F1technical.net

let them run what ever tire they want that is of the legal size...period

THX723 wrote:Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days.

May be worth thinking about this point a bit. "Chummy-chummy" is not how I would describe it. Let me give you the perspective of Bridgestone going into 2004: It's a tire war, and you want to win. Not only do you want the champ to be on your tires, but you want your tires to score the most total points period. You want to be the premiere tire supplier. Last year, Michael Schumacher did win on Bridgestones - just barely edging out Kimi (Michelin) by 2 points. Similarly, Ferrari edged out Williams (Michelin) 158-144 in the constructors. So the championship is by no mean "a lock."

You're going to do development work before the season and during. Obviously you want to have the best test driver, the guy who is most in tune with the car to give you the best feedback. Your options include... Rubens and Michael at Ferrari... Heidfeld and Frentzen and Sauber... Fisi and Forman at Jordan... Jacques, and Button at BAR... Wilson and Verstappen at Minardi. Who are ya gonna pick to develop your tires? I think Michael is the obvious pick. In that situation, yes Bridgestone is trying to do what they can to win the championship... but they're also just trying to make the best Bridgestone tire they can.

It's not that Bridgestone is making a tire ONLY for Michael that only he can drive or anything like that. In that situation, I feel like Michael Schumacher can develop a better total, overall tire for anyone, than a mid-pack driver is going to be able to do.

But we digress...

Jersey Tom wrote:It's not that Bridgestone is making a tire ONLY for Michael that only he can drive or anything like that.

A friend of mine worked for a Bridgestone-running team back then. And the tyres were designed for Ferrari. The other teams got what they were given. Sometimes Bridgestone made a couple of variations and would say to Ferrari "you want this one". The other teams got the other variation. Sometimes, Ferrari ended up with the wrong tyre and, the next race, the other teams suddenly got the other variation and Ferrari the faster version.

So, yes, Bridgestone were making the best tyre for Ferrari that they could. And as Ferrari were built around the idea that Michael was No.1, then yes, Bridgestone were making a tyre for Michael. And they did a serious amount of testing and development work too.

Back on topic; Pirelli offered to sort the tyres out this season. The FIA have refused to allow them to do so. Any further tyre anger must therefore be directed at the FIA for the rest of the season.

Why have the FIA declined to let Pirelli change the tyres? Because they're scared of RBR running away with yet another title. They hate the idea of a return to the "oh look, team X has won yet again" days of the Ferrari-Bridgestone days.

Just_a_fan wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:It's not that Bridgestone is making a tire ONLY for Michael that only he can drive or anything like that.

A friend of mine worked for a Bridgestone-running team back then. And the tyres were designed for Ferrari.

I still say in that situation, Michael is going to pick the best tire period. It's in BSFS's best interest to develop with the driver most likely to get a championship for them... but the mentality of "Well Bridgestone designed this tire with Ferrari it's not the best for us" falls close to the line of BS. Or I should say, "Bridgestone designed this tire for Ferrari it won't work for us" is indeed not true. It can seem that way at times from a race team depending on your position (both within the team, and the team within the field) but it's just not the case from a tire company and performance engineering on the whole.

Tires done with Ferrari? Sure. Tires done for Ferrari [only]? Ehh.. not so much. Subtle differences at times maybe, but worth noting.

Jonnycraig wrote:
As an aside, Vettel claims Lotus drivers are complaining as much as anyone in the driver meetings:

Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel said: "In the media, it looks like Red Bull is complaining, but I hear the drivers' voices in the meetings we have together, and if you pinpoint Lotus and say they have the best car for these tyres, still their drivers complain.

"They have the same problem as us but to a lesser extent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22624756

Kimi contradicts Vettel

Pour moi, cela n’est pas vraiment différent de l’année dernière. Je ne comprends donc pas les jérémiades de certains
Je ne pense donc pas que ces nouveaux pneus vont faire une grande différence. Je pourrais avoir tort mais, quoi qu’il arrive, nous ne commencerons pas à nous plaindre.

Räikkönen fährt nicht mit 80 Prozent
Räikkönen will auch die Kritik einiger Kollegen nicht bestätigen, dass die Reifen zum Langsamfahren zwingen. "Wir fahren so schnell wir können. Natürlich gibt es Grenzen, die einem das Auto oder die Reifen vorgeben. Wenn du mit einem Reifensatz länger fahren willst als die anderen, kannst du nicht 100 Prozent geben. Ich würde aber auch nicht behaupten, dass ich nur mit 80 Prozent unterwegs wäre."

Things move so quickly in this thread, it is hard to keep up. But there was one post earlier today by Cam that I thought was worthy of repeating, as it summarized succinctly my own view of these matters.

When you look back at the pillars that the sport is built on, the history, you see dominance, individual brilliance and engineering marvels. Not strategy. To give but a few examples - the Silver Arrows absolutely dominated the sport and built a reputation that stands today - McLaren/Honda, does anymore need to be said - Williams active suspension - nothing touched those cars - Ferrari & Schumacher - the epitome of dominance - RB7, supreme.

Strategy was nowhere to be seen. Teams were not pre-planning out stops to get a 'undercut' nor were they ever considering letting other cars past on track to hopefully wash out near the top at the finish. There was but one goal - build the fastest car and leave everyone for dust. That's the goal of every racer. That's what we've lost.

'Strategy' is a PR term used to validate having a close show - which is what the powers that be want only because they said they had falling numbers of viewers. Simple. This has nothing to do with the preservation of the sport, or the spirit of the sport - it's numbers and cash. They could of all taken a cash hit and kept the sport 'pure' - but they all sold out for the highest dollar and created a bastard child of advertising & racing - that no-one is happy is with.

Well said, sir. =D>

turbof1 wrote: I am waiting for the bashing to begin about the year before when the title was won in the very last turn.

Honestly, why does it matter when the championship was decided, if cars can only overtake when the track is wet? Maybe the chamionship went down to the wire, but other than Spa and Brazil(both wet), what races do you remember as being exciting?

strad wrote:

except make them harder, which would lead to static racing

Another person that can't remember more than a decade back.
We had hard tires AND good racing for years...It's just this greedy desire to slash lap times every year that has led to gumball tires and a tracks awash in clag.

And you obv dont know we cant compare cars of the 80s and early 90s with now, if we had that aero now we could do hard tires but we dont.

I'd like to just state my opinion here.

There's a lot of people here and in the media claiming that sports fans have short memories and that F1 fans are no different. Apparently in 2011 there was 4 stopper in Barcelona and nobody complained. There was a 4 stopper in Barcelona in in 2013 and apparently everybody started ripping Pirelli apart for no reason. However, as far as I remember when we had four stoppers in Barcelona in 2011 I was pretty frustrated.

Furthermore, I dont understand the reasons for people worrying about 'everlasting tyres'. Such a thing cant happen, especially if we had a full blown tyre war. In such a case you'd have different compounds with different tyres life. The purpose of an F1 car is finish the race as fast as possible and an everlasting tyre may be too hard and have less grip than a softer tyre. The softer tyre, if properly designed will allow a car to complete the race distance in less time, even if it includes a pitstop or two.

Think of an RB9 on an everlasting tyre which can lap Monaco in 1:14, versus a soft tyre which can do it in 1:13.5. The Monaco GP has 78 laps, so a one stopper would be done around lap 39. In 39 laps with half a second advantage, the car on softer compounds would be ahead by 19.5 seconds. With a well executed pit stop the car on softer tyres will still be ahead. Even if it gets overtaken it still has a chance, due the fact that it's faster (though overtaking is hard in monaco).

This is a very simplified strategy. I assumed tyre grip to be constant till lap 39, after which it dropped sharply. In real life you would also have to account for other variables, such as changing fuel loads, track temperature, rubbering in, moisture, weather, etc. This would alter both the choice of compounds and the number of pit stops.

MOWOG wrote:Things move so quickly in this thread, it is hard to keep up. But there was one post earlier today by Cam that I thought was worthy of repeating, as it summarized succinctly my own view of these matters.

When you look back at the pillars that the sport is built on, the history, you see dominance, individual brilliance and engineering marvels. Not strategy. To give but a few examples - the Silver Arrows absolutely dominated the sport and built a reputation that stands today - McLaren/Honda, does anymore need to be said - Williams active suspension - nothing touched those cars - Ferrari & Schumacher - the epitome of dominance - RB7, supreme.

Strategy was nowhere to be seen. Teams were not pre-planning out stops to get a 'undercut' nor were they ever considering letting other cars past on track to hopefully wash out near the top at the finish. There was but one goal - build the fastest car and leave everyone for dust. That's the goal of every racer. That's what we've lost.

'Strategy' is a PR term used to validate having a close show - which is what the powers that be want only because they said they had falling numbers of viewers. Simple. This has nothing to do with the preservation of the sport, or the spirit of the sport - it's numbers and cash. They could of all taken a cash hit and kept the sport 'pure' - but they all sold out for the highest dollar and created a bastard child of advertising & racing - that no-one is happy is with.

Well said, sir. =D>

I dont rly understand how you can firstly name different dominating eras of the sport and then go on to say they sold out when the last dominating era we had, Ferrari-Schumi, wouldnt have happend unless they had poured money into it.

Same pretty much goes for Red Bull in this era, even if they havent actually dominated more then 1 year and cause of a loophole.

Also viewing figures were up 2010 and 2011, and 2010 we didnt even have Pirelli.

They sold out before RedBull started dominating. Not every critism of F1 is based on RedBull not winning. People need to build a bridge.

Neno wrote:

turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.

Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...

if you read the statements on the FIA press conference pirelli have already stated that , if still the supplier in 2014 , they will provide more conservative tyres as the cars are unknown and the teams will have enough problems to solve !
tyres will not be needed to spice up the racing , the new formula will do that ...unless a team comes up with the killer design of course !

lebesset wrote:

Neno wrote:

turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.

Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...

if you read the statements on the FIA press conference pirelli have already stated that , if still the supplier in 2014 , they will provide more conservative tyres as the cars are unknown and the teams will have enough problems to solve !
tyres will not be needed to spice up the racing , the new formula will do that ...unless a team comes up with the killer design of course !

I am not sure if Paul Hembry is capable to understand such logic. Paul and Pirelli are crazy for press coverage they they would like to the center of attention more than the new turbo cars. I would expect the same if they are signed up for a dew more years.

From what I get out of this article:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107618

is that we will see new tyres in Canada. Force India wants to try them out first, before changes are final. So the possibility is there that we have new tyres in Canada, only to be changed back after that race.

turbof1 wrote:From what I get out of this article:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107618

is that we will see new tyres in Canada. Force India wants to try them out first, before changes are final. So the possibility is there that we have new tyres in Canada, only to be changed back after that race.

Not even that. The old tyres could actually be raced in Canada if they're not happy with the new ones. Could be that the new tyres will only be run in 1 of the FP's