Chinese GP 2009 - Shanghai

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:59 am

This piece from the rest of the interview made me laugh:

"As I said, for a better show, maybe we can pick up our number and then whoever picks up number 15 can put on wet tyres, or whatever, and it is a better show and it's funny. Like this it is not funny."


Formula Dice? :lol:


Seriously, he has a point. Sure, last year's tyre-differential wasn't that big - but we still had the minor differences. This year, it's just a joke. Both tyres are off, but one is slightly better, so teams focus on it - and then need a six-lap dash with the wrong tyre. Instead of that, couldn't Bridgestone have simply spread the tyres more? Or, with the non-consecutive tyres, slightly closer to each other?
Metar
 
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:24 pm

I actually fail to see Fernando's point. So they can only do 5 or 6 laps on a set of super-softs... so what? Same for everyone, no? What is the "joke"?
Roland Ehnström
 
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Location: Sollentuna, Sweden

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:07 pm

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.
Metar
 
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:30 pm

If the tyres are only lasting that many laps they are going to have to run really odd strategies in the race to make them work. It could prove very interesting or...they could all look like idiots.
Image
'10-'11 Head of Powertrain - Glasgow University Formula Student
Scotracer
 
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:33 pm

I guess a driver will just have to die before they stop the tyre nonsense.

I think the teams should be able to choose which of the 4 compounds they want for the weekend, and place their order ahead of time.

That way, teams will still be on different tyres (that suit their car) and we can have great racing for the entire GP instead of the "penalty laps" on a sub-standard tyre that are inherently dangerous.
Conceptual
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:41 pm

run a 2-stop race..

- qualify with 8 laps fuel to get pole.
- start the race with the soft compound.
- 5 hot-laps into the race, pit for fuel and prime tyres.
- 1 pitstop to go at roughly 60% race-length!

Simple as that Fernando! 8)
Any post(s) made by this user are (semi-)educated opinion(s), based on random fact(s) blurred by the smudges of time.
Any fact(s) claimed by this user will be supplemented by a link to the original source of said fact(s).
Fil
 
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne, Aus.

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:43 pm

ESPImperium wrote:Bourdais quitting F1 for ALMS with Peugoet, with STR needing a replacement quick, them chooseing Piquet

That's a great insight: Bourdais will leave F1 to race with Peugeot in a championship Peugeot is not racing in. Someone should rush and warn him...
dumrick
 
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Portugal

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:54 pm

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.
Roland Ehnström
 
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Location: Sollentuna, Sweden

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:58 pm

Conceptual wrote:I guess a driver will just have to die before they stop the tyre nonsense.

I think the teams should be able to choose which of the 4 compounds they want for the weekend, and place their order ahead of time.

That way, teams will still be on different tyres (that suit their car) and we can have great racing for the entire GP instead of the "penalty laps" on a sub-standard tyre that are inherently dangerous.

Well said. The entire concept of a crap tire is so micky mouse for racing as well as dangerous. Like the whole two compound rule the point is a transparent attempt to keep Bridgestone's name still in conversation about a weekend. Without a tire war it isn't as easy and this forces the tires back into the equation for a GP.

Not only is it contrived but it is dangerous and just downright stupid. I really hope they get rid of it. The racing is just so artificial with it. Not to mention that we've seen that the cars can overtake fine without having to have on the equivalent of ice.
alex1015
 
Joined: 16 Apr 2008

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:09 pm

Image
Future is like walking into past......

Blog : http://formula1techandart.wordpress.com/
Twitter :http://twitter.com/bar555onF1
bar555
 
Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Location: Greece - Athens

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:17 pm

Roland:

Then why not have a computer spew out six random names, and these six drivers will have to use third gear only for five laps? That'll slow them down properly and give others a chance to overtake them.

Why not give teams three possible fuel-loads, and tell them to mix-and-match their strategies on a pre-determined set?

Why not install a random-number generator attached to a grenade in each engine, and have it detonate if it hits a certain number?

Or have drivers racing with a sword hanging by a thread over their heads?


If you want racing, give drivers their proper equipment. Don't give them one over-hard tyre that gets no temperature (Malaysia's Hard compound), or a tyre that breaks up after five laps. Even BrawnGP said there wasn't much left in them, despite not pushing it. The teams are given two tyres to race with. It's an arbitrary measure that creates nearly dangerous speed-differences, and slows the cars down for no good reason. We have refueling because it's the fastest way to finish a GP - why not tyres that are optimal for the distance?
Metar
 
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:32 pm

Fil wrote:run a 2-stop race..

- qualify with 8 laps fuel to get pole.
- start the race with the soft compound.
- 5 hot-laps into the race, pit for fuel and prime tyres.
- 1 pitstop to go at roughly 60% race-length!

Simple as that Fernando! 8)


Hey thats what I was thinking, however it would prolly only work for BrawnGP, RedBull or Toyota as their cars have the race pace to make a good getaway.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.
djos
 
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Fil wrote:run a 2-stop race..

- qualify with 8 laps fuel to get pole.
- start the race with the soft compound.
- 5 hot-laps into the race, pit for fuel and prime tyres.
- 1 pitstop to go at roughly 60% race-length!

Simple as that Fernando! 8)


That strategy would put you right back into the pack with no clear air.
Image
'10-'11 Head of Powertrain - Glasgow University Formula Student
Scotracer
 
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:55 pm

What about leaving the dangerous tyres to the last few laps, with a quick splash and dash?
BWP
Tripos Media Partners
#TriposMediaPartners
ben_watkins
 
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Location: UK

Post Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:32 pm

ben_watkins wrote:What about leaving the dangerous tyres to the last few laps, with a quick splash and dash?


And have another Kubica/Vettel incedent decide a race, i dont think so.

What id do is this:

Qualify with roughly 10 laps of fuel on board, try and get as far up the grid as i can. Then start with the options, use them to get off the grid well, not burning them out on the parade lap. Pit on lap 6, switch to Primes and put in arround 25-30 laps of fuel, and race as hard as i can.

However on the tyre issue, its gonna be worse at Bahrain, as the same tyres are getting used at Bahrain as well, and that will probably be a worse situation. I recon that Bridgestone will do something to the SS tyre compound, maybes just enough to make them last 10-12 laps, and in race conditions only being worth an inital second a lap more for the first lap or two, then trailing off massivly.

Will be intresting for sure.
ESPImperium
 
Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

PreviousNext

Return to Formula One races

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], CHT, Godius, Google Adsense [Bot], Just_a_fan, komninosm, MercedesAMGSpy, SamH123, zorog and 8 guests