Bridgestone want the soft tyres to go off faster

[Somebody]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72192

"We will take two specifications of tyre to each race and we have worked to engineer two specifications which have a greater difference in characteristics between the two than we saw in the 2008 season.

"The harder tyre of any given allocation should offer very good consistency, but not enable as good an initial laptime.

"The softer compound should offer a very good initial laptime, but will experience performance drop-off the more it is used. It is hoped that this should provide competitors with many challenges and strategy options to encourage exciting racing."
(emphasis mine)

Am I the only one who thinks that increasing the difference between the soft & hard tyres will decrease the possible strategy combinations as long as the teams can switch between the two types and have to use both?

If the difference is so large (without inducing USGP 2005-esque problems, presumably), then surely everyone will use the soft tyres in qualifying, do at least two stints on the hard tyres, and then have as short a final stint on the softs as possible.

[Mark]

You do have a point there! I guess the idea tho is that the racing can be mixed up if e.g. one team elects to start on softs but the other elects to finish on them.

[Andrewmcm]

Well it happened a lot with the Champcars when they had to run both types of tyres - the reds (softer tyres) sometimes really did go off a lot during a stint. I recall a race in Detroit one year when the difference was a good 2 or 3 seconds per lap (over a lap that was around one minute in length) so I guess the strategy element will come from minimising the effect this differential has on race time.

F1 teams employ clever people to work out race strategy, I'm sure they'll cope just fine!

[N. Jones]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72192

(emphasis mine)

Am I the only one who thinks that increasing the difference between the soft & hard tyres will decrease the possible strategy combinations as long as the teams can switch between the two types and have to use both?

If the difference is so large (without inducing USGP 2005-esque problems, presumably), then surely everyone will use the soft tyres in qualifying, do at least two stints on the hard tyres, and then have as short a final stint on the softs as possible.

Well, I think Bridgestone is trying to keep themselves in the mix. Unless I am mistaken the rule that teams must use more than one compound per dry-race is going away in 2009.

[wedge]

In terms of tyre degradation there wasn't a huge difference between the tyres, IMO, unless you were Ferrari but that was more down to the heat cycle IMO. McLaren were hard on their tyres but I don't think they were as hard as they were last year.

It was more to do with how well you could cope with the graining on the softer tyres.

[ShiftingGears]

Well if they want more passing they need less marbles off the racing line, hence less of a difference in grip when drivers go for a passing move.

So theoretically, they should be aiming to make the tyres generally harder.

[wedge]

Well if they want more passing they need less marbles off the racing line, hence less of a difference in grip when drivers go for a passing move.

So theoretically, they should be aiming to make the tyres generally harder.

You don't want them too hard else you won't generate enough heat.

Goodyear went into a period of producing hard tyres in NASCAR. The racing became a procession because nobody could generate enough heat and therefore no grip to pass. They previously tried softer tyres but they were too soft and again more bitching.

[ShiftingGears]

You don't want them too hard else you won't generate enough heat.

Goodyear went into a period of producing hard tyres in NASCAR. The racing became a procession because nobody could generate enough heat and therefore no grip to pass. They previously tried softer tyres but they were too soft and again more bitching.

That would depend on how the cars were set up, more than anything else.

If teams knew the tyres would be harder, Ferrari would produce a car closer in characteristics to this years McLaren, simply because the McLaren is able to put a lot more heat in the tyres.

[call_me_andrew]

Well it happened a lot with the Champcars when they had to run both types of tyres - the reds (softer tyres) sometimes really did go off a lot during a stint. I recall a race in Detroit one year when the difference was a good 2 or 3 seconds per lap (over a lap that was around one minute in length) so I guess the strategy element will come from minimising the effect this differential has on race time.

F1 teams employ clever people to work out race strategy, I'm sure they'll cope just fine!

Champ Car left Detroit long before going to the red tire system.

But this does raise an interesting point of strategy. F1 cars are so light and put so little wear on tires, that they become faster over the course of a run because of fuel burn. All other cars get slower from tire wear. So a softer tire in F1 would either create a net effect of 0.0 seconds over a run, or do something entirely unexpected.

[Knock-on]

Champ Car left Detroit long before going to the red tire system.

But this does raise an interesting point of strategy. F1 cars are so light and put so little wear on tires, that they become faster over the course of a run because of fuel burn. All other cars get slower from tire wear. So a softer tire in F1 would either create a net effect of 0.0 seconds over a run, or do something entirely unexpected.

Weight of a car is a bit misleading as it's load that wears the tyre.

F1 cars do generate a lot of load but advances in tyres have lead to much more predictable performance over it's serviceable life.

I think that grooves may have influenced this slightly and we will see greater performance differential with wear on slicks but not like the old days unless they artificially affect them as suggested.

[Andrewmcm]

Oh yeah, I think I mean Denver!

[wedge]

That would depend on how the cars were set up, more than anything else.

If teams knew the tyres would be harder, Ferrari would produce a car closer in characteristics to this years McLaren, simply because the McLaren is able to put a lot more heat in the tyres.

True, but what if McLaren struggled and teams attempting to run tyre pressures lower than advised to gain performance?

[Somebody]

Well, I think Bridgestone is trying to keep themselves in the mix. Unless I am mistaken the rule that teams must use more than one compound per dry-race is going away in 2009.

You're mistaken. Both the 2008 and (draft) 2009 sporting regulations clearly state:

25.4 [...]
d) Unless he has used wet or extreme-weather tyres during the race, each driver must use at least one set of each specification of dry-weather tyres during the race.

Frankly, if you had to use either the prime (harder) or option (softer) tyre during an event, and you knew the option would be prone to going off quickly... you'd pick the prime, unless you were desperate.


But this does raise an interesting point of strategy. F1 cars are so light and put so little wear on tires, that they become faster over the course of a run because of fuel burn. All other cars get slower from tire wear. So a softer tire in F1 would either create a net effect of 0.0 seconds over a run, or do something entirely unexpected.
Not always. On low tyre-degradation tracks, yes. But then you get situations where the wrong compounds have been brought and the prime is impossible to get enough heat into, or the option just falls away.


Weight of a car is a bit misleading as it's load that wears the tyre.

F1 cars do generate a lot of load but advances in tyres have lead to much more predictable performance over it's serviceable life.

I think that grooves may have influenced this slightly and we will see greater performance differential with wear on slicks but not like the old days unless they artificially affect them as suggested.
Don't slicks suffer less from graining phases than grooved tyres?

[Knock-on]

Don't slicks suffer less from graining phases than grooved tyres?

Graining is caused by a semi fluid layer of rubber building up on the surface of the tyre causing a loss of grip as the surface "moves" excessivly.

This can happen in slicks and grooves but is more likely in grooves because the break in surface area between the blocks encourages movement and lessens the tyre surface integrity.

However, where grooves are good is that once this period has passed and the tyre gets into optimum operating range, it's quite linier in performance for the same reason and when worn down, can give good grip because the surface area is increased as the grooves dissapear.

Slicks are a slightly different animal.

Both produce Marbles though and anywhere off line will still be a no-no.

[ShiftingGears]

Both produce Marbles though and anywhere off line will still be a no-no.

Unless Bridgestone produce harder tyres which will wear less, meaning that less rubber marbles accumulate on the circuit.

[Knock-on]

Unless Bridgestone produce harder tyres which will wear less, meaning that less rubber marbles accumulate on the circuit.

I can't see how they can.

Even with a fairly standard bike race tyre on my road bike, I end up killing the edges after a hard ride and marbles just roll off. When you're putting 150 ponies through a tyre and it's marbling, what hope have you got with the power and force exerted on a F1 tyre?

I can't see how they can.

Even with a fairly standard bike race tyre on my road bike, I end up killing the edges after a hard ride and marbles just roll off. When you're putting 150 ponies through a tyre and it's marbling, what hope have you got with the power and force exerted on a F1 tyre?

Get Bernie to have a cut of the Mclaren/Force India tie-in.

That way, they can wheel out a BT46B for Sutil & Fisichella (assuming they have their contracts recognised), but have the FIA insist there has to be a big vacuum cleaner bag fitted over the fan.

Voila, the last two cars on the grid hoover up all the marbles.