Why are f1 cars required to run two different tires in dry?

[Nealio]

Hirohide Hamashima, Bridgestone Director of Motorsport Tyre Development, Q&A at Oz, " ... the key to getting a good result here was having a good setup with the super soft tyre as the performance of this tyre dropped off very quickly."
Did you read " we miscalculated the performance of the alternate tire or we are investigating the performance shortfall (ref. McLaren) of the softer tire? No, they were designed to become more or less useless after a short number of laps. Vettel can tell you all about it!

[Giblet]

Hirohide Hamashima, Bridgestone Director of Motorsport Tyre Development, Q&A at Oz, " ... the key to getting a good result here was having a good setup with the super soft tyre as the performance of this tyre dropped off very quickly."

Right... so they made supersoft tires that wear down quickly. I think your fundamental logic error in this witch hunt you keep on about is that the tires were designed to have a really sticky short time period, and the degradation is a direct effect of this super sticky compound.

Good year used to make super sticky tirs simply for qualifying, and they were good for one or two flying laps. The difference now is the FIA mandates the use of different compounds during the race. Plenty of teams that were able to post fast times in quali with them never cried foul.

Did you read " we miscalculated the performance of the alternate tire or we are investigating the performance shortfall (ref. McLaren) of the softer tire? No, they were designed to become more or less useless after a short number of laps. Vettel can tell you all about it!

Again, you are reading too much into the fact the tires were not designed to degrade, they were designed to be super sticky and the trade off is that they suck after they are done sticking. This is why the smarter teams used them first so they had more grip at the beginning, and when they put the hard tires on the track was already rubbered in.

Yes the supersofts degrade too fast, and yes Birdgestons has acknowledged that fact, and no, they didn't do it on purpose just to screw Vettel. Remember in 2005 when Bridgestone on Ferarri was ripping apart? Was that Bridgestone trying to screw their flagship team?

Tire companies are notorious for screwing up tires and compounds and have been doing so for years.

BTW - I read your whole argument and I don't think the caps 'clarify' what you are saying.

[Nealio]

Thanks Giblet for your opinion. You referred to the point of this thread, stating that the FIA mandated two different tires for a (dry) race. Now some say Bridgestone put forward this idea and some credit the FIA. Does anyone have proof that it's one or the other. This is not a witchhunt. This rule, which creates a technical regulation by the tire supplier, has serious implications for the nature of f1 competition. I think it's important to address it.

[Giblet]

I just don't think that it matters as any reason the tires are the way they are is due to bridgestone doing their best to please everybody, as they worked with the teams mostly during testing to choose compounds.

The FIA approved the tires that BS made and the teams tested. Nobody in particular to blame.

Varying tire conditions have been a part of F1 for ever. Whether everyone had the same tires or not everybody tries to get the most grip out of them at all times, and some drivers and some chassis and some setups chew tires like chicklets.

Vettel's good race position was at that point due to him staying out longer on his tires then he should have, showing the ultimate pace was not as fast as it looked.

I just don't see what needs to be addressed. What if Bridgestone had only supplied one tire, and made a mistake? There would have been everyone sliding around, not just those who wore their shoes far too long.

[Nealio]

From the statements I've read from the company's own spokemen (Hamashima, Kobayashi, Speyer etc.) Bridgestone is pleasing the marketing goals of Bridgestone. There is no technically sound reason to forcing drivers to use two different tires in dry track conditions. When we see crashes that are caused by tire problems I think there is, to any rational mind, a risk of injury to drivers and track personnel involved. F1 is supposedly the pinnacle of technology in motorsport. Why is it playing games like this two tire rule? And in light of the economic conditions I wonder how Bridgestone can justify the costly development of two different tires for one purpose at each racetrack to their shareholders. Bridgestone as the exclusive tire supplier can develope a safe and quick tire for any track. The teams can maximize their cars to that tire instead of compromising their chassis in order to make two different tire work kind of well. That has been the way of doing it, of competing, throughout the history of racing. This has provided manufacturers ample opportunity to market their wares as well.
Maybe none of this matter to some. But I don't think this kind of thing belongs in racing. If encouraged the marketing forces will come to dominate the sport. Imagine a exclusive fuel provider stipulating the use of two or more different fuel mixtures during a race, oh, how entertaining! ECU supplier 'adjusting' engine maps a stated intervals during the race, gosh, I've got to buy one of those! The exclusive brake supplier proposing a team lottery of brake pad grades, that will be so fun to watch!
That will never happen, you say! Yeah, well I thought I'd never see a supplier dictating sporting (tire) rules either.

[Jersey Tom]

The Goodyears were infamous for blistering. They blistered all the time. Reasons for leaving not withstanding, the goodyear tires were _far_ from perfect.

BS. And there were always different options for compounds available if one tire wasn't working well for a team.

In any event, GY and Michelin both left F1 for the same reason.

Anyway. Why 2 different tires? To make things interesting, stipulated by FOM. I'd bet good money FOM called up Bridgestone and said "We want to make the race strategy more interesting. Bring at least one compound with a lot of giveup, and one that holds on for a while."

I'd imagine FOM was very pleased with the tires, even though they kinda sucked. I'd put the rear tire construction being crappy on Bridgestone though. I'd imagine they'll fix that up but I'd expect more of the same from compounds, coming straight from the head honcho's mouth.

[WhiteBlue]

All the main forces in F1 including FIA, FOM and FOTA were tired off the tyre war. So they came up with the idea of having a single supplier. To make this still a talking point for the single tyre supplier they came up with the idea of a two mandatory tyre grade use. It makes no sense to bash anyone on this issue. It is the same for everyone and it is much better than a tyre war in my view both from a vehicle engineering perspective and from the financial point. So my advise would be to stop bitching and enjoy the show.

[Giblet]

I know!!

Why not one set of super hard tires with no changing of tires allowed during the race??

oh wait.....

So...

We go the other way... allow changing. Give the teams a choice. Any compound. Any number of sets.

Then some will run 3 stops, some 2, and some 1, maybe even some none, if they thought not pitting would be the way to make up the time lost on track.

What possible scenario would be the right one to ensure nobody is ever passing somewhere in a corner with tires in superior condition?

Even on the exact same compound, this situation could happen.

I think the reason why we don't see drivers calling foul about the tire discrepancy is that they don't see it is a big deal/safety issue, just a usual part of racing. Tires a factor.

[Nealio]

FOM didn't come up with this idea. Here is a quote from Al Speyer, Executive Director, Firestone Racing (Firestone is owned by Bridgestone) March 26, 2009, "Bridgestone Americas Motorsports pioneered the alternate tire concept and introduced it to competition at the 2004 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach. Since that time, the idea has evolved and has been applied in other forms of motorsport."
So Bridgestone is forcing the teams to run what amounts to qualifying tires during the races so people will talk about tires.
The drivers are talking about tire problems, for sure! Raikkonen, Massa, Vettel, Kubica, Button and Barrichello all spoke about the bad performance of the tires during the race. They sounded like they were crying foul to me. The point is the teams and drivers don't have a choice in the matter of the tires they race on. Yes, they are all in the same boat so it's fair in the sense of fair competition but is it fair to force tires with real performance shortcomings which increase the risk of shunts on them?

[Giblet]

No matter what tires Bridgestone supplies, drivers/teams will run them too long on occasion.

I like the rule, think it spices up the racing, and after this weekend incident teams will think twice about running on tires that are long past their prime.

The witchhunt ends here. You can keep trying to find reason why Bridgeston is evil and makes everyone talk about their tires.

Newsflash. Bridgestone is a corporation and will do things to make money. Including fitting every single Ford Blazer with faulty tires that had to be recalled and caused people to die. 3.8 million bad tires.

FOM or FIA might not come up with it but they make the rules dude. Bridgestone is not the tire Illuminati pulling the strings behind the scenes with their massive political underground army. They are a tire company who has had compound issues for years.

Remember when Schumi wore his inters into a set of slicks? That was the same thing. Using tires past their point in the hopes that staying out on track will help.

Tires are and always will be factor, and for something that isn't a 'witchhunt', now you are starting to sound like someone who just hates Bridgestone.

Just tell me what they need to do to fix it, instead of trying to blame them all the time.

[DaveKillens]

I like the fact that the teams are forced to use two completely diferent types of tires. Last year the compounds were too similar, and there was really little strategy on different tire selection. But now, this difference in performance and longevity forces the teams to deal with the tires and their use. And this situation I like. Since the soft can't last long, each car will have a period during the race when they put on the softs, go really fast for maybe 8 to 10 laps, then suffer terribly. But everyone has to deal with the same scenario, and now, finally, "tire management" becomes really relevant.
Everyone has the same tires, they all are aware of the rules, and all of them have to deal with it. And if one team has wear issues while others suffer less, isn't that what the engineering aspect of Formula One is all about?
It would be too easy for the FIA to mandate a tire that has low grip characteristics and low wear issues. That way the tires would never be an issue, no one would have to deal with premature wear and all that stuff.
Personally, I think this time they got it right.

[Nealio]

I've already presented evidence that Bridgestone came up with this concept.

[Ian P.]

I like the fact that the teams are forced to use two completely diferent types of tires. Last year the compounds were too similar, and there was really little strategy on different tire selection. But now, this difference in performance and longevity forces the teams to deal with the tires and their use. And this situation I like. Since the soft can't last long, each car will have a period during the race when they put on the softs, go really fast for maybe 8 to 10 laps, then suffer terribly. But everyone has to deal with the same scenario, and now, finally, "tire management" becomes really relevant.

If the soft tyres could be made to ..."go really fast"... for 8 to 10 laps it would be GREAT.
Unfortunately they only last for 2 laps and then start going off. If someone looses 2 seconds a lap (at melborne it was more than that) then it only takes 12 laps and you are out a full pit-stop. This year the pit speed limit has been raised so the time disadvantage of a stop is reduced.
It shouldn't be forgotten that Gilles Villeneuve's fatal crash was initiated by "managing tire issues".
If the "softs" are too soft and only last a few laps, then the race effectively becomes two long stints on the "primarys" and a short parade on the "options". Yes there will be some that try to beat the strategy from the back of the grid by starting on "option" tires, but the fast qualifyers will likely follow the same strategy, hard stint-long hard stint-short soft run to the finish.
At some point, the negative publicity that Bridgstone gets will ....encourage...them to adapt.
Final note....statistics I heard were that less than 9% of Explorer roll-overs were tire related. Talk about getting stuck with bad press....and yes, I have personal experience that the Firestones were indeed cr.... less than stellar. WOW were they bad!!

[Nealio]

Quote from Autosport web site. "The softer tyres seem to be the tyres everyone prefers," Button said. "I was able to get the primes to work - and I don't think many people did. That will be hard especially if it is cool. There will be a lot of shuddering on the harder tyre. Once again it is going to be about tyre management. It is frustrating. These are very different races to what we are used to."
Bridgestone must love comments like this! Great PR for more so-so work from this tire-maker.

[Nealio]

Another effect of Bridgestone's tire policy is it's strategy implication. With one of the two tires supplied being much worse than the other, teams (in dry races) will have to use three stop strategies (at least) as it will be imperative to limit the number of laps run on the slower tire to as few as possible. Bridgestone's tire management 'challenge' isn't very hard to figure out — damage limitation sums it up nicely.