[ 2020 ] AMG Mercedes F1 Team - Mercedes

[Moore77]

Many people think, having fast degrading tires is good as it allows for more pit stops and a lot of strategies at play. The one think people forget is, the more fragile the tires they bring, the more management drivers would do, making slower races. Every driver would want to extend the stints and hence, goes slower.

I think you are seriously underestimating the level of thought that have gone in to these tires and the posters who have voiced their opinion in favor of them.

The tires are a necessity as a result of banning refueling and bringing in a strategic element. If you had more durable tires, you'd have no reason to pit. Even if you kept the rule of mandating to use two compounds, you'd end up with races like Socchi where Rosberg could come in on lap 1 and finish the race comfortably on the second set. The fragile tires have brought in a certain level of unpredictability that enhances the excitement and the strategic element. Yes, it increases the possibility that drivers could nurse them around the track to get them to the end, but that is a legitimate strategy that one could counter by i.e. going for more stops and running the tire more aggressively, hence create a bigger delta between tires and thus increase the probability of a successful overtake.

You may note that that is what Hamilton did last year at Hungary when battling Verstappen for the win. That would not have been possible if the tires had been more durable and the delta between tires and their level of wear smaller.

This is no different than the strategic elements of the refueling era when you'd have some cars opting for 2 stints, thus run heavier vs those running lighter but requiring faster stints to make up the losses in the pits. It's virtually the same thing.

I also don't see any issues with tires blowing up - beyond the obvious safety element. If drivers willingly take a risk by running too long on them (or running them with too low pressures that compromises the construction), well, that's part of the strategy. No much different than perhaps running an engine more aggressive for more power at the cost of an increased probability of failing.

While I respect your views there, let me move onto the Hungary part. If the tires would have been fragile, there wouldn't have been entertainment in the race! From the start, Verstappen would have gone for controlling the pace by going slower all across the circuit and saving the electrical boost only for straight, instead of letting a gap develop for a safe pitstop for Hamilton . Hamilton couldn't have pushed Verstappen as he would have immediately destroyed his fragile tires and would have been vulnerable from the Ferraris behind (while in reality they didn't have pace, but in the fragile tire scenario, they would have stuck behind). So, Hamilton would have held his place, constantly complaining about the overheating tires. So, the result would be a procession of tire saving and a win for Verstappen.

Similarly, in Silverstone, Spa and Monza last year, Lewis wouldn't have managed to provide entertainment, if there would have been fragile tires as he couldn't have been sitting in DRS almost all race long. Neither could Verstappen would have provided that entertainment race in Monaco, if his fragile tires were getting badly affected in the wake of Hamilton's car and then he had to step back and maintain 2 to 3 second gap to nurse his tires.

The fundamental reason for simplification of front wing (and for 2022 changes), is to allow cars to run closer and that wouldn't be possible if there are fragile tires. It was fair ask to provide strong tires with a big cliff, which hasn't been possible. A big cliff, doesn't mean a tire failure. The moment there is a danger of a tire failure, drivers nurse the tires and don't take risk of pushing each other. With that goes, racing entertainment! Atleast with harder tires, you would see cars pushing each other and even if an ultimate pass doesn't happen, there is a nail biting tension for viewers. That would be pretty awesome!

If the tires are hard, but also degrade slowly, to the extent that after hard racing for 20 laps, when a driver goes for a tire change, he would come out with a second or 1.5 second pace difference, that would create enough racing. The more a set of tires get stretched, there has to be a slow wear that continues to slow the car, without necessary failing it with a blow out.

[Phil]

Those are pretty much all examples of where the car with better performance is out of position. If we assume that on average, the quickest cars also qualify in front, then what you will get with durable tires is a simple progression with no reason to pit. Pitting sets cars back 20-25 seconds. This puts them into the "pack". I do get that too fragile tires causes issues, but we've long gotten past that point, as, as you say, we've had plenty of races where drivers have pushed and could do so without the tires falling apart. A more durable tire will however create a smaller delta between tires - that's the whole point of having them as was suggested above. My point is that tires have replaced the concept of having a tank with limited fuel and having to spend it across a stint or race wisely as part of a strategy with a tire that requires the same.

Naturally, creating the perfect tire isn't easy when you have 10 different cars with 10 different performance characteristics, different loads and then got to also consider differing temperatures, track surface grip levels, high-speed vs low-speed corners and the loads they create and strain they put the tires under. If it were that easy, I think it would have already been created. What makes it all the more difficult is that F1 cars are a moving target, yet the tires are not. They are constructed and built in advance and Pirelli (or previous the teams) have to order them well in advantage without knowing what the exact temperature will be on race day to create the perfect race.

In all honesty, over the course of multiple seasons, I'd say they've done pretty well all else considering. We've had our fair share of predictable races, also a fair share of unpredictable ones too.

And this really doesn't belong in this thread, so apologies for responding in this in the first place. Maybe a mod can move it to the Pirelli-"love" topic.

[maxxer]

I think they are getting close to a good tyre setup lets say you are 7-9 seconds behind a car on medium or nursing you pit slap on some softs and race to close the 30 secpnd gap

[PlatinumZealot]

Many people think, having fast degrading tires is good as it allows for more pit stops and a lot of strategies at play. The one think people forget is, the more fragile the tires they bring, the more management drivers would do, making slower races. Every driver would want to extend the stints and hence, goes slower.

I think you are seriously underestimating the level of thought that have gone in to these tires and the posters who have voiced their opinion in favor of them.

The tires are a necessity as a result of banning refueling and bringing in a strategic element. If you had more durable tires, you'd have no reason to pit. Even if you kept the rule of mandating to use two compounds, you'd end up with races like Socchi where Rosberg could come in on lap 1 and finish the race comfortably on the second set. The fragile tires have brought in a certain level of unpredictability that enhances the excitement and the strategic element. Yes, it increases the possibility that drivers could nurse them around the track to get them to the end, but that is a legitimate strategy that one could counter by i.e. going for more stops and running the tire more aggressively, hence create a bigger delta between tires and thus increase the probability of a successful overtake.

You may note that that is what Hamilton did last year at Hungary when battling Verstappen for the win. That would not have been possible if the tires had been more durable and the delta between tires and their level of wear smaller.

This is no different than the strategic elements of the refueling era when you'd have some cars opting for 2 stints, thus run heavier vs those running lighter but requiring faster stints to make up the losses in the pits. It's virtually the same thing.

I also don't see any issues with tires blowing up - beyond the obvious safety element. If drivers willingly take a risk by running too long on them (or running them with too low pressures that compromises the construction), well, that's part of the strategy. No much different than perhaps running an engine more aggressive for more power at the cost of an increased probability of failing.

The pit-stop loss is too punishing versus the delta in the theoretical race completion time of going at maximum pace, so Rosberg faced little risk going at a snail's pace to avoid that extra pit-stop. This problem is solved by bringing back re-fueling (increasing race completion time delta by tens of seconds) AND reducing the pit-stop loss detla (so refueling is not punished). This was my proposal for the "Fuel Pod."

[holeindalip]

Many people think, having fast degrading tires is good as it allows for more pit stops and a lot of strategies at play. The one think people forget is, the more fragile the tires they bring, the more management drivers would do, making slower races. Every driver would want to extend the stints and hence, goes slower.

I think you are seriously underestimating the level of thought that have gone in to these tires and the posters who have voiced their opinion in favor of them.

The tires are a necessity as a result of banning refueling and bringing in a strategic element. If you had more durable tires, you'd have no reason to pit. Even if you kept the rule of mandating to use two compounds, you'd end up with races like Socchi where Rosberg could come in on lap 1 and finish the race comfortably on the second set. The fragile tires have brought in a certain level of unpredictability that enhances the excitement and the strategic element. Yes, it increases the possibility that drivers could nurse them around the track to get them to the end, but that is a legitimate strategy that one could counter by i.e. going for more stops and running the tire more aggressively, hence create a bigger delta between tires and thus increase the probability of a successful overtake.

You may note that that is what Hamilton did last year at Hungary when battling Verstappen for the win. That would not have been possible if the tires had been more durable and the delta between tires and their level of wear smaller.

This is no different than the strategic elements of the refueling era when you'd have some cars opting for 2 stints, thus run heavier vs those running lighter but requiring faster stints to make up the losses in the pits. It's virtually the same thing.

I also don't see any issues with tires blowing up - beyond the obvious safety element. If drivers willingly take a risk by running too long on them (or running them with too low pressures that compromises the construction), well, that's part of the strategy. No much different than perhaps running an engine more aggressive for more power at the cost of an increased probability of failing.

The pit-stop loss is too punishing versus the delta in the theoretical race completion time of going at maximum pace, so Rosberg faced little risk going at a snail's pace to avoid that extra pit-stop. This problem is solved by bringing back re-fueling (increasing race completion time delta by tens of seconds) AND reducing the pit-stop loss detla (so refueling is not punished). This was my proposal for the "Fuel Pod."

Honestly you guys will probably flame me for this but I actually liked the 2013 tires (besides the blowouts) I’m talking like the option lasting 12 laps or so and the prime going 25 or so abouts, there was plenty of action in that season.....

[Wynters]

[Big Tea]

I am obviously not thinking at the moment, but what is the difference between brake balance + /- and migration?

[zibby43]

I am obviously not thinking at the moment, but what is the difference between brake balance + /- and migration?

BMIG adjusts the reset rate of the rear brake-by-wire system in order to keep the brake bias where the driver wants it.

If that makes sense.

Brake migration happens when the driver starts backing off the pedal. The rear brakes release just a bit quicker, and, as a result, the brake bias migrates toward the front. This effect can be compensated for with the brake bias adjustment.

[Big Tea]

I am obviously not thinking at the moment, but what is the difference between brake balance + /- and migration?

BMIG adjusts the reset rate of the rear brake-by-wire system in order to keep the brake bias where the driver wants it.

If that makes sense.

Brake migration happens when the driver starts backing off the pedal. The rear brakes release just a bit quicker, and, as a result, the brake bias migrates toward the front. This effect can be compensated for with the brake bias adjustment.

Thanks very much. Obvious when you explain it, must be my age

[zibby43]

I am obviously not thinking at the moment, but what is the difference between brake balance + /- and migration?

BMIG adjusts the reset rate of the rear brake-by-wire system in order to keep the brake bias where the driver wants it.

If that makes sense.

Brake migration happens when the driver starts backing off the pedal. The rear brakes release just a bit quicker, and, as a result, the brake bias migrates toward the front. This effect can be compensated for with the brake bias adjustment.

Thanks very much. Obvious when you explain it, must be my age

Most welcome bud. Glad it was helpful! It was a very good question. It can be a very in-depth topic. As there can be other factors that start to play with BBAL and BMIG over the course of a race.

I was just hoping I was providing enough info./being clear enough with my initial attempt.

[Big Tea]

BMIG adjusts the reset rate of the rear brake-by-wire system in order to keep the brake bias where the driver wants it.

If that makes sense.

Brake migration happens when the driver starts backing off the pedal. The rear brakes release just a bit quicker, and, as a result, the brake bias migrates toward the front. This effect can be compensated for with the brake bias adjustment.

Thanks very much. Obvious when you explain it, must be my age

Most welcome bud. Glad it was helpful! It was a very good question. It can be a very in-depth topic. As there can be other factors that start to play with BBAL and BMIG over the course of a race.

I was just hoping I was providing enough info./being clear enough with my initial attempt.

Concise and Ideal, thanks

[TimW]

The fundamental reason for simplification of front wing (and for 2022 changes), is to allow cars to run closer and that wouldn't be possible if there are fragile tires.

Reduced wake would allow to run closer, also with fragile tires. Reducing wake reduces the degrading effects(less downforce, more sliding, less cooling). Without wake, there would be difference anymore.

[godlameroso]

Many people think, having fast degrading tires is good as it allows for more pit stops and a lot of strategies at play. The one think people forget is, the more fragile the tires they bring, the more management drivers would do, making slower races. Every driver would want to extend the stints and hence, goes slower.

I think you are seriously underestimating the level of thought that have gone in to these tires and the posters who have voiced their opinion in favor of them.

The tires are a necessity as a result of banning refueling and bringing in a strategic element. If you had more durable tires, you'd have no reason to pit. Even if you kept the rule of mandating to use two compounds, you'd end up with races like Socchi where Rosberg could come in on lap 1 and finish the race comfortably on the second set. The fragile tires have brought in a certain level of unpredictability that enhances the excitement and the strategic element. Yes, it increases the possibility that drivers could nurse them around the track to get them to the end, but that is a legitimate strategy that one could counter by i.e. going for more stops and running the tire more aggressively, hence create a bigger delta between tires and thus increase the probability of a successful overtake.

You may note that that is what Hamilton did last year at Hungary when battling Verstappen for the win. That would not have been possible if the tires had been more durable and the delta between tires and their level of wear smaller.

This is no different than the strategic elements of the refueling era when you'd have some cars opting for 2 stints, thus run heavier vs those running lighter but requiring faster stints to make up the losses in the pits. It's virtually the same thing.

I also don't see any issues with tires blowing up - beyond the obvious safety element. If drivers willingly take a risk by running too long on them (or running them with too low pressures that compromises the construction), well, that's part of the strategy. No much different than perhaps running an engine more aggressive for more power at the cost of an increased probability of failing.

While I respect your views there, let me move onto the Hungary part. If the tires would have been fragile, there wouldn't have been entertainment in the race! From the start, Verstappen would have gone for controlling the pace by going slower all across the circuit and saving the electrical boost only for straight, instead of letting a gap develop for a safe pitstop for Hamilton . Hamilton couldn't have pushed Verstappen as he would have immediately destroyed his fragile tires and would have been vulnerable from the Ferraris behind (while in reality they didn't have pace, but in the fragile tire scenario, they would have stuck behind). So, Hamilton would have held his place, constantly complaining about the overheating tires. So, the result would be a procession of tire saving and a win for Verstappen.

Similarly, in Silverstone, Spa and Monza last year, Lewis wouldn't have managed to provide entertainment, if there would have been fragile tires as he couldn't have been sitting in DRS almost all race long. Neither could Verstappen would have provided that entertainment race in Monaco, if his fragile tires were getting badly affected in the wake of Hamilton's car and then he had to step back and maintain 2 to 3 second gap to nurse his tires.

The fundamental reason for simplification of front wing (and for 2022 changes), is to allow cars to run closer and that wouldn't be possible if there are fragile tires. It was fair ask to provide strong tires with a big cliff, which hasn't been possible. A big cliff, doesn't mean a tire failure. The moment there is a danger of a tire failure, drivers nurse the tires and don't take risk of pushing each other. With that goes, racing entertainment! Atleast with harder tires, you would see cars pushing each other and even if an ultimate pass doesn't happen, there is a nail biting tension for viewers. That would be pretty awesome!

If the tires are hard, but also degrade slowly, to the extent that after hard racing for 20 laps, when a driver goes for a tire change, he would come out with a second or 1.5 second pace difference, that would create enough racing. The more a set of tires get stretched, there has to be a slow wear that continues to slow the car, without necessary failing it with a blow out.

The regulations will never achieve that aim.

[dans79]

Andy Cowell on Lewis.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/08/27/rac ... p-27-08-3/

"Lewis is the best. Outstanding natural talent and that inquisitive curiosity and tenacity. He'll push for progress and push for people to hear his viewpoint in a nice way. And as an individual he's not competitive to the point of being nasty and there are some individuals on the planet who push competitiveness to the point where it bubbles over to just not being sporting. Lewis is a true sportsman and a motivator of the team. An outstanding talent. His exemplary performance makes everybody look up and go 'I need to be at that level, I need to be operating my game at that level'."

[tangodjango]

Andy Cowell on Lewis.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/08/27/rac ... p-27-08-3/

"Lewis is the best. Outstanding natural talent and that inquisitive curiosity and tenacity. He'll push for progress and push for people to hear his viewpoint in a nice way. And as an individual he's not competitive to the point of being nasty and there are some individuals on the planet who push competitiveness to the point where it bubbles over to just not being sporting. Lewis is a true sportsman and a motivator of the team. An outstanding talent. His exemplary performance makes everybody look up and go 'I need to be at that level, I need to be operating my game at that level'."

This one by James Allison is also revealing:

James Allison, technical director at Hamilton’s Mercedes team, is in a unique position to judge his qualities. Allison has worked closely with not only Hamilton but also Schumacher, Alonso and four-time champion Sebastian Vettel.
“If they all had to be in a super-team fighting it out every year,” Allison says, “my guess is that Lewis would end up on top. Maybe not every season, but if they kept coming back every year to do battle in some sort of Valhalla-type confrontation, more often than not it would be Lewis wearing the crown at the end of the year.
“Of that cluster, I think he is the quickest, at his best, and he shows us his best extremely frequently. It’s not by accident that he is the all-time pole record holder. He just has a better turn of speed than the others.”
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/moto ... dy-f1-icon