Tyre rules

[Mark]

Now that the season is finished, what your opinion on the tyre rules this year? i.e. The teams having to use both the hard and soft compounds.

Would you like to see that rule kept on for 2008?

[555-04Q2]

Yes :up: It seemed to liven things up just a little bit. Keep it I say :)

[BDunnell]

I think it is unnecessary.

[tinchote]

I thought it was stupid when they announced last year, and I haven't changed my opinion.

[ioan]

It's a good cost cutting rule, one of the few that really work. Keep it!

[fandango]

I think the philosophy behind the rule is good, that each car needs to be good in a variety of circumstances. It focuses more on the drivers' abilities (or lack of them) to drive a car which is not ideally set up.

However, it means that pitstops are obligatory, so I would modify the rule to make it possible to use one set through the entire race, ie no stops.

[Dave B]

To be honest unless the race is run at a snail's pace due to weather and/or safety car, there's no chance of a zero-stop strategy anyway.

I understand the reasoning behind this rule, but in practice it's barely made any difference.

[BDunnell]

To be honest unless the race is run at a snail's pace due to weather and/or safety car, there's no chance of a zero-stop strategy anyway.

I understand the reasoning behind this rule, but in practice it's barely made any difference.

Apart from losing people places unnecessarily, like Kubica yesterday.

[jens]

I don't know if anyone else, but... I actually miss the tyre war.

Different tyres perform differently on different circuits. And average teams with a superior tyres can do miracles. Recall Bridgestone-shod Arrows, Stewart and Prost from 1997. In several races they were unbelievable quick.

Last year B'stone got stronger in the second half of the year, which allowed Ferrari to catch Renault. Also Toyota showed some good performances. :p :

One more example, which IMO shows that current tyre and engine rules have reduced the possibility to see many teams getting the possibility to shine.
2003
At Hungaroring: Renault finished 1st, Ferrari 8th
The next race at Monza: Ferrari 1st, Renault 8th.

Totally different circuits, tyres and engines performed differently on those circuits and look, what a difference that made in team performances! Can you imagine that this year Ferrari would have finished 8th in one race and in the next race McLaren couldn't have achieved better than 8th?!

Or in 2003 in wet races Jordan got a race win (Brazil) and Sauber a podium (USA) partly thanks to superior wet weather tyres. In dry conditions those teams were pretty much nowhere. With single tyre supplier they would have had no chance of getting anywhere close to podium.

[GP-M3]

Mostly good. I think they should give the teams their choice of which of the 4 compounds to use at each race, rather than BS bringing what they want. That gives a bit more choice, puts a bit more mystery in it, but shouldn't put the cost up too much. They could still keep the silly must use the option tire rule.

[trumperZ06]

It's a good cost cutting rule, one of the few that really work. Keep it!

:rolleyes: AMAZING !!!

[BDunnell]

I don't know if anyone else, but... I actually miss the tyre war.

Different tyres perform differently on different circuits. And average teams with a superior tyres can do miracles. Recall Bridgestone-shod Arrows, Stewart and Prost from 1997. In several races they were unbelievable quick.


Very good point.

I also wonder exactly how much has been saved per team by this year's rules. I bet it's a drop in the ocean.

[wmcot]

Very good point.

I also wonder exactly how much has been saved per team by this year's rules. I bet it's a drop in the ocean.

I'll bet Bridgestone has saved a fortune!

[Valve Bounce]

:rolleyes: AMAZING !!!



Mind boggling but, unfortunately, tyreless!! :eek:

[fandango]

To be honest unless the race is run at a snail's pace due to weather and/or safety car, there's no chance of a zero-stop strategy anyway.

I understand the reasoning behind this rule, but in practice it's barely made any difference.

Like there was no chance of running the safety car for 19 laps at the start of a race? Like there was no chance of a rookie winning the WDC? Like there was no such thing as creative thinking? C'mon now, by the ghost of Ken Tyrrell I challenge you to retract that statement, my good sir!

[Oli_M]

I think its an interesting idea.... I don't know exactly what it does for F1 since "most" of the time, the teams racing each other directly would adopt the same tire pattern.

If more had tried varying when they would run the two different types we may have seen a bit more up/down racing, eg people losing places whilst they were on non-ideal tires and then making the places up again on their preferred set.

So I guess, I don't mind if it stays next year... although being able to talk about their strategies gave us the opportunities to sound more anorak-y :D

[Hawkmoon]

I think the problem with the rule is that there isn't a big enough difference between the two types of tyre they bring to each race. How often this year did we hear the teams saying that the tyres were so close as to make the choice of which to run longer almost irrelevant.

Even when we heard stories about the teams questioning the viability of the softer tyre lasting in the race, nothing happened. The tyre was fine. Interlagos, for example, was fine even though ITV were saying that the softer tyre would grain horribly and cause the drivers no end of trouble.

If they keep this rule I would like to see a much greater differentiation between the performance/durability of the tyres. Have one choice that is stupidly fast but very short lived and the other to be much slower but very durable. I'm talking about the softs being something like 2 seconds a lap quicker but only good for 10-15 laps. It might make the end of the race very exciting as drivers throw on the softs to try and hunt down the guy in front before the tyres crap out.

If they don't change the performance of tyres I think they should dump the rule because it hasn't added anything to the sport this year.

[wedge]

I don't know if anyone else, but... I actually miss the tyre war.

I don't. Tyre wars increase cost ie. more tyre testing. The manufacturers get too much credit eg. if Schumi or Alonso won, it was usually because of the tyres - the same is now happening in MotoGP.

F1 cars produce too much grip as it is, a control tyre will sort this out easily.


Different tyres perform differently on different circuits. And average teams with a superior tyres can do miracles. Recall Bridgestone-shod Arrows, Stewart and Prost from 1997. In several races they were unbelievable quick.

IIRC, a lot of midfield/back-of-the-grid teams were on the Bridgestones, the top teams stuck with Goodyear and then you had the likes of McLaren running off to Bridgestone in 1998 onwards until the 'stones became sole period.


Last year B'stone got stronger in the second half of the year, which allowed Ferrari to catch Renault. Also Toyota showed some good performances. :p :

That was because Bridgestone produced a new tyre construction last year and the teams worked on improving their cars. At the start of that season Toyota were struggling getting their tyres up to temperature and changed their suspension throughout the year and like Ferrari, they found that to get the best out of the Japanese tyres you had to run a lot of camber on the fronts.

The Michelins had a 'softer' construction - which somewhat explains Alonso's aggressive driving style because you could get away with running minimal camber on the fronts.


Totally different circuits, tyres and engines performed differently on those circuits and look, what a difference that made in team performances! Can you imagine that this year Ferrari would have finished 8th in one race and in the next race McLaren couldn't have achieved better than 8th?!

Or in 2003 in wet races Jordan got a race win (Brazil) and Sauber a podium (USA) partly thanks to superior wet weather tyres. In dry conditions those teams were pretty much nowhere. With single tyre supplier they would have had no chance of getting anywhere close to podium.

As I said earlier, the tyre manufacturers get too much credit and you have the danger of a dominant supplier taking some of the skill away from the driver.

Look what happened in China in 2006 when Schumi was the only driver to qualify in the top 10. It was an awesome lap and yet he could qualify 7th? 8th? because the 'stones were crap in the wet. If it we had a sole tire supplier that year, Schumi could've taken pole.

The same is happening in MotoGP, Rossi puts in a lot of effort and yet the net reward is very little because Michelin can't come up with a better tyre.

I'd rather we have a sole supplier so we see more driver skill being rewarded. F1 has enough problems as it is.

[ioan]

I don't. Tyre wars increase cost ie. more tyre testing. The manufacturers get too much credit eg. if Schumi or Alonso won, it was usually because of the tyres - the same is now happening in MotoGP.

F1 cars produce too much grip as it is, a control tyre will sort this out easily.



IIRC, a lot of midfield/back-of-the-grid teams were on the Bridgestones, the top teams stuck with Goodyear and then you had the likes of McLaren running off to Bridgestone in 1998 onwards until the 'stones became sole period.



That was because Bridgestone produced a new tyre construction last year and the teams worked on improving their cars. At the start of that season Toyota were struggling getting their tyres up to temperature and changed their suspension throughout the year and like Ferrari, they found that to get the best out of the Japanese tyres you had to run a lot of camber on the fronts.

The Michelins had a 'softer' construction - which somewhat explains Alonso's aggressive driving style because you could get away with running minimal camber on the fronts.



As I said earlier, the tyre manufacturers get too much credit and you have the danger of a dominant supplier taking some of the skill away from the driver.

Look what happened in China in 2006 when Schumi was the only driver to qualify in the top 10. It was an awesome lap and yet he could qualify 7th? 8th? because the 'stones were crap in the wet. If it we had a sole tire supplier that year, Schumi could've taken pole.

The same is happening in MotoGP, Rossi puts in a lot of effort and yet the net reward is very little because Michelin can't come up with a better tyre.

I'd rather we have a sole supplier so we see more driver skill being rewarded. F1 has enough problems as it is.

Very good analysis. :up:

[Tazio]

I like it the way it is. and I think the teams
saved a ton of money with this system.
But I do miss the tire wars!

[wmcot]

I don't. Tyre wars increase cost ie. more tyre testing. The manufacturers get too much credit eg. if Schumi or Alonso won, it was usually because of the tyres - the same is now happening in MotoGP.

F1 cars produce too much grip as it is, a control tyre will sort this out easily.



IIRC, a lot of midfield/back-of-the-grid teams were on the Bridgestones, the top teams stuck with Goodyear and then you had the likes of McLaren running off to Bridgestone in 1998 onwards until the 'stones became sole period.



That was because Bridgestone produced a new tyre construction last year and the teams worked on improving their cars. At the start of that season Toyota were struggling getting their tyres up to temperature and changed their suspension throughout the year and like Ferrari, they found that to get the best out of the Japanese tyres you had to run a lot of camber on the fronts.

The Michelins had a 'softer' construction - which somewhat explains Alonso's aggressive driving style because you could get away with running minimal camber on the fronts.



As I said earlier, the tyre manufacturers get too much credit and you have the danger of a dominant supplier taking some of the skill away from the driver.

Look what happened in China in 2006 when Schumi was the only driver to qualify in the top 10. It was an awesome lap and yet he could qualify 7th? 8th? because the 'stones were crap in the wet. If it we had a sole tire supplier that year, Schumi could've taken pole.

The same is happening in MotoGP, Rossi puts in a lot of effort and yet the net reward is very little because Michelin can't come up with a better tyre.

I'd rather we have a sole supplier so we see more driver skill being rewarded. F1 has enough problems as it is.

I would agree with you, but I would also like to see the teams allowed to choose from two more compounds and have the option to run more than one compound at a race if the team wants to. Remove the requirement to run 2 compounds.

[ShiftingGears]

Contrived :down: if the teams want to stick with the same type of tyres all race, let them!

I'd like to see slicks in 2008.

[Ranger]

It didn't exactly make the racing any better, which was part of its point. I was disappointed with it, to be honest.

[janneppi]

I though the point of the two tyre rule was to make people talk about Bridgestone?
I'm not sure that worked out that well really.

[ioan]

I though the point of the two tyre rule was to make people talk about Bridgestone?
I'm not sure that worked out that well really.

The point of the rule was not to have Bridgestone produce tires that are not used at all.
And from my point of view that was the right thing to do.

People would talk about Bridgestone anyway cause they were the only ones to have their name on the tires and on the screen.