Discussion
I had noticed that if they screw up a tyre, then it scuppers the entire set!
Its bad enough they get a limited number of tyres, but it seems daft to put so many constraints on them. Would make for much better racing now they seem to have the reliability of the drivetrain. I cant remember seeing an engine or box cr4pping themselves all season.
Its bad enough they get a limited number of tyres, but it seems daft to put so many constraints on them. Would make for much better racing now they seem to have the reliability of the drivetrain. I cant remember seeing an engine or box cr4pping themselves all season.
JontyR said:
..but it seems daft to put so many constraints on them.
Why is it daft? The rules are there for safety and cost reasons. If you started mixing tyres I think you'd quickly arrive at a dangerous / silly scenarios. As for the sets, mixing up tyres with different mileages on them would give similar issues in terms of differences in grip and life.JontyR said:
I cant remember seeing an engine or box cr4pping themselves all season.
Timo Glock has an engine failure in free practice at Singapore; d'Ambrosio's gearbox let go at the start of the race at Monza. Lotus have suffered several retirements due to gearbox issues through the season. And I think there have been others.RenesisEvo said:
JontyR said:
..but it seems daft to put so many constraints on them.
Why is it daft? The rules are there for safety and cost reasons. If you started mixing tyres I think you'd quickly arrive at a dangerous / silly scenarios. As for the sets, mixing up tyres with different mileages on them would give similar issues in terms of differences in grip and life.As for safety and cost. I think the constraint of running a set number of tyres is hurting the viewing. Yes it makes it exciting, but it is also causing some teams to accept the lower places rather than getting out and laying down a good time. And that is just plain boring!
RenesisEvo said:
JontyR said:
I cant remember seeing an engine or box cr4pping themselves all season.
Timo Glock has an engine failure in free practice at Singapore; d'Ambrosio's gearbox let go at the start of the race at Monza. Lotus have suffered several retirements due to gearbox issues through the season. And I think there have been others.
In general though, we seem to be suffering far less retirements due to drive train than a few years ago. You have to agree on that?The tyre rules are there to make you talk about the tyres. F1 doesnt want to pay for tyres, so supplied free, and bear in mind without a competitor tyre manufacturer to war with, they could easily construct a single control tyre, however then the tyres would only be discussed during a failure (negative PR), so hence these rules, mandatory/constraints, is an artificial device part for the show, mostly to justify good PR for Pirelli (formerly bridgestone) and the expense they go to supply them. For instance that piece to camera before the GP with Jake and DC with tyres kindly provided all neatly stacked. The truth is tyres are the biggest single determining fact in F1 performance, but if that were a constant, they would be the black things on each corner, and would be ignored.
As to engine and drivetrain reliability being so good, of course they are the used to rev to nearly 20k before they were rev limited, and engines spec are locked (again) for a mandatory periods, partly to save costs, for F1 would end up with only two engine manufacturers (that's a.n.other and ferrari) costing itself out of existence. Still we do talk about engines still, so the PR works.
There is I'm afraid an awful lot more of constraints and artifice at work. Modern world....
As to engine and drivetrain reliability being so good, of course they are the used to rev to nearly 20k before they were rev limited, and engines spec are locked (again) for a mandatory periods, partly to save costs, for F1 would end up with only two engine manufacturers (that's a.n.other and ferrari) costing itself out of existence. Still we do talk about engines still, so the PR works.
There is I'm afraid an awful lot more of constraints and artifice at work. Modern world....
tank slapper said:
The problem was that the tyres were becoming too good. The last Bridgestones were at the point where the drivers could do virtually the entire race on one set, with a quick stop at a convenient time to comply with the need to use both types.
that was only after they became sole supplier, (then Michelin dropped out after the US GP farce)no need to be competitive as a sole supplier.JontyR said:
Possibly a dumb question, but how come F1 doesnt have the same option as Moto GP to mismatch tyres? Say running softs on the front and slightly harder on the rear?
Not a dumb question, F1 teams used do this, in the '80s definitely, I can't remember anybody doing it in the early '90s, wasn't as common to do so then anyway. Funnily enough, F1 would be a less artificial, as far as the racing/tactics is concerned, if they went down this path. The idea of a manufacturer producing more than one compound wasn't so teams could be forced to use all of them, so as to "spice things up". Multiple compounds were made so that teams could decide what tyres suited their cars and tactics for the race and conditions. Edited by 28jaguar on Tuesday 18th October 09:03
tank slapper said:
The problem was that the tyres were becoming too good. The last Bridgestones were at the point where the drivers could do virtually the entire race on one set, with a quick stop at a convenient time to comply with the need to use both types.
Nothing wrong with that, that's how it's (naturally) evolved. Everything about the cars has become better, efficient, stronger, since I've started following GP. The only thing that has stayed the same is fans complaining about the "boring" racing..."there's no passing"!Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff