Metar wrote:It's an unusable tyre. Essentially, teams are given a tyre that doesn't suit racing-conditions (and perhaps isn't even strong enough to last a hotlap), but without the option of ignoring it: They're forced to use a tyre that doesn't do it's job. If everyone can't run even half a stint, why use it at all?
The two-compounds rule was made to "improve the show" and increase overtaking - but was Nico Rosberg's tumble down the order really interesting? Cars just moved past him as if they were lapping him. Fernando's point is that it doesn't improve the show - it just makes every driver look terrible for a few laps while he finishes his obligatory stint on the bad compound. As he said - it's a lottery. The medium compound is excellent for most tracks - but the Super Soft just isn't.
When Michelin had their 2005 Indianapolis compounds wrong, they were under fire. When Goodyear forced the whole Brickyard 500 into a series of 20-lap sprints, they came under fire. But why can Bridgestone bring tyres that wear out after five laps (that's as much as a hotlap!), force teams to use it, and then get away with it, and with the FIA's support and encouragement? The Supersoft is the equivalent of Michelin's Indy tyre - it just isn't up to it's job.
First of all, they're only forced to use the "bad" tire once
during the race. If they want, they can run one lap on the super-softs and then mediums for the rest of the race. So it's nothing like the 2005 US GP or the 2008 Brickyard 400, where they had to use the bad tire the whole race
. If they had to use the super-softs for the whole Grand Prix I would agree with Fernando that it would be the worst decition ever. But that's not the case!
Second, in what way is the tire "unstable" except that the wear rate (and tire temp) is rather high? In what way is it "a lottery", is it not the same tire for everyone? Again, they're not forced to run a whole stint four seconds off the pace, they can opt to use it only for a few laps. Williams gave Rosberg a bad strategy at Melbourne, that's not Bridgestone's fault. They should have made the stint on super-softs shorter, and/or made sure Rosberg took better care of his tires.
Third, isn't it a good thing that the driver's skill of taking care of his equipment (of which the tires is the most important) is also tested in a Grand Prix? To me a string of 50 qualifying laps in a row is rather boring to watch. The different tire compounds adds to the challenge for the drivers, the engineers and the strategists. To me that makes the sport better.
Last edited by Roland Ehnström on Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.