F1technical.net

Bad tyres (even by rules) = bad racing.

Another "Pirellized" race, who will be the second (after 2012) world champion taxi driver ?

Agreed Strad. Perhaps it time to stop stating what's wrong with f1 and start asking 'what's right'. What are the current core ingredients we can't do without?

Human drivers. Fast cars. Varieties in approach (ie people going for a coke bottle like the RB6, versus going L-shaped side pods, etc)

strad wrote:You read the posts and you can just about graph the age of the posters...IF the modern F1 fan rules the roost for much longer, F1 is dead.

Ironically you can indeed see the ages.

But not in the way you think.

Most of the people not arguing against the tyres I would guess were around in the 80s, watching drivers balance fuel burn, tyre wear, engine wear and car wear against pace in order to win the race.


Nowadays, you can remove engine wear and car wear from that. Fuel burn is pretty much monitored by the team and adjusted via engine map - the driver now essentially clicks a few buttons and forgets about the issue (unless it is very severe).

All that is left is tyre wear.



I would probably prefer tyres that were a little less lifed by distance and more lifed by how they were driven, but its not a perfect world.

bhallg2k wrote:I disagree.

But, more importantly, where did this idea come from that the only alternative to the Pirelli soft-boiled eggs is tires with race-length durability? That rule was so despised it only lasted a year.

There's a middle ground, and DRS, mandated compound usage, and mayfly tires are nowhere near it; they reside on the short-attention span side of the spectrum. (And they're all just non-answers to a question that's a bit bigger than the scope of this thread.)

Fair enough, your entitled to disagree.


But if there isn't a substantial difference in mechanical grip (i.e. from the tyres), then two otherwise similar cars will not be involved in any overtaking.


Yes - maybe a new thread should be started on where F1 should go from here - open the scope out beyond tyres.

richard_leeds wrote:With everlasting tyres, no refuelling and modern reliability there would be no need for pits stops and no need to worry about breaking the car.

Once drivers had got around the chaos of the first few laps they would simply race in formation, fastest at the front, slowest at the back. Admittedly the inexperienced drivers wouldn't be able to keep the consistency, but the guys at the front would do that.

In the Bridgestone era we could turn off the TV after the final pitstop and know the result. So if Pirelli tyres became everlasting with a ban on refuelling the entire race would be like that final stint in the Bridgetsone era.

nah that doesn't make any sense im afraid.....
the fastest drivers (or rather, CARS) still finish at the front, the slowest at the back.
i never said not to bring back refuelling either, it needs to be brought back along with durable tyres.
The only reason modern reliability is around is because of the need to make engines/gearboxes last, so they cannot push the boundaries like they used to - this doesn't have any bearing on the racing.

what happened on Sunday? the drivers....raced in formation for ages. Kimi leapfrogged because his car was light on tyres. That is all. It wasn't due to some epic performance by Kimi or something. He said so himself, 'it was easy'.

it is true that in the bridgestone era you'd know the winner after the final pitstop, but thats exactly the case here.....on Sunday we knew that Kimi was doing a 2 stopper before Alonso came in for a 3rd...so how is that any different. What is worse is we knew Alonso had to come in, but couldn't do anything about Kimi on the fresher rubber, because we knew the tyres would collapse after 5 laps.
Imagine if he didn't have that issue, and we would have had a race like races from yesteryear - the guy on the 3 stopper having to chase hard to catch the guy on the 2 stopper.

What Sunday proved is that there is only 1 optimal strategy. In the past it was debatable, you could either play the long game, do a 2 stopper, starting with lots of fuel, or do the 3 stopper. Refuelling and durable tyres allowed that, it gave the driver scope to maximise what he could achieve.
The driver plays Zero part now, it is entirely dependant on the car and whether the car can achieve the distance on the tyres or not.

Regarding overtaking....without DRS or cliff tyres, there would still be no overtaking. Just look at the opening stint from Sunday...none of the drivers could push each other, all scared that the tyres would fall apart, so they hung formation. Following a car now with these tyres is even worse than before, because it wears them out quicker.

If you're that desperate for overtaking again, yo'ud just keep the DRS.
I personally would remove DRS because overtaking is not a spectacle anymore, its like NASCAR or something. The answer to improve overtaking will always be to reduce aero grip, simple as that - but that's never going to happen, so DRS will have to do.

i should have clarified though, certainly bring refuelling back to allow for the different strategies.
i still maintain that the best races last year were ones where a leading driver could go as fast as possible to catch and pass others (vettel at abu dhabi, hamilton in US)

at no point in the race on Sunday was it about anyone pushing, anyone driving hard. Not once did commentary talk about the DRIVING aspect of what they were watching. IT was ALL about tyres. Tyres tyres tyres. It dominated the race like nothing else. sick of it.

fiohaa wrote:The only reason modern reliability is around is because of the need to make engines/gearboxes last, so they cannot push the boundaries like they used to - this doesn't have any bearing on the racing.

"Modern reliability", or at least, the general recognition of it, arrived with two things:
1. Increasingly accurate CAE software, allowing the design engineers to reduce the number of unknowns in component design, decreasing weaknesses.
2. The large increase in quality control by Ferrari in 2000, since replicated by all other teams.



The rest of your post is a load of tripe and barely worthy of comment.

If on the Pirelli tyres, a driver on a X stop strategy could not chase down and beat a man on a X-1 stop strategy, could you please explain what happened in Canada last year?

If on the Pirelli tyres, a driver on an X-1 stop strategy is unable to hold off a driver on an X stop strategy without their tyres going off, could you please explain what happened in Brazil last year?

kilcoo316 wrote:

fiohaa wrote:The only reason modern reliability is around is because of the need to make engines/gearboxes last, so they cannot push the boundaries like they used to - this doesn't have any bearing on the racing.

"Modern reliability", or at least, the general recognition of it, arrived with two things:
1. Increasingly accurate CAE software, allowing the design engineers to reduce the number of unknowns in component design, decreasing weaknesses.
2. The large increase in quality control by Ferrari in 2000, since replicated by all other teams.



The rest of your post is a load of tripe and barely worthy of comment.

If on the Pirelli tyres, a driver on a X stop strategy could not chase down and beat a man on a X-1 stop strategy, could you please explain what happened in Canada last year?

If on the Pirelli tyres, a driver on an X-1 stop strategy is unable to hold off a driver on an X stop strategy without their tyres going off, could you please explain what happened in Brazil last year?

- regarding modern reliability, i didn't mention those things because they were so obvious it wasn't worth pointing out - those things would have happened anyway, just because of advances in technology. I doubt quality control was Ferrari's idea alone, feel free to give a source though. The kind of bulletproof Reliability we see today for the most part has been forced due to the requirement for long life engines, in the past you could afford to push the boundaries and maybe the occasional blow up in the pursuit of more revs and power.

- 'the rest of your post is tripe and barely worthy of comment'. Well, fair enough, but saying this doesn't make your argument any stronger, infact it weakens it, if you cannot quote specific bits in my post and give an opposing view.

- regarding Canada, well lets look at what happened in Canada. Perez starting outside the top 10, on a track where overtaking is easy with DRS, starts on the harder compound and manages to leapfrog some front runners, because they are all running around on worn out tyres, thinking they could hold on. Redbull realised they couldn't and decided to pit, while others tried to plod on.
How is that tactical? How was that a battle of tactics? The engineers had no idea what would happen and so had to simply play it lap by lap and see what happens. The drivers struggling around on the worn tyres were defenseless. They couldn't start on the harder compound because they were inside the top 10.

You must see the difference between that, and teams purposefully starting on a 2 stop or a 3 stop strategy, and purposefully playing that strategy out, rather than sitting and waiting to see what happens, with the drivers having absolutely Zero say in the outcome - unable to drive around it, unable to defend against it or attack, totally hostage to what the tyres would do.

can't remember what happened in Brazil because all i remember was what Vettel was doing, and i cant be bothered to wiki it - but i highly suspect that it would strengthen the point im making.

i wont comment on the subject any longer, my main points are that i'd rather see drivers driving on their limits than cruising around - but if thats the enjoyment you get out of sprint motorsport then fine, bizarre as it is.

fiohaa wrote:- regarding modern reliability, i didn't mention those things because they were so obvious it wasn't worth pointing out

and that they would completely undermine your "argument"?

fiohaa wrote: - regarding Canada, well lets look at what happened in Canada. Perez starting outside the top 10, on a track where overtaking is easy with DRS, starts on the harder compound and manages to leapfrog some front runners, because they are all running around on worn out tyres, thinking they could hold on. Redbull realised they couldn't and decided to pit, while others tried to plod on.

How is that tactical? How was that a battle of tactics?

Seriously?

Are you 10 years old?

You write down a statement, then follow it with a question which is completely contrary to the statement. WTF?!?

fiohaa wrote: You must see the difference between that, and teams purposefully starting on a 2 stop or a 3 stop strategy, and purposefully playing that strategy out,

Do you not realise that it is impossible for everyone to make the right strategy calls? Only one driver can win the race - even then, their strategy might not be perfect.

Are you saying Perez didn't purposefully play his strategy out in Canada? Or Raikkonen in Melbourne?

Cam wrote:What are the current core ingredients we can't do without?

The brakes.
The rest? Meh..

my wish,

• 1,000 horses (any cylinder, any configuration but capped at 1000hp. Let manufacturers innovate in fuel efficiency)
• spec floor with a fan, no wings, just a nice streamlined low-drag body.
• Bridgestone tires engineered so they allow higher slip angles
• lower cornering speeds, higher top speeds.
• re-fuelling back but with "gravity-bottles" similar to what NASCAR does i think.

kilcoo316 wrote:[...]

But if there isn't a substantial difference in mechanical grip (i.e. from the tyres), then two otherwise similar cars will not be involved in any overtaking.

Yes - maybe a new thread should be started on where F1 should go from here - open the scope out beyond tyres.

Therein lies the crux of what I think is wrong. But, that's neither here nor there, and those particular threads get ugly pretty fast.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2EF1CQTO1Y[/youtube]

Looking back at onboards of the last race, Lotus and Mercedes had fantastic ride. McLaren seem to be one of (if not the) worst on bump ride. It seems that this is a crucial area for the 2013 Pirellis.

Also, something I noticed a while back is that there is little to no Ackerman (negative or positive) on the front geometries of the Lotus and the Sauber, arguably the 2 tyre kings of yesteryear (and it seems Lotus this year too) This could indicate the pirelli fronts do not like bigger slipangles under light loads, something contrary to what we have seen with Bridgestones. We can conclude tyre characteristics have either changed or the teams work the tyres differently (deviate from otium exploitetion) to get more from the whole package. Quite intriguing.

Autosport is reporting the following:

Sauber head of vehicle dynamics Pierre Wache is set to join Red Bull. Wache is still officially a Sauber employee, but a spokesperson confirmed to AUTOSPORT that he “will leave the company in the near future”. Former Red Bull man Ben Waterhouse, who moved to Sauber three years ago, has held Wache’s old Sauber role since January 1.

I wonder if this will help bring the Pirelli-preservation knowledge that Sauber has had in recent years, and indeed if it was motivated by such a notion.

WOW....This type of tire degradation is really what all you fans of self destructing tire want.