Formula 1 tyre debris
Discussion
Once upon a time when overtaking was commonplace, we used to hear the commentators mentioning how the clever drivers like Senna would deliberately drive offline at a particular corner for a few laps while following another car, to clear the marbles before launching an attack down the newly cleared line.
If it becomes a problem, I'm sure we'll some of the drivers could work it out.
TBH though, it only seems to be an issue on the faster corners (where realistically, going side by side still isn't likely), because there were plenty of 2 or 3 car abreast moments in the slower corners today.
If it becomes a problem, I'm sure we'll some of the drivers could work it out.
TBH though, it only seems to be an issue on the faster corners (where realistically, going side by side still isn't likely), because there were plenty of 2 or 3 car abreast moments in the slower corners today.
Marbles or not, the racing line will always be more grippy because of the rubber laid down. If tyres that degrade are restricting overtaking because of marbles, it pales into insignificance compared to the number of overtaking opportunities they create because they degrade. You can't really have degradation without having marbles, so if you make a tyre that doesn't produce them, it will be a rock hard tyre that doesn't lose performance, and we'll be back to the "almost impossible to overtake even with a significantly faster car" type racing of the Bridgestone era.
Fire99 said:
Bit ironic that they are pushing the environmentally friendly route but are now shredding tyres all over the show.
I'm pleased someone mentioned this.Of course the tyres are wholly created for motor racing and always destroyed afterwards (except for about 0.001% which form the basis of displays and coffee tables). But Fire99's comment would seem a perfectly logical counter to the idea that F1 is doing its 'green bit' and at the same time squarely knocks the 'green' out of any argument which attempts to justify four potty engines (for instance) under a pseudo-green cover.
It highlights the hypocrisy within the politicking on both sides of the green argument; particularly those who use it to justify their own interests. This happens on both 'sides' where it is used as a convenient tool for manoeuvre.
Motor racing isn't green. Then again, neither is watching TV, using a computer, switching on a light-bulb or using a shower. Neither is any other form of competition; entertainment (always ultimately trivial) or any human endeavour based on machinery unless it has long-term goals that will impact humankind in such a way as to be of wholly unselfish benefit. So to use it as a weapon against motor racing would seem rather vindictive.
The greenest argument of all is to do away with fun and ultimately all human activity. Anyone for mass suicide?
jimmystratos said:
The new tyres are certainly making for interesting stategy decisions, but the amount of marbles on so much of the circuits seems to be making much of the track unuseable as only a narrow swept path is left. Surely this is restricting some passing manoevres?
I'm sure this was mentioned somewhere, maybe on one of the BBC shows (the forum perhaps ?) or maybe in Autosport or the like, about Pirelli being asked to look at the issue because it was restricting the number of different lines that drivers could take into corners, and hence overaking opportunities.Nick M said:
jimmystratos said:
The new tyres are certainly making for interesting stategy decisions, but the amount of marbles on so much of the circuits seems to be making much of the track unuseable as only a narrow swept path is left. Surely this is restricting some passing manoevres?
I'm sure this was mentioned somewhere, maybe on one of the BBC shows (the forum perhaps ?) or maybe in Autosport or the like, about Pirelli being asked to look at the issue because it was restricting the number of different lines that drivers could take into corners, and hence overaking opportunities.cosicave said:
Motor racing isn't green.
The only thing that I find annoying is when marketing BS is used to try and convince us that it is. But at least F1 is relatively greener that it used to be. If we take tyres as an example it was commonplace in the unrestricted days to go through 20 sets per car per day at a test. They couldn't truck them in to the circuit fast enough!uktrailmonster said:
cosicave said:
Motor racing isn't green.
The only thing that I find annoying is when marketing BS is used to try and convince us that it is. But at least F1 is relatively greener that it used to be. If we take tyres as an example it was commonplace in the unrestricted days to go through 20 sets per car per day at a test. They couldn't truck them in to the circuit fast enough!just for giggles, try working out how much Aviation fuel, tyres, etc are used carting the F1 circus round the planet?
Scuffers said:
have you any idea how laughable that is?
just for giggles, try working out how much Aviation fuel, tyres, etc are used carting the F1 circus round the planet?
I did the F1 circus as a race engineer for over 10 years and ran an F1 test team for 5 years so I'm fully aware of how much money it all costs. But as we were talking specifically about tyres why don't you work out how many tyres the F1 paddock used to go through in the days of unrestricted testing and tyre allocations? I reckon it was somewhere in the region of 100 sets per team per event, so something like 1000 sets per paddock per event. In addition each team typically had a stock of 100 sets of wheels to cart around the planet. Hauling vast amounts of bulky tyres and wheels around the planet was a major logistics exercise all on its own and not exactly cheap. Plus they all had to be carted back to be destroyed later. Still laughable?just for giggles, try working out how much Aviation fuel, tyres, etc are used carting the F1 circus round the planet?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff