F1 tyre suppliers and DRS system
Discussion
Do you think F1 should have only a sole tyre supplier or do you think we should have a tyre rivarly like those between Brigestone and Michelin from 2001 to 2006.
I think we should have a tyre rivalry and get rid of this drag reduction system ( removable rear wing) but keep KERS and the "F-duct".
What do you think?
I think we should have a tyre rivalry and get rid of this drag reduction system ( removable rear wing) but keep KERS and the "F-duct".
What do you think?
MG CHRIS said:
F-duct is basicly the same as drs. The only problem with different tyre suppliers is one will always be better than the other so teams will use the best tyre manafacture. They should just leave it like it is brilliant racing today haven't seen a race like that for ages.
I would question that this is real racing....it was more a case of tyre survival...
I want to see wheel to wheel racing, not ruined by how screwed X or Y's tyres are.
4 stop racing is just ridiculous (unless it's wet etc.)
the race today, Vettel had it easiest, nobody challenging him so he spent the whole race looking after his tyres, whereas Hamilton was trying to race everybody, and ran out of tyres, which do you want to see? the person that get's out front just stay there?
having tyre competition would be exactly the opposite to this as it was in the recent past.
Edited by Scuffers on Sunday 10th April 18:40
Scuffers said:
MG CHRIS said:
F-duct is basicly the same as drs. The only problem with different tyre suppliers is one will always be better than the other so teams will use the best tyre manafacture. They should just leave it like it is brilliant racing today haven't seen a race like that for ages.
I would question that this is real racing....it was more a case of tyre survival...
I want to see wheel to wheel racing, not ruined by how screwed X or Y's tyres are.
4 stop racing is just ridiculous (unless it's wet etc.)
More like the way tyres should be the old brigestones were stupid you could run it for half a race or more and not lose a lot of grip. The new tyres bring a new spice into things were you got to think about the right tyre to last till the end of the race or to give a gain in speed.
We have seen wheel to wheel racing and possible without x,y or z he wouldnt
Last year one pit stop was boring everyone was basicly on the same tyre and with the same fuel load nobody had any advantages. Basicly the first 2 laps the finishing position were sorted today we saw places gained and lost and good battles throughout the field.
Good saying you cant please all the people all of the time but you can please some people some of the time. If you dont like it watch something else.
MG CHRIS said:
Last year one pit stop was boring everyone was basicly on the same tyre and with the same fuel load nobody had any advantages. Basicly the first 2 laps the finishing position were sorted today we saw places gained and lost and good battles throughout the field.
last year we did not have a tyre war (think back to when Michelin were competing with Bridgestone - and also ask yourself why Bridgestone CBA to carry on... I also disagree with the stupid rule that says you have to run both compounds, once again, artificial.
F1 is supposed to be about innovation and technology, not contrived artificial 'racing'.
Godzuki said:
I think I prefer the one, to be honest. I'd hate it to get to the point where people were winning solely on manufacturer of rubber, and differing degradation. It's not like the engineers can fix that, if you know what I mean.
I agree I want the best team to win, not the best tyre.Scuffers said:
last year we did not have a tyre war (think back to when Michelin were competing with Bridgestone - and also ask yourself why Bridgestone CBA to carry on...
I also disagree with the stupid rule that says you have to run both compounds, once again, artificial.
F1 is supposed to be about innovation and technology, not contrived artificial 'racing'.
Except that, back in the day, teams made judgement calls and mistakes as a result. That mixed things up. In the modern world of almost-unlimited computer simulations, the optimum choice is often easy to determine (whether intuitive or not) and is chosen by all teams. Along with the restrictions on technology and other sporting matters, all teams converge towards a mean. It became a purely strategic game.I also disagree with the stupid rule that says you have to run both compounds, once again, artificial.
F1 is supposed to be about innovation and technology, not contrived artificial 'racing'.
The more we can challenge the teams, the more they have to compete with tactics as well as strategy, and the more testing it becomes as an environment. I thought yesterday's race was fascinating. Those who embraced the challenges did well.
skwdenyer said:
Except that, back in the day, teams made judgement calls and mistakes as a result. That mixed things up. In the modern world of almost-unlimited computer simulations, the optimum choice is often easy to determine (whether intuitive or not) and is chosen by all teams. Along with the restrictions on technology and other sporting matters, all teams converge towards a mean. It became a purely strategic game.
The more we can challenge the teams, the more they have to compete with tactics as well as strategy, and the more testing it becomes as an environment. I thought yesterday's race was fascinating. Those who embraced the challenges did well.
the 'old-days'??The more we can challenge the teams, the more they have to compete with tactics as well as strategy, and the more testing it becomes as an environment. I thought yesterday's race was fascinating. Those who embraced the challenges did well.
we are only talking about 2006 (the last year with dual suppliers), and I am pretty sure they had computers in 2006!
Scuffers said:
skwdenyer said:
Except that, back in the day, teams made judgement calls and mistakes as a result. That mixed things up. In the modern world of almost-unlimited computer simulations, the optimum choice is often easy to determine (whether intuitive or not) and is chosen by all teams. Along with the restrictions on technology and other sporting matters, all teams converge towards a mean. It became a purely strategic game.
The more we can challenge the teams, the more they have to compete with tactics as well as strategy, and the more testing it becomes as an environment. I thought yesterday's race was fascinating. Those who embraced the challenges did well.
the 'old-days'??The more we can challenge the teams, the more they have to compete with tactics as well as strategy, and the more testing it becomes as an environment. I thought yesterday's race was fascinating. Those who embraced the challenges did well.
we are only talking about 2006 (the last year with dual suppliers), and I am pretty sure they had computers in 2006!
The thing some seem to forget is that tyre degradation was a feature of GP racing for all but the last decade or so. Earlier than that, brakes were marginal, too: Ettore Bugatti designed wheels with integral brake drums (with linings on the drums) so that a wheel change also gave fresh brakes, and derived a great benefit from doing-so.
If the urge is for the car to go as fast as possible on any given lap, sticky, fast-degrading rubber will always feature.
skwdenyer said:
Sorry, I was talking about the allegation of contrived racing due to tyre degradation, not the question of tyre wars!
The thing some seem to forget is that tyre degradation was a feature of GP racing for all but the last decade or so. Earlier than that, brakes were marginal, too: Ettore Bugatti designed wheels with integral brake drums (with linings on the drums) so that a wheel change also gave fresh brakes, and derived a great benefit from doing-so.
If the urge is for the car to go as fast as possible on any given lap, sticky, fast-degrading rubber will always feature.
which is exactly what we had during the tyre wars.The thing some seem to forget is that tyre degradation was a feature of GP racing for all but the last decade or so. Earlier than that, brakes were marginal, too: Ettore Bugatti designed wheels with integral brake drums (with linings on the drums) so that a wheel change also gave fresh brakes, and derived a great benefit from doing-so.
If the urge is for the car to go as fast as possible on any given lap, sticky, fast-degrading rubber will always feature.
I don't see the validity of your argument if we had multiple tyre suppliers in competition.
Definitely we should have at least 2 tyre manufacturers.
It's not necessarily a case of best or worst. One can offer more grip for a shorter time, or one make can be better at certain circuits and worse at others.
The idea that F1 should be 90 minutes of wheel to wheel racing every weekend is just fanciful. It never was and it never will be.
Having differences in the cars allows performance advantages in different places, and at different times and this is when you get surprises, and even overtaking.
When everyone has the same engines, sames tyres etc then they have the same performance in the same places and whoever has a 0.1 second advantage on lap one, wins by 5 seconds after 50 laps. Very boring.
It's not necessarily a case of best or worst. One can offer more grip for a shorter time, or one make can be better at certain circuits and worse at others.
The idea that F1 should be 90 minutes of wheel to wheel racing every weekend is just fanciful. It never was and it never will be.
Having differences in the cars allows performance advantages in different places, and at different times and this is when you get surprises, and even overtaking.
When everyone has the same engines, sames tyres etc then they have the same performance in the same places and whoever has a 0.1 second advantage on lap one, wins by 5 seconds after 50 laps. Very boring.
Does anyone have an answer to this DRS question?
It can't be used for the first 2 laps of the race and can only be used if the car behind is less than 1 second behind at a fixed point on the track. DRS is than available some point further on.
Last Sunday the 'set' point was just before the last hairpin and the 'trigger' point was on the main straight.
OK so far and no problem.
What happens if you get a 'train' of say 3 or 4 cars all within 1 second of the car in front at the 'set' point?
Does each car get their DRS 'activated, only the car behind the leader of the group or all of them except the leader?
Haven't heard this scenario mentioned in any commentary and I'm sure it must have happened on the first few laps last Sunday as it seemed to take ages for the field to 'spread'.
BB
It can't be used for the first 2 laps of the race and can only be used if the car behind is less than 1 second behind at a fixed point on the track. DRS is than available some point further on.
Last Sunday the 'set' point was just before the last hairpin and the 'trigger' point was on the main straight.
OK so far and no problem.
What happens if you get a 'train' of say 3 or 4 cars all within 1 second of the car in front at the 'set' point?
Does each car get their DRS 'activated, only the car behind the leader of the group or all of them except the leader?
Haven't heard this scenario mentioned in any commentary and I'm sure it must have happened on the first few laps last Sunday as it seemed to take ages for the field to 'spread'.
BB
BigBob said:
Does anyone have an answer to this DRS question?
It can't be used for the first 2 laps of the race and can only be used if the car behind is less than 1 second behind at a fixed point on the track. DRS is than available some point further on.
Last Sunday the 'set' point was just before the last hairpin and the 'trigger' point was on the main straight.
OK so far and no problem.
What happens if you get a 'train' of say 3 or 4 cars all within 1 second of the car in front at the 'set' point?
Does each car get their DRS 'activated, only the car behind the leader of the group or all of them except the leader?
Haven't heard this scenario mentioned in any commentary and I'm sure it must have happened on the first few laps last Sunday as it seemed to take ages for the field to 'spread'.
BB
AFAIK yes all the cars behind the lead car get DRS activation, however im not an expert.It can't be used for the first 2 laps of the race and can only be used if the car behind is less than 1 second behind at a fixed point on the track. DRS is than available some point further on.
Last Sunday the 'set' point was just before the last hairpin and the 'trigger' point was on the main straight.
OK so far and no problem.
What happens if you get a 'train' of say 3 or 4 cars all within 1 second of the car in front at the 'set' point?
Does each car get their DRS 'activated, only the car behind the leader of the group or all of them except the leader?
Haven't heard this scenario mentioned in any commentary and I'm sure it must have happened on the first few laps last Sunday as it seemed to take ages for the field to 'spread'.
BB
the whole point is that if there are competing manufacturers they will constantly drive for 'better' tyres and the FIA/F1 wanted to have a 'worse' tyre than the bridgestones of last year. Look at Button in the last GP of the season, he just kept on going and going and going on soft tyres.
The cars have too much grip as it is so I think its a brilliant idea to (artificially) slow them down and introduce (fake) over taking as a results.
The words artificially and fake are in brackets so that the sentence can be read either with or without them, and you can think what you want of it (I prefer to have them deleted)
The cars have too much grip as it is so I think its a brilliant idea to (artificially) slow them down and introduce (fake) over taking as a results.
The words artificially and fake are in brackets so that the sentence can be read either with or without them, and you can think what you want of it (I prefer to have them deleted)
bulla003 said:
I think that it would be awesome if there are 2 or more tyre suppliers but they have the sam,e tyre wear rate.
I al;so think that KERS, the F-duct or DRS still should be used with the use of turbo-charged engines as well.
F-Duct is made redundant by DRSI al;so think that KERS, the F-duct or DRS still should be used with the use of turbo-charged engines as well.
I believe (read somewhere) that KERS will be retained and that it will have less restrictions on it? DRS will depend on the aero-considerations - If ground -effect comes back and the wings arent as crucial it will not be as relevant
Right now, we get to see the teams trying to get the best out of a common set of constraints. I that regard, gyres are like the fuel, the air, the each surface, and so on. It is fascinating to watch, and allows competition over the season.
A tyre war is useless IMHO because the teams don't get to choose suppliers on a per-race - or per-pitstop - basis and, even if they could, the tyre characteristics are so intrinsic to the behaviour of the car that it would be disastrous for them to try.
I'd be in favour of a common engine and a common tyre, since that would evenly pit constrictors against each other. As it is it seems a quite surprisingly unsatisfactory compromise.
YMMV
A tyre war is useless IMHO because the teams don't get to choose suppliers on a per-race - or per-pitstop - basis and, even if they could, the tyre characteristics are so intrinsic to the behaviour of the car that it would be disastrous for them to try.
I'd be in favour of a common engine and a common tyre, since that would evenly pit constrictors against each other. As it is it seems a quite surprisingly unsatisfactory compromise.
YMMV
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff