Bring back grooved tyres?
Discussion
Just wondering what people's thoughts on this? I don't think I've come across this being suggested before.
Grooved tyres grain worse than slicks.
I'm not a fan of refuelling. Watching F1 turned into a chess match is not for me and realistically they'll never get rid of those pesky wings.
Grooved tyres grain worse than slicks.
I'm not a fan of refuelling. Watching F1 turned into a chess match is not for me and realistically they'll never get rid of those pesky wings.
AJS- said:
No, simply because they look awful.
Bring in another tyre manufacturer and have them compete to actually build a better tyre.
No tyre wars please.Bring in another tyre manufacturer and have them compete to actually build a better tyre.
The forum would be awash with "Vettel only won because xxxxx made him a special tyre" or "Alonso won - even though his tyre were made of cheese" - etc
We should have some variables, but I want them to push the requirement to driver and engineer skill. I like that the engines have become pretty much equal - we see fewer gaps back to front in times (remember the days when quail was 10 seconds front to back?) and closer racing.
AJS- said:
Bring in another tyre manufacturer and have them compete to actually build a better tyre.
Put yourself in Pirelli's shoes, they could make a tyre which lasted the whole race but this would be dull and boring. Instead they were asked to make fragile tyres to spice the racing up but then told they could not test them on the intended F1 cars.It is like asking a chef to create a banquet for the queen but banning him from tasting anything he is cooking.
If anything I feel sorry for Pirelli, they are damned if you do and damned if they don't.
Vaud said:
No thanks. I'd rather just reduce aero by 50%.
Spot on we need more mechanical grip not less. I often wonder if the old 18 inch slicks were the key to being able to follow another car closely through corners. That is the answer to making F1 cars more of a race car and less of a projectie.simonpeter said:
I often wonder if the old 18 inch slicks were the key to being able to follow another car closely through corners. That is the answer to making F1 cars more of a race car and less of a projectie.
It doesn't work like that. How would extra grip combat dirty air? You need significant overspeed to combat the dirty air hence we've ended up with DRS.Gaz. said:
On the Bridgestone slicks the cars could follow eachother nose to tail for the entire race, even on full tanks in 2010. Sure the tyres were damaged, but it took 10-20 even 30 laps to get to the state the Pirelli's are in with just a few laps of dicing, if that.
Pirelli were asked to make a less durable tyre, they weren't asked to make them out of chocolate.
Bahrain was on the whole regarded as a borefest and many predicted it would be that way for the rest of 2010.Pirelli were asked to make a less durable tyre, they weren't asked to make them out of chocolate.
Abu Dhabi was an anti-climax. Alonso stuck behind Petrov - the Russian did little if any defensive manoeuvres - for almost half the race. It was regarded as the nadir for contemporary F1 led to DRS as the answer.
That year's Canadian GP had a green track on race day and the effect was severe graining and degradation and was a highly entertaining race and the blueprint for Pirelli's crap tyres.
If you look at the thread you will see that my comment was a response to the suggestion of drastically reducing downforce. Underbody turbulence is the cause of the dirty air, there was far less a problem when it was larger higher rear wings. For years it is loosing clean air to the front wing that has made it impossible to follow closely through fast corners. So we are talking greater maechanical grip to replace underbody aero.
entropy said:
It doesn't work like that. How would extra grip combat dirty air? You need significant overspeed to combat the dirty air hence we've ended up with DRS.
Halve the aero, force them to have 250ltr tanks and all cars start full tanks and run on hard tyres and stop with crappy brakes.
Will force them to drive hard (to burn the fuel and heat the tyres) and close (less aero) for the whole race, no need for pit stops and artificial passing, you'd have to drive past each other aided by sh*t brakes which would extend the braking zone giving more chance for them to get their elbows out.
Oh and they should have 1300hp V12 and the tracks should have sprinklers :-)
Will force them to drive hard (to burn the fuel and heat the tyres) and close (less aero) for the whole race, no need for pit stops and artificial passing, you'd have to drive past each other aided by sh*t brakes which would extend the braking zone giving more chance for them to get their elbows out.
Oh and they should have 1300hp V12 and the tracks should have sprinklers :-)
scubadude said:
Halve the aero, force them to have 250ltr tanks and all cars start full tanks and run on hard tyres and stop with crappy brakes.
Will force them to drive hard (to burn the fuel and heat the tyres) and close (less aero) for the whole race, no need for pit stops and artificial passing, you'd have to drive past each other aided by sh*t brakes which would extend the braking zone giving more chance for them to get their elbows out.
Oh and they should have 1300hp V12 and the tracks should have sprinklers :-)
And missiles?Will force them to drive hard (to burn the fuel and heat the tyres) and close (less aero) for the whole race, no need for pit stops and artificial passing, you'd have to drive past each other aided by sh*t brakes which would extend the braking zone giving more chance for them to get their elbows out.
Oh and they should have 1300hp V12 and the tracks should have sprinklers :-)
Lol. Actually, I do like some of those ideas...
Vaud said:
No tyre wars please.
The forum would be awash with "Vettel only won because xxxxx made him a special tyre" or "Alonso won - even though his tyre were made of cheese" - etc
So it's fine that the Aero has an absolutely massive influence - the main thing that's stopping us having some close racing - but that the suspension, tyres and engines are relegated to second rate systems?The forum would be awash with "Vettel only won because xxxxx made him a special tyre" or "Alonso won - even though his tyre were made of cheese" - etc
simonpeter said:
If you look at the thread you will see that my comment was a response to the suggestion of drastically reducing downforce. Underbody turbulence is the cause of the dirty air, there was far less a problem when it was larger higher rear wings. For years it is loosing clean air to the front wing that has made it impossible to follow closely through fast corners. So we are talking greater maechanical grip to replace underbody aero.
Downforce creates drag. It's the wings that creates the most turbulence, not the underbody. There is less of a drag penalty from ground effects.entropy said:
It doesn't work like that. How would extra grip combat dirty air? You need significant overspeed to combat the dirty air hence we've ended up with DRS.
It's debatable whether the return to slicks have helped, if at all.
Narrower tyres? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY
simonpeter said:
Rear difusers only give rear end grip, that is why F1 cars understeer when they get close to a car in front.
Winged cars, cars that create a significant amount of downforce will understeer more when they follow each other.In the 70s F1 drivers talking about the imbalance of the car when following a car; in the Super Touring era of Touring Cars the cars suffered more understeer when following a car; in NASCAR they call this phenomenon Aero Push.
The aficionados will correct me but it seems it is less of a problem in sportscars.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff