Are new tyre regs dangerous

jb59892 · 9 May 2005, 13:05 (Ref:1296609)

As some one new to this forum

I would like to ask:

With the new tyre rules well established, does every one think they are a good idea, bad idea, or just make the spport more dangerous?

That's dangerous as in, the tyres have to do more work for longer and are more likely to cause high speed failures that could be dangerous to drivers, officials and spectators.

Kicking-back · 9 May 2005, 13:18 (Ref:1296621)

The new rules are not more dangerous at all.

The tyres are only "near the end of their life" once in a race now, compared with three times previously.

The single set of tyres rule has contributed to good racing, I believe.

Super Tourer · 9 May 2005, 13:20 (Ref:1296624)

Welcome to 10 Tenths!

I don't think the rules are dangerous in themselves, they only become 'dangerous' if the tyre manufacturer pushes the performance envelope.

Equally, you see tyre failures due to on track debris or cutting a sidewall on the kerbs.

Producing a car that extracts the maximum from it's tyres without deteriorating them is part of the designers art. Similarly, driving a car whilst being sympathetic to tyre wear is (or should be) part of the drivers art.

I think that viewing the race as a 'whole', as opposed to a series of 20 lap sprints is no bad thing.

At Le Mans, tyres run for longer inbetween changes and at higher terminal speed for longer, so it's perfectly possible for tyre manufacturers to achieve performance and durability.

Certainly, Michelin achieved it much better that Bridgestone did by the look of it.

Mark Edwards · 9 May 2005, 13:43 (Ref:1296642)

You're right, Michelin seem to have better grasp on how to keep the performance going on one set of tyres. After yesterday's performance, I think Bridgestone are right on the edge of performance and indeed, on a warmer day do not seem able to keep them in one piece very well at all. This could well turn out to be dangerous at a high speed circuit, but really no more dangerous as using more sets of tyres throughout the race.

**Adam43** · 9 May 2005, 13:45 (Ref:1296643)

It is often cited and only has a certain relevence, but I like it so I shall mention it again. Jim Clark once used the same set of tyres to win four GP!

Marbot · 9 May 2005, 13:49 (Ref:1296649)

The BS tyres certainly seemed to have the grip,at least when TGF was near his stop,and the tyre taken off at the stop certainly wasn't worn out.

Both tyres were either cut by debris or there is some sort of construction problem when the tyres are worked hard,as indeed they were in that period of the race.

Marbot · 9 May 2005, 13:51 (Ref:1296655)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

It is often cited and only has a certain relevence, but I like it so I shall mention it again. Jim Clark once used the same set of tyres to win four GP!

And wouldn't they be crossplies too,maybe even with innertubes.

Pingguest · 9 May 2005, 15:21 (Ref:1296733)

The new tyre rules didn't improve safety. Schumacher had two punctures yesterday. What would have happened if he had a puncture at 300 km/h? A horrific crash could have been occurred.

I also believe that the new tyre regulations didn't improve racing. Especially the first stint has become boring. Drivers don't want to drive a whole race with a flat spot after they did a risky overtaking attempt.

The current tyre regulations were introduced in order to reduce the costs. I doubt that the new rules did so. Of course, the production costs have decreased. But it is a fact that the development costs have increased extremely and testing have become even more important.

Kicking-back · 9 May 2005, 15:30 (Ref:1296738)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The new tyre rules didn't improve safety. Schumacher had two punctures yesterday. What would have happened if he had a puncture at 300 km/h? A horrific crash could have been occurred.

A "puncture" could happen at any time, old rules or new.

Kirk · 9 May 2005, 17:06 (Ref:1296834)

I like the idea of allowing each car two sets of tyres for the race weekend. One set seems to be somewhat constrictive and I think it would spice up the racing a bit and allow for some interesting strategies in the utilization. I suppose you could take it a step further by allowing one car, two different compounds if they chose so.

Kirk · 9 May 2005, 17:20 (Ref:1296849)

Judging by the wear, Schumi would most definitely have come in to change tyres if he could without penalty. That is what can make the current rule a dangerous one. That reluctance for fear of penalty.

Kicking-back · 9 May 2005, 17:25 (Ref:1296855)

Well it's up to the teams to make their tyres last and the tyre makers to supply tyres which will last.

Kirk · 9 May 2005, 17:29 (Ref:1296858)

True, but not always possible for various reasons.

Marbot · 9 May 2005, 17:34 (Ref:1296863)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk

True, but not always possible for various reasons.

Michelin and Mclaren seem to have done it quite comfortably.

BootsOntheSide · 9 May 2005, 17:40 (Ref:1296872)

In the laps before the puncture, Mciahel was running at a pretty hot pace. he obviously didn't feel that the tyres were close to the end of their life, or had to be driven carefully to reach the finish.

I don't think the new rules are dangerous at all. As KB explained, the tyres are simply designed to run for longer, and reach the limits of their survival far less frequently. Punctures are not caused by worn tyres, that's the first thing to get clear.

Pingguest · 9 May 2005, 17:41 (Ref:1296874)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

A "puncture" could happen at any time, old rules or new.

Not really. Under the old regulations, Schumacher would had changed all tyres. So, he would have had puncture, he would only had once.

BootsOntheSide · 9 May 2005, 17:53 (Ref:1296892)

Who's to say that Michael's new set of tyres wouldn't've worn down, to the extent of one of them failing (once again, a puncture and a tyre failure are not the same thing)? What happened was a circumstance of a team with second-rate tyres trying to push too hard, which is a situationt ehy may have been in under the old rules. There were a spate of punctures and tyre failures last year (one probably caused Ralf's Indy crash), so why are the new rules suddenly dangerous?

Alex Hodgkinson · 9 May 2005, 17:54 (Ref:1296893)

Pingguest, the point that Kicking-back is making is that there are differences between punctures and tyre failure.

gfm · 9 May 2005, 18:55 (Ref:1296940)

The thing at the back of my mind is that somehow, we are not (ever, currently) seeing a GP car driven absolutely flat out. Because the driver can't take risks on his tyres.
An 800/900 bhp F1 car at the current weight EATS it's tyres.
So I do think it makes some sense that they get limited to say 3 sets per weekend. Or one make super hard tyres perhaps, that takes all that engineering (cost) out of the equation. Yes, I know take the engineering challenge out of F1 and somehow the purists will complain ... but, see above. I want flat out stuff, not 'going for the distance'. Reward for risk.

Kicking-back · 9 May 2005, 19:14 (Ref:1296954)

Look again at Kimi Raikkonen's opening laps yesterday - and tell me that wasn't flat out!

Making your tyres last a whole Grand Prix distance is part of the game - Formula One is not a 15 lap sprint race!

gfm · 9 May 2005, 19:23 (Ref:1296959)

Sorry KB, I disagree. I want to see ultimate speed out of a GP car. Though your points are well made and Kimi was mighty - wonderful to see. Point is, he'd have gone faster if as last year, he had a fresh set of tyres for the next stint.

Kicking-back · 9 May 2005, 19:27 (Ref:1296963)

Do you think that F1 in the 50s/60s/70s/80s was not real F1 then?

Pingguest · 9 May 2005, 19:39 (Ref:1296977)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Who's to say that Michael's new set of tyres wouldn't've worn down, to the extent of one of them failing (once again, a puncture and a tyre failure are not the same thing)? What happened was a circumstance of a team with second-rate tyres trying to push too hard, which is a situationt ehy may have been in under the old rules. There were a spate of punctures and tyre failures last year (one probably caused Ralf's Indy crash), so why are the new rules suddenly dangerous?

The punctures of Schumacher, weren't likely caused by wear. According to what I read, the punctures were caused by debris on the track.

gfm · 9 May 2005, 19:48 (Ref:1296987)

KB - yes of course. Excuse me but I don't follow the logic. But I repeat, you have 8-900 bhp plus huge downforce now, so the tyres can't do the same job. Plus, a guy of my age suggesting that things have moved on to a huge extent, but it is so; what we had then has nothing to do with the technology available today.
Nevermind, but there is still something in the regs todays which limits how hard most of the field can go - if not Kimi!

Pingguest · 9 May 2005, 20:00 (Ref:1296993)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Look again at Kimi Raikkonen's opening laps yesterday - and tell me that wasn't flat out!

Making your tyres last a whole Grand Prix distance is part of the game - Formula One is not a 15 lap sprint race!

Who is talking about 15 laps? Before the introduction of the parc fermé regulations, the tyres could last almost 2/3 of the race distance. Some drivers only did one pitstop. So, the huge amount of pitstops in 2003 and 2004 had nothing to do with the tyres.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tyre Regs -The debate! (split from Spa 6 Hours 2005)	one-two	Historic Racing Today	56	3 Jan 2006 09:05
The current tyre regulations are dangerous	Pingguest	Formula One	333	12 Jun 2005 19:20
New tyre regs	Alpina	Rallying & Rallycross	2	14 Feb 2002 18:37
Tyre 'Pick-up' removers are tyre-warmers?	Sparky	Racing Technology	2	31 May 2000 03:46