The Official 2016 British Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
rsbmw said:
Dr Z said:
Mandatory tyres for this race is a choice between Medium and Hard tyres.
Thanks for the post. Don't understood this bit though, since you have to use 2 compounds, and there are only 3, isn't giving a choice between 2 as mandatory a little redundant?2015
Medium and Hard available for the weekend
Qualify on the Medium tyre as it's the quicker of the two.
Assuming a 2-stop race, the strategy can be:
Medium-Hard-Medium
Medium-Hard-Hard
Medium-Medium-Hard
2016
Soft, Medium and Hard available for the weekend
Qualify on Softs, and assuming a 2-stop race you can do:
Soft-Soft-Medium
Soft-Medium-Medium
Soft-Medium-Soft
Soft-Soft-Hard
Soft-Hard-Hard
Soft-Hard-Soft
Soft-Medium-Hard
Soft-Hard-Medium
You can immediately appreciate that this allows teams to have more freedom to react to situations in the race. It also allows teams to stay away from compounds that they don't like or that their car can't work well with, in the Pirelli range. Another plus is that with greater variation in tyre strategy, it gives you a higher chance of dialling in a setup sweet spot for at least two of the tyres in the ones available for the weekend, or one tyre type as in the case of Monaco this year where changing conditions in the race meant some cars were in the sweet spot and others weren't...gave us a better spectacle of driver skill than if all cars were falling off track. Better yet, wet-dry races naturally give that but this year's Austria and Canada GPs showed that this is happening in perfectly dry races too.
If a team wants to save a pit stop and go for a 1-stop as they think their car/driver combo is particularly good on tyres you only had one choice on the tyre strategy in 2015: Medium-Hard and it's no longer a game of poker anymore, as the other teams immediately know what tyre the 1-stopping team is going to be on in the second stint and can adjust their pace to cover off any threat. However this year, the 1-stopping team will only show their hand at the actual pit stop, so the other teams can only react in that moment or after...makes for an interesting battle in strategy, more uncertainty for the competitors and more intrigue for us fans throughout the race.
And finally, because the pace delta is greater between the two extremes in the tyres available for the weekend this year (Soft vs Hard this year; Medium vs Hard last year), it results in greater pace delta between cars on different strategies during different parts of the race, creating more on-track battles.
Dr Z said:
I don't see it that way, because you have some variation in strategy you can play with. Last year, Pirelli brought Medium and Hard tyres with the teams being forced to run the Pirelli nominated Hard tyre at least once in the race. This year, Pirelli have brought Soft, Medium and Hard, nominating the Medium and Hard as the mandatory tyres. The variation we have this year is that teams have the choice of running the Medium or Hard or Both during the race apart from the tyre they qualify with in Q2.
Nominating two compounds out of three as mandatory is redundant when you also have the rule that you have to use at least two compounds. There is no combination of two different compounds from the three that do not use one of the mandatory compounds.Jabbah said:
Dr Z said:
I don't see it that way, because you have some variation in strategy you can play with. Last year, Pirelli brought Medium and Hard tyres with the teams being forced to run the Pirelli nominated Hard tyre at least once in the race. This year, Pirelli have brought Soft, Medium and Hard, nominating the Medium and Hard as the mandatory tyres. The variation we have this year is that teams have the choice of running the Medium or Hard or Both during the race apart from the tyre they qualify with in Q2.
Nominating two compounds out of three as mandatory is redundant when you also have the rule that you have to use at least two compounds. There is no combination of two different compounds from the three that do not use one of the mandatory compounds.He's simply saying what I did, the rule "you have to use 2 compounds" is sufficient, there is nothing changed by then stipulating "one of these two is mandatory" as you have to use one of those two anyway.
To put it another way, if we ignore those two "mandatory" options and assume the rule is just "use two different compounds", what combination can you come up with that doesn't also fulfil the criteria for the rule we have ignored?
To put it another way, if we ignore those two "mandatory" options and assume the rule is just "use two different compounds", what combination can you come up with that doesn't also fulfil the criteria for the rule we have ignored?
Edited by rsbmw on Wednesday 6th July 13:34
"From these three compounds, pick any two"
is a much shorter version of:
"From these two compounds, pick at least one, plus you can use this third one if you choose and you must use at least two different compounds"
With compounds A, B and C available and a requirement to run two different compounds your only combinations are:
A and B
A and C
B and C
A and B and C
There is no possible combination where you won't use one of the "mandatory" compounds in order to have run two different ones. It doesn't matter whether you specify "A/B" or "B/C" as the mandatory compounds, you have to use one of the mandatory ones to achieve the two different compounds rule.
But since when has F1 chosen the simpler way to express a rule?
is a much shorter version of:
"From these two compounds, pick at least one, plus you can use this third one if you choose and you must use at least two different compounds"
With compounds A, B and C available and a requirement to run two different compounds your only combinations are:
A and B
A and C
B and C
A and B and C
There is no possible combination where you won't use one of the "mandatory" compounds in order to have run two different ones. It doesn't matter whether you specify "A/B" or "B/C" as the mandatory compounds, you have to use one of the mandatory ones to achieve the two different compounds rule.
But since when has F1 chosen the simpler way to express a rule?
rsbmw said:
He's simply saying what I did, the rule "you have to use 2 compounds" is sufficient, there is nothing changed by then stipulating "one of these two is mandatory" as you have to use one of those two anyway.
To put it another way, if we ignore those two "mandatory" options and assume the rule is just "use two different compounds", what combination can you come up with that doesn't also fulfil the criteria for the rule we have ignored?
OK, the possible combinations will be the same but that rule is there to encourage strategy variation in the races I think, and to give teams a 'joker' tyre. Given the choice, most teams will end up picking two of their favourite compounds anyway. I would wager that all the teams that have only one set of the Hards for this race would likely not have ordered any if it was a rule that you suggest. But a few times this year, that single set of tyre they had ordered for the weekend ended up saving their bacon. To put it another way, if we ignore those two "mandatory" options and assume the rule is just "use two different compounds", what combination can you come up with that doesn't also fulfil the criteria for the rule we have ignored?
If the intention is to create more variation on pace between cars at different stages of the race, it will very likely fail because who would choose the slowest tyre of the lot? Reckon teams will end up choosing the fastest two tyres of the three and end up 1-stopping, driving to a delta to get the required stint lengths...they're doing this to a lesser extent now. At least, this is what I think that rule is for! I can't find an official statement as to that effect.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/36725692
So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
Vaud said:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/36725692
So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
I suspect Ecclestone will ensure they last the season (was it Marussia he bailed out last time? I forget). But next season ... hmm.So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
Vaud said:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/36725692
So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
Will we see a Sauber Honda next year I wonder?So will Sauber last the season? Sadly I fear they won't, or rather, not in any shape or form that means a viable team for 2017.
M3ax said:
Will we see a Sauber Honda next year I wonder?
I doubt it: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124293Vaud said:
M3ax said:
Will we see a Sauber Honda next year I wonder?
I doubt it: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124293Dr Z said:
OK, the possible combinations will be the same but that rule is there to encourage strategy variation in the races I think, and to give teams a 'joker' tyre. Given the choice, most teams will end up picking two of their favourite compounds anyway. I would wager that all the teams that have only one set of the Hards for this race would likely not have ordered any if it was a rule that you suggest. But a few times this year, that single set of tyre they had ordered for the weekend ended up saving their bacon.
If the intention is to create more variation on pace between cars at different stages of the race, it will very likely fail because who would choose the slowest tyre of the lot? Reckon teams will end up choosing the fastest two tyres of the three and end up 1-stopping, driving to a delta to get the required stint lengths...they're doing this to a lesser extent now. At least, this is what I think that rule is for! I can't find an official statement as to that effect.
So the rule is to encourage variation at the tyre selection phase. As others have mentioned it is essentially irrelevant when it comes to race day - they just have to use two from three.If the intention is to create more variation on pace between cars at different stages of the race, it will very likely fail because who would choose the slowest tyre of the lot? Reckon teams will end up choosing the fastest two tyres of the three and end up 1-stopping, driving to a delta to get the required stint lengths...they're doing this to a lesser extent now. At least, this is what I think that rule is for! I can't find an official statement as to that effect.
We can see from the selections for this race that most drivers have selected only one hard tyre - we can assume that if this were not a mandatory tyre some of these drivers would have chosen none.
Mr_Thyroid said:
Dr Z said:
OK, the possible combinations will be the same but that rule is there to encourage strategy variation in the races I think, and to give teams a 'joker' tyre. Given the choice, most teams will end up picking two of their favourite compounds anyway. I would wager that all the teams that have only one set of the Hards for this race would likely not have ordered any if it was a rule that you suggest. But a few times this year, that single set of tyre they had ordered for the weekend ended up saving their bacon.
If the intention is to create more variation on pace between cars at different stages of the race, it will very likely fail because who would choose the slowest tyre of the lot? Reckon teams will end up choosing the fastest two tyres of the three and end up 1-stopping, driving to a delta to get the required stint lengths...they're doing this to a lesser extent now. At least, this is what I think that rule is for! I can't find an official statement as to that effect.
So the rule is to encourage variation at the tyre selection phase. As others have mentioned it is essentially irrelevant when it comes to race day - they just have to use two from three.If the intention is to create more variation on pace between cars at different stages of the race, it will very likely fail because who would choose the slowest tyre of the lot? Reckon teams will end up choosing the fastest two tyres of the three and end up 1-stopping, driving to a delta to get the required stint lengths...they're doing this to a lesser extent now. At least, this is what I think that rule is for! I can't find an official statement as to that effect.
We can see from the selections for this race that most drivers have selected only one hard tyre - we can assume that if this were not a mandatory tyre some of these drivers would have chosen none.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff