[Rules] Zak Brown and Changes to F1

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I believe it was 1977.

Yes indeed, they were introduced by Michelin - Renault's tire supplier.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Yes indeed, they were introduced by Michelin - Renault's tire supplier.

The same year they introduced the first turbo charged engine into F1.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It's probably the thought that cars slide more on crossplys.

So that was the answer I was expecting. And I understand the slip angle topic. My follow up questions were to be (1) Why having cars slide around is a good thing? (2) Why do we think engineers and drivers wouldn't try to avoid that at all costs. Yes, sometimes a bit of rotation by loosing grip is faster, but in general it is very much the slow way around.

In the end, I am making my usual point that trying to create rules that recreates the experience of a prior era is folly. Trying to recreate vintage F1 cars AND expecting it to somehow be natively inexpensive today is beyond folly. In my humble opinion that is.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

IIRC it was 1979 when radials were first used. Always found it strange, since I'd been running radials since the early 70s on my road cars.

So not an F1 invention then?

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by coppice

You don't unlearn stuff - as you say , and I said earlier, all you need is a well drafted rule book.

That's true! The Formula Ford regulations for example, do a great job of keeping the series in a regulated "time warp" as such with no downforce, tubular steel chassis (not sure how the FIA feels about Formula Ford's lack of a halo), 4-speed H-pattern gearbox and so on.

I'm not sure Mr. Newey would be very pleased about this rule:

12.1 Bodywork:
(a) Any device designed to aerodynamically augment the downforce on the vehicle is prohibited. These devices specifically include aerofoils, venturi tunnels, skirts, nose fins and spoilers of any kind.
(b) Integration of aerofoils and spoilers by design or the mismatching of bodywork and/or chassis panels and members is also prohibited.

https://www.formulaford.org.au/technical

[Armco Bender]

Back in the 1960's engines were only 1500cc....maybe Formula Ford should be the 'NEW" F1?......

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My follow up questions were to be (1) Why having cars slide around is a good thing? (2) Why do we think engineers and drivers wouldn't try to avoid that at all costs. Yes, sometimes a bit of rotation by loosing grip is faster, but in general it is very much the slow way around.

(1) Because it looks cool. No need to think the reasoning is any more sophisticated than that.

Check out the 1973 British Grand Prix where four-wheel-drifting through the bends was standard practice: https://youtu.be/wpeM0Pzl0SQ?t=2276 A lot of fun indeed!

At least in racing sim games, the cars on cross-ply tyres are a lot easier to drive too, as they are more progressive.

(2) They avoid sliding now, because the radials generate peak grip at small slip angles.. sliding more than that causes a loss of grip. Whereas, the cross-plies still produced maximum grip at large slip angles.


https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...33#post1122733

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Back in the 1960's engines were only 1500cc....maybe Formula Ford should be the 'NEW" F1?......

Genius!

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am curious, what do you think that would result in? Would we have spec tires or multiple suppliers?

Richard

I am not suggesting it should happen, but just illustrating how rules can be used . Crossplies belong on historic racing cars but what I would like to see happen is tyres being made sufficiently robust to last a race . It would be a far better endorsement of a tyre company's products than the current nonsense -' buy our tyres - they are so good they are worn out in 15 minutes !' - and would avoid the absurdity of a sprint race , such as a Grand Prix , being decided by how effectively wheel guns are deployed .



F 1 is not a team sport, despite what some say , it is the driver who wins . So Porsche may win Le Mans, but Hamilton wins at Monaco and very few followers of the sport care two hoots about the constructor's championship- it is sometimes little more than a consolation prize.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by coppice

I am not suggesting it should happen, but just illustrating how rules can be used . Crossplies belong on historic racing cars but what I would like to see happen is tyres being made sufficiently robust to last a race . It would be a far better endorsement of a tyre company's products than the current nonsense -' buy our tyres - they are so good they are worn out in 15 minutes !' - and would avoid the absurdity of a sprint race , such as a Grand Prix , being decided by how effectively wheel guns are deployed .



F 1 is not a team sport, despite what some say , it is the driver who wins . So Porsche may win Le Mans, but Hamilton wins at Monaco and very few followers of the sport care two hoots about the constructor's championship- it is sometimes little more than a consolation prize.

Exactly, that’s the problem with having a spec tyre. Without any competition there is no need to make the best tyre they can. That’s why we’ve had these tyres that wear out quicker. And as you say hardly good advertising for it’s product

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

I am not suggesting it should happen, but just illustrating how rules can be used . Crossplies belong on historic racing cars but what I would like to see happen is tyres being made sufficiently robust to last a race . It would be a far better endorsement of a tyre company's products than the current nonsense -' buy our tyres - they are so good they are worn out in 15 minutes !' - and would avoid the absurdity of a sprint race , such as a Grand Prix , being decided by how effectively wheel guns are deployed .

Fair enough. I also would like to see tires that would last/be competitive an entire race.

Originally Posted by coppice

F 1 is not a team sport, despite what some say , it is the driver who wins . So Porsche may win Le Mans, but Hamilton wins at Monaco and very few followers of the sport care two hoots about the constructor's championship- it is sometimes little more than a consolation prize.

That gets to an oft discussed question here. "What is F1?" Is it a drivers championship, a constructors championship or both? I love the fact that the cars are not spec. But maybe I am in the minority you say. Maybe for its survival F1 needs to move much further away from its constructor roots.

I will try to stop making a few specific point (as I am sure many are tired of hearing it). Those are that is that technical regulations are very poorly suited to drive budgets down or to address budget disparities and the impact that disparity has on the viability of F1. Trying to replicate the look, sounds, etc. of a prior era via technical regulations that allow development will not work. We need to try cost caps. And lastly, F1 is so screwed up, and has so many issues, that there is no single magical bullet. Multiple angles of attack must be taken.

I will do my best to shut up on this now.

Richard

[chillibowl]

i cant imagine how much a tire supplier would charge to actually make the best tires possible?

honesty i dont even know what the best racing tire would look like...would it last forever, run fast, and still provide glue like grip? would it be possible to flat spot it? should driver mistakes still be punished by increased wear rates because the 'best ever' tire would not allow for that right?

basically right now we have a rule set that allows Merc and Ferrari to spend as much money as they want to build for themselves the best possible race car they can within the rules box...and the competition level has massively suffered for it.

obviously i am just speculating, but for me, spending more money chasing perfection and endless refinements is the problem...not the solution.

[crmalcolm]

The 'best' tyre, would not be worth it for any manufacturer.
I'm pretty certain it would be possible to build a tyre that would last a full race distance, and give consistent levels of grip from start to finish.
But there are a couple of reasons why that would not be good:
A) - the tyres would never be an issue, so removes that part of tactical variance from the grid.
B) - because they just exist, and are never mentioned in the context of the race, the tyre manufacturer gets less publicity.

[coppice]

Nobody is interested in tyres . Strategic choices and similar guff were a failed attempt to inject jeopardy into a dull show. Tyres are only interesting when they are slicks , and it has just started to pour.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by coppice

Nobody is interested in tyres . Strategic choices and similar guff were a failed attempt to inject jeopardy into a dull show. Tyres are only interesting when they are slicks , and it has just started to pour.

How are or should tires be less interesting than, let's say, an engine or gearbox?

[peebee2]

If they want tyre supplier(s) to be mentioned then they just need to have open tyre competition. Would also mix up the competition a bit.

Although that is now resisted. Presumably on “cost” - which is bullshit for “if we have a tyre war the companies pay the teams or provide free tyres, whereas currently the tyre supplier pays FOM for the right to sell tyres to the teams.”

[Adam43]

When it went to one tyre it was also said that it would be fairer as one team wouldn’t be favoured over others as a tyre manufacturer concentrated on maximising their chances of winning by developing for one particular car.

Some also didn’t like how it may mean that a team has no chance because they are on the wrong tyre.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Adam43

When it went to one tyre it was also said that it would be fairer as one team wouldn’t be favoured over others as a tyre manufacturer concentrated on maximising their chances of winning by developing for one particular car.

Some also didn’t like how it may mean that a team has no chance because they are on the wrong tyre.

The same could be said about any other part supplied by a third party.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Fair enough. I also would like to see tires that would last/be competitive an entire race.

We had full race tyres before in 2005. Races with no fuel pitstops and no tyre pitstops would be very interesting.



I can't remember why full race tyres were abandoned... I'll need to look up articles from the time.

The rule could have been abandoned because of lobbying from Ferrari and Bridgestone, as their full race tyres were rubbish. Or it could have been because of the US Grand Prix fiasco.

The [2005] Indianapolis Formula One Grand Prix descended into farce when just six cars started the race on Sunday. The problem arose when Michelin discovered that its tires were incapable of more than ten laps at race pace. The first indication of trouble was when the rear left tire of Ralf Schumacher's Toyota racecar exploded during practice on Friday.

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Micheli...rix_into_farce

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The same could be said about any other part supplied by a third party.

There seems to be less variation in the performance between Akebono, Project Mu and Brembo brakes, for example.

[Armco Bender]

Races with no fuel pitstops and no tyre pitstops would be very interesting.

Thats how they used to be...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The same could be said about any other part supplied by a third party.

Yes and no.

There are some third party parts that if just made the same it would be the same situation for everyone. A display unit or something like that would be the extreme at one end. There are others that will perform better on some cars that others. I think a tyre is the most extreme of that later example.
A tyre can be matched to the characteristics of a car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I can't remember why full race tyres were abandoned... I'll need to look up articles from the time.

If you mean the transition to groved tires, If I remember correctly, it was to reduce the size of the contact patch without using narrower tires? An attempt to reduce overall grip and lower cornering speeds? I could be remembering it wrong.

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If you mean the transition to groved tires, If I remember correctly, it was to reduce the size of the contact patch without using narrower tires? An attempt to reduce overall grip and lower cornering speeds? I could be remembering it wrong.

Richard

I think you are right, although that could have been done by narrowing the tyres. To maintain the grooves I think it also meant you’d have to have harder compounds.

However that year when tyre stops were banned wasn’t directly linked to grooved tyres. It meant it was very Michelin dominated and there was the incident with Kimi trying to make a flat spotted tyre last. People could take that it was challenging.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by coppice

Nobody is interested in tyres . Strategic choices and similar guff were a failed attempt to inject jeopardy into a dull show. Tyres are only interesting when they are slicks , and it has just started to pour.

Everyone used to be interested in tyres, in fact it was most probably the prime thing to get right and all the major teams had their own tyre supplier. It was the lack of interest in developing tyres for Tyrell by all the tyre companies that sank the six wheel concept and it was never given a fair go because of that. Tyres were never used as an equaliser by the F1 community until Bernie decided it would be good thing.

[coppice]

I acknowledge that back in the day a tyre war was no bad thing . But the current situation - with a single make tyre designed to wear out , and with the rules prescribing the different compounds which have to be used are just absurd .



Engines are far, far more interesting - and now we have effectively the same engine being made by 4 different firms. It's instructive to look at a grid from 30 years ago - 7 different engines -from V8 via V10 to V12

[S griffin]

The tyre war was good because it allowed a lesser team to upset the odds. The best example being Damon Hill nearly winning in the Arrows in Hungary. Now that was a race that was both great to watch and heartbreaking at the same time.

Another thing is there would be less chance of playing safe with the tyre compounds due to the competition. And the competition would help sell the product. I think that's why Bridgestone left

And let's also see an end to compulsory tyre stops, would be fun to see if which drivers can make the tyres last and which would take a stop, even for tactical reasons