F1 tyres

[formerf1champ]

When Goodyear were the only manufacturer ('92 ot '96), there was never a huge fuss about tyres, no chance of a similar thread lasting 14 pages in those days. Multiple compounds, which were all generally harder because they were cheaper to make that way. Teams were to use any compound they like and weren't forced to use any other. What has changed since? A lack of leadership, regarding the technical regulations, me thinks. .

[nameless]

But even then, and in all of the intervening time, there would definitely have been 14 page threads of 'Why are the races so boring?'......... (particularly barcelona which has historically been very car dominated and a dire spectacle). The fact it is talked about so much is because it has had a noticeable impact.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

When Goodyear were the only manufacturer ('92 ot '96), there was never a huge fuss about tyres, no chance of a similar thread lasting 14 pages in those days. Multiple compounds, which were all generally harder because they were cheaper to make that way. Teams were to use any compound they like and weren't forced to use any other. What has changed since? A lack of leadership, regarding the technical regulations, me thinks. .

There never was a huge fuss about the GoodYear-tyres, because the FIA did not mandate the use of those tyres and did not use them to artificially 'spice up' the racing. Most of the complain started after 1994, as the cars were considered to be 'under-tyred' as a consequence of rule changes.

[Adam43]

In 1992 to 1996 we weren't even considering these kind of things. There was a single manufacturer, but by accident rather than design. Generally we were just complaining that the racing was getting more and more boring. In addition from early 1994 we had other things on our mind...

And there wasn't a ten-tenths.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by nameless

But even then, and in all of the intervening time, there would definitely have been 14 page threads of 'Why are the races so boring?'

Aero dominated cars, running at low/er fuel loads. Cars running at optimum performance for longer makes it difficult for drivers to overtake. But we all know that, don't we?

Originally Posted by nameless

(particularly barcelona which has historically been very car dominated and a dire spectacle). .

Not that I've expressed here before. But, contrary to popular opinion, I always thought the Benetton B195 was a better car than the Williams FW17, purely on the evidence of the '95 sgp. Using the same engines too. Schu may be better than Hill, but he's not that much better! But anyway...

Originally Posted by Pingguest

There never was a huge fuss about the GoodYear-tyres, because the FIA did not mandate the use of those tyres and did not use them to artificially 'spice up' the racing.

True, you've made the distinction there. I suppose, if it were up to me, I'd allow the tyre supplier to make harder (cheaper) tyres, not force the teams to use all compounds and "cut the downforce". Actually cut it, not the half-baked measures they come up with. Is it really that hard to conceive? I wonder what's the benefit the F1 community gets building cars that can produce such a high amount of downforce?

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Most of the complain started after 1994, as the cars were considered to be 'under-tyred' as a consequence of rule changes.

1994? I remember similar as well. Up until '93, I think the cars were a natural evolution (as much as it can be). Then, to make the FW/14B/15C redundant and with the supposed pressure of the popularity of Indycar racing at the time, the FIA introduce mandatory fuel stops, narrower tyres, eliminating most of the technology, the whole lot at one time. Rule changes have gone out of control since. There was nothing wrong with pre-94 F1, it's just that Williams made such an awesome car. Also, can you imagine how big the tyres would have to be to make the cars "over-tyred" or even neutral?

[Marbot]

If tyres are going to go in the way of being 'harder', why not have them last a fixed distance? Only change the tyres when they have covered 1,000 miles or something like that. Maybe even have such things as qualifying tyres just for qualifying. At least it would be somewhat more relevant to road cars, but it may also lead to some pretty processional races.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If tyres are going to go in the way of being 'harder', why not have them last a fixed distance? .

Were you thinking of there being only one compound available? The '92-'96 period I was talking about before, Goodyear made multiple compounds that were generally harder than what they could make because they were cheaper, no other reason was considered. I would wait and see what happened first before making further changes.

[Born Racer]

For me, this battle today at the front is more interesting than if it was pure hard charging from Maldonado and Alonso. It is at once thrilling and strategically fascinating.

[nameless]

Yes, this race was epic. The fastest driver won but also he was the most controlled and strategic - managed pressure, put in the times when he needed to before the stops, held on to the tyres, and did it better than Fernando. You cannot say that the best man did not win today.

[Bononi]

Yes, pity that Alonso had to slow down because of the tyres.

[Pingguest]

[Greem]

I've just noticed Pingguest's signature. How deliciously ironic to have a direct quote from the Old Man, complaining about a change in technology

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Yes, pity that Alonso had to slow down because of the tyres.

I'm quite surprised you say that, because most of the time you rarely find anything good to say about him.

Did he slow down because of the tyres? Or did he slow down because of the way that he, his team and his car used the tyres?

Has any team (in one form or another) won a race this season that hasn't previously won races before?

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It is funny.

What do you suppose will make things 'better', with regard to the current tyre 'situation'?

Tyres that last just a bit longer? Tyres that last a whole race? Tyres that have to last two or three races? Tyres that are bigger? Tyres that are smaller? Tyres that don't have any regulations applied to them at all (ouch!)? Tyres that are in competition with another tyre brand, who then concentrate on making bespoke tyres for just one or two teams?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Greem

I've just noticed Pingguest's signature. How deliciously ironic to have a direct quote from the Old Man, complaining about a change in technology

I am not against changing technology, if that is your point. However, I am against artificially 'spicing up' and manipulating the races.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Did he slow down because of the tyres? Or did he slow down because of the way that he, his team and his car used the tyres?

or because of running in dirty air.

i think i need more information on what exactly is "chemical' grip. i have put a bit together about how it works but not exactly understanding what effects following a lead car has on the tires. is the degradation more pronounced than with previous tire designs?

other than the race in Malaysia (weather and an error by Perez), the number two car just seems to fall away during the final stint, even if they have newer tires.

[Marbot]

Given that 'all' F1 regulations from 1950 up to present day have, in some way, been 'contrived' (), how can anything be shown to have 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' any racing?

Whose race was 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' on Sunday?

Maybe it's meant that Jordan and Minardi didn't have their seasons 'manipulated' in some way when Ferrari were using 'spiced up' Bridgestone tyres?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Given that 'all' F1 regulations from 1950 up to present day have, in some way, been 'contrived' (), how can anything be shown to have 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' any racing?

no offense but you guys need to give up on that particular point.

a. its not constructive to a healthy debate and b. it can be used to justify any ridiculous idea anyone will ever have to make racing more exciting.

its the ultimate justification of turning a race into a video game. its all artificial anyways so why not allow for it if it means you can sit in front of your tv and be more entertained?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no offense but you guys need to give up on that particular point.

Agreed.

F1 is what it is at whatever period in time it's taken place.

[chillibowl]

thanks Marbot

Originally Posted by Marbot

Whose race was 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' on Sunday?

i guess no ones race really was. the biggest movers made their gains from the start and attrition and even then the extra set didnt seem to help the likes of Massa for example.

now Massa is an interesting case. his quali performances have been poor. im not sure if he has been saving a set or just using everything and still not getting through, but if my take on this is entirely valid, i must concede, that we should be seeing Massa fly around the track during the final stint....and he's not.

much to figure out here still.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no offense but you guys need to give up on that particular point.

On the contrary, it is one of several perfectly valid viewpoints.

Post WW2 we had a bit of a pause and then a complete technical free-for-all, resulting in top-down sanctions on engine sizes which were designed to prevent individual manufacturers running away with the championships. There were howls at the time, particularly from Ferrari, but everyone followed suit.

Then came the stressed member era, which lots of people believed was wrong until Chapman made it work and (again) wiped the floor with everyone, so *another* set of rules were put in place to ensure a level playing field. Everyone shifted to stressed member designs.

Some time later along came turbos. The non-turbo teams laughed their socks off, it would never work, and then it did and turbo cars were all the rage. More rules were imposed to stop them running away with everything and subsequently everyone had a turbo. It was felt that turbo tech was getting silly, so they were banned to make the racing safer and more exciting.

Aero came and developed to what it is now; active technology arrived and was subsequently banned before costs got too high and "racing became artificial".

Now we have a row about tyres.

Welcome to F1. It's always been the same.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Greem

Welcome to F1. It's always been the same.

no doubt about it. there have been lots of changes over the years. some of it good some of it bad. this particular one i find bad and others think its good. i do get that maybe my issues with it are no different than issues that have been around for a lot longer then i have been watching. if thats the case then i will try to learn more but until then im going to moan.

besides moaning is what people do...welcome to planet internet!

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Love it !What do you think, Pirello ?

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I'm quite surprised you say that, because most of the time you rarely find anything good to say about him.

I'm just being honest, which I try to be most of the time. It could have been a fine battle between the leaders.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Did he slow down because of the tyres? Or did he slow down because of the way that he, his team and his car used the tyres?

Isn't the same thing after all ?? The way he used the tyres.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Has any team (in one form or another) won a race this season that hasn't previously won races before?

AFAIK all teams had won before.

Originally Posted by Marbot

It is funny.

What do you suppose will make things 'better', with regard to the current tyre 'situation'?

Tyres that last just a bit longer? Tyres that last a whole race? Tyres that have to last two or three races? Tyres that are bigger? Tyres that are smaller? Tyres that don't have any regulations applied to them at all (ouch!)? Tyres that are in competition with another tyre brand, who then concentrate on making bespoke tyres for just one or two teams?

Is it a rethoric question ???

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Given that 'all' F1 regulations from 1950 up to present day have, in some way, been 'contrived' (), how can anything be shown to have 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' any racing?

Whose race was 'spiced up' or 'manipulated' on Sunday?

Maybe it's meant that Jordan and Minardi didn't have their seasons 'manipulated' in some way when Ferrari were using 'spiced up' Bridgestone tyres?

Marbot, up until 2003 I cannot remember any piece of legislation in formal, factual or practical sense that was introduced for the sole purpose of 'spicing up' the racing. Can you?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Who will win next race? Spin that wheel, or rather try not to!