're on the subject, have Pirelli fixed the wet compound to handle "monsoon-like" conditions, like we had at Monza during qualifying last year? Or is it still one wet compound that only works so-so unless the amount of rain is just right?

The challenge at hand with this type of freedom is that it will inevitably result in more predictability. Teams have such sophisticated modeling programs that they will know which tyre / pit strategy will be the quickest. And all teams will likely follow the same strategy. Therefore no team or driver will differ from the standard.

Good point, that. Perhaps the current solution is the best, after all. Unless we completely ban electronics and put forward three sets of rubber which the teams don't get to test before the race.

Besides, if they sort the aero problems that are plaguing the cars, perhaps we won't even bother with this discussion a couple of years from now.

[Circuitmaster]

I don't mind the current situation except for the names. Supersofts being the third softest tyre is a bit silly.

As discussed during the weekend they should take whatever compounds they're taking now but then refer to them as 'hard, medium and soft'. The detail should be there if the diehards want to find it, but on screen I think that only the relative softness is necessary.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I don't mind the current situation except for the names. Supersofts being the third softest tyre is a bit silly.

As discussed during the weekend they should take whatever compounds they're taking now but then refer to them as 'hard, medium and soft'. The detail should be there if the diehards want to find it, but on screen I think that only the relative softness is necessary.

I think this is a valid point. Although of course renaming something every weekend is blocking the real problem. It is just the problem that remains evasive in identifying itself.

But simpler identification, whether it be hard medium soft wet, inter would make things simpler. But does that then become disguising the truth, be a bit like 'Boys should not dress up as a Princess'. Although we are told that is ok, some dont agree.

[myownalias]

I do believe that F1 has become massively overcomplicated, not just the tires, but the sport as a whole, when I started watching F1, some 25 years ago, we didn't have all the buttons and knobs on the steering wheel to make changes to the car's handling or performance, we didn't have multiple different tire compounds, we didn't have DRS, KERS or the other overtaking aids. Over the years, F1 has added gimmick after gimmick to improve the spectacle, and the tire spread is the latest of these gimmicks.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I do believe that F1 has become massively overcomplicated, not just the tires, but the sport as a whole, when I started watching F1, some 25 years ago, we didn't have all the buttons and knobs on the steering wheel to make changes to the car's handling or performance, we didn't have multiple different tire compounds, we didn't have DRS, KERS or the other overtaking aids. Over the years, F1 has added gimmick after gimmick to improve the spectacle, and the tire spread is the latest of these gimmicks.

[erwin greven]

I do believe that F1 has become massively overcomplicated, not just the tires, but the sport as a whole, when I started watching F1, some 25 years ago, we didn't have all the buttons and knobs on the steering wheel to make changes to the car's handling or performance, we didn't have multiple different tire compounds, we didn't have DRS, KERS or the other overtaking aids. Over the years, F1 has added gimmick after gimmick to improve the spectacle, and the tire spread is the latest of these gimmicks.

When i started to watch F1 it was at the end that innovation was not regulated that much. (1978)
Wing cars, with skirts and the first turbo era was looming.
Then the FISA thought: enough is enough and innovation was very regulated. I would loved to see that Lotus 88 race as it was meant to be.

[myownalias]

I would love to see a return to a more open formula, within limits, of course.

[kals]

While what @myownalias is saying makes total sense, it also goes against technical progress. Although that in itself presents a contradiction as F1 is about technical evolution while suppressing / banning innovation.

[myownalias]

While what @myownalias is saying makes total sense, it also goes against technical progress. Although that in itself presents a contradiction as F1 is about technical evolution while suppressing / banning innovation.

There is a distinct difference between innovation and using artificial means to spice up the racing.

[kals]

While what @myownalias is saying makes total sense, it also goes against technical progress. Although that in itself presents a contradiction as F1 is about technical evolution while suppressing / banning innovation.

There is a distinct difference between innovation and using artificial means to spice up the racing.

You've missed my point, while actually making the point for me in your reply. Let me break it down...

I do believe that F1 has become massively overcomplicated, not just the tires, but the sport as a whole, when I started watching F1, some 25 years ago, we didn't have all the buttons and knobs on the steering wheel to make changes to the car's handling or performance

This is what I was referring to about technical evolution, the progress that we expect to see thanks to technology. Of course things were simpler in the 80's and 90s when a large proportion of us got into F1, because the same technology didn't exist then.

we didn't have multiple different tire compounds, we didn't have DRS, KERS or the other overtaking aids. Over the years, F1 has added gimmick after gimmick to improve the spectacle, and the tire spread is the latest of these gimmicks.

And this is the contradiction that is F1.

F1 has all but banned most types of innovation (that we'd seen in previous decades) which has lead to almost spec style cars, no innovative creativity and bland racing. To combat those issues F1 has introduced the gimmicks, thus treating a symptom instead of creating a cure.

Hope this helps to clarify

[myownalias]

Hope this helps to clarify

Yup, that clarifies it for me... in my defense, my comment was pre-coffee.

However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the 'technical evolution', F1 has gone from being a drivers sport to a sport dominated by computers and technology. I like and work with technology every day, however, when it comes to cars and racing, I prefer analog.

[kals]

Hope this helps to clarify

Yup, that clarifies it for me... in my defense, my comment was pre-coffee.

However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the 'technical evolution', F1 has gone from being a drivers sport to a sport dominated by computers and technology. I like and work with technology every day, however, when it comes to cars and racing, I prefer analog.

We don't disagree. Far from it. I want it analog too. Much prefer it that way.

[XcraigX]

Hope this helps to clarify

Yup, that clarifies it for me... in my defense, my comment was pre-coffee.

However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the 'technical evolution', F1 has gone from being a drivers sport to a sport dominated by computers and technology. I like and work with technology every day, however, when it comes to cars and racing, I prefer analog.

We don't disagree. Far from it. I want it analog too. Much prefer it that way.

But you can't have "technical evolution" and "analog" together in today's word. Keeping it analog means stifling innovation. Nothing is analog anymore. TV, phones, manufacturing, banking, road cars, toasters. Hell, even old board games have some new electronic version. (Have you played Monopoly lately?) American Pony cars with big V8 engines all have cylinder deactivation, computer-controlled injection, and drive by wire throttles. EVERYTHING is digital today.

I think that there are some things that the LeMans series gets right. The top teams all have different energy recovery/engine combinations. However, the one thing that happens (which is very similar to late 70's / early 80's F1) is the field is more spread. Cars run at different paces and many break down. But the formula is more open than F1 and creates a wider variety of machinery.

I would love to see a more open formula for F1. Scrap the bodywork regulations, the tire regulations, and the engine regulations. Just let the teams innovate around a horsepower number or an engine size with some safety rules tossed in. The downside would be more digital cars (they will have some energy recovery system for sure and expensive computer-controlled valve mechanisms) and the loss of close racing. Some teams may run away at the front only to break down later. And for sure we will return to some processional races where the race is won at the first corner. Hopefully, it will balance itself out and we will get some really different approaches with a variety of winners.
(Sorry for being so off topic. But I thought I would chime into the end of this thread.)

For tires, I agree there are too many. They should re-do the formula and stay with 3 dry and 2 wet combos. They can decide to make them with a wider range if they want, but the Ultra-Super-Hyper-Techno-tronic-Softs are too much to bear.

[erwin greven]

Formula 1 sole supplier Pirelli will remain in the GP sport beyond 2019.

A team senior at Spa-Francorchamps: "The call for proposals of the FIA ​​is an alibi exercise that prevents a new exclusive partner."

In the summer, the International Automobile Federation (FIA) initiated the procedure of tying up an exclusive tire partner for the period until the end of 2023. Today's agreement with Pirelli expires at the end of 2019. The FIA ​​has confirmed: Formula 1 will come in 2021 on low-profile tires, mounted on 18-inch wheels. As early as 2014, Pirelli had tentatively sent a Lotus with 18-inch wheels on the track, then sat test pilot Charles Pic at the wheel. The reactions turned out clearly: The fans did not want low-profile tires at that time, they would rather broader rollers like today. We got that in early 2017, but the move to 18-inch wheels still comes - with narrower front tires (27 cm instead of 30.5 cm today). The 40.5 cm wide rear tires remain.

- More at SPEEDWEEK: http://www.speedweek.com/formel1/news/1 ... fter-2019- stay-FIA-with-Alibi-Uebung.html

[DoubleFart]

I'm in favour of narrower front tyres from an aesthetics point of view, but that will reduce the levels of mechanical grip and make aero more important. Facepalm.