2013 Bahrain GP - Sakhir

[Redragon]

I didn't know where to post this but because of the latest change on compounds thought it might be the right place.

Redbull is working hard behind the cameras to convince FIA and Pirelli to made harder the compound for the rest of the year. Or at least it is what spanish press are reporting.

http://www.marca.com/2013/04/15/motor/f ... 19862.html

I hope Pirelli doesn't change the compound for the rest of the year as it is the same for everyone. It would be unfair IMO

[Kiril Varbanov]

I didn't know where to post this but because of the latest change on compounds thought it might be the right place.

Redbull is working hard behind the cameras to convince FIA and Pirelli to made harder the compound for the rest of the year. Or at least it is what spanish press are reporting.

http://www.marca.com/2013/04/15/motor/f ... 19862.html

I hope Pirelli doesn't change the compound for the rest of the year as it is the same for everyone. It would be unfair IMO

Pirelli, in particular Paul Hembrey, already responded a while ago:

"Everyone else came and said they don't know what they [Red Bull] were talking about.
Hembery was insistent that it would be wrong of Pirelli to make any changes to its tyres at the whim of a single team.
"If you want to favour one team then the season is over," he said. "It would be finished by Monza.
"Red Bull clearly have a lot of performance. Maybe they would like something else but I am sure other teams would like other things as well."

Marca article does not cite any source - doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but would have been good.

[FrukostScones]

I didn't know where to post this but because of the latest change on compounds thought it might be the right place.

Redbull is working hard behind the cameras to convince FIA and Pirelli to made harder the compound for the rest of the year. Or at least it is what spanish press are reporting.

http://www.marca.com/2013/04/15/motor/f ... 19862.html

I hope Pirelli doesn't change the compound for the rest of the year as it is the same for everyone. It would be unfair IMO

I read that somewhere too. It will not be unfair, but it would make VET champion.

Btw. ANONYMOUS will block LiveTiming this weekend. Yawn. Will this race be worth watching?

VET wins, RAI 2nd, third Webber.

[Redragon]

I didn't know where to post this but because of the latest change on compounds thought it might be the right place.

Redbull is working hard behind the cameras to convince FIA and Pirelli to made harder the compound for the rest of the year. Or at least it is what spanish press are reporting.

http://www.marca.com/2013/04/15/motor/f ... 19862.html

I hope Pirelli doesn't change the compound for the rest of the year as it is the same for everyone. It would be unfair IMO

Pirelli, in particular Paul Hembrey, already responded a while ago:

"Everyone else came and said they don't know what they [Red Bull] were talking about.
Hembery was insistent that it would be wrong of Pirelli to make any changes to its tyres at the whim of a single team.
"If you want to favour one team then the season is over," he said. "It would be finished by Monza.
"Red Bull clearly have a lot of performance. Maybe they would like something else but I am sure other teams would like other things as well."

Marca article does not cite any source - doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but would have been good.

It looks that Mercedes is pushing for the change too
http://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/lauda ... ish-f1-gp/

I read this article on the BBC website but for some reason they erased

[StrikeForceF1]

And of course it has nothing to do with which driver/team benefits from it? If all cars' tyre degradation was identical you wouldn't notice a difference in "racing".

I couldn't care less, really. In an ideal world (which it isn't) I'd rather have tyres that had absolutely 0 degradation and wear - though such a tyre would be impossible in the real world. Tyres are to me simply a necessary evil in terms of connecting the car to the ground. The less we hear of them is, in my personal (and I stress *personal*) view, the better. I'm not a fan of this whole business of "in/out of the window" etc. To be quite frank, I'd take a 0-pitstop, 0-overtake race if it meant we'd see drivers pushing flat out, qualifying-style, on their heavy fuel loads.

Hi Ray
Sorry have to disagree with you there, even though I understand its your personal view, with no pitstops and no overtaking I think racing will just become a snore fest as it was in the Schumi days....with aero being the dependent factor that they are and have been for a while the cars would end where they started, given the reliability these days...so than my question to you is why even have an F1 race when all you need is a 1 lap qualifying shoot out like we used to have(boring in my opinion) and award the points accordingly and decide the world championship that way. It is absolutely pointless if you are going to have a race with no overtaking....all it would become is just a high speed parade and you certainly don't need extremely talented drivers for that as they could not possibly overtake.....
just my 2 cents

[Phil]

I couldn't care less, really. In an ideal world (which it isn't) I'd rather have tyres that had absolutely 0 degradation and wear - though such a tyre would be impossible in the real world. Tyres are to me simply a necessary evil in terms of connecting the car to the ground. The less we hear of them is, in my personal (and I stress *personal*) view, the better. I'm not a fan of this whole business of "in/out of the window" etc. To be quite frank, I'd take a 0-pitstop, 0-overtake race if it meant we'd see drivers pushing flat out, qualifying-style, on their heavy fuel loads.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the Sport has evolved from a niche one into a huge business viewed by millions of people with expectations. This finances the sport. So, while I too would prefer better racing, I think it's something that can't be realistically achieved...

Since re-fueling was banned, the tyres give back the possibility for quicker cars to drop behind slower cars (by having to use both tyre compounds) at some point in the race, thus adding the chance of exciting overtakes. The extremeties of the durability of tyres adds the unpredictability which brings the field closer together or adds an element of surprise, similar to what rain or a safety car might bring to the race on an ordinary weekend.

The only issue I have is that the tyres are what they are. During re-fueling, the choice to how quick the car could lap the circuit was mainly in the teams and drivers hand. If they wanted quicker lap times, they would do shorter stints with less fuel - if they wanted a different strategy, they would do more fuel with longer stints. In that sense, it was easy to calculate what is mathematically the quickest way to complete the race, but not knowing what the other drivers do and where you would drop into traffic when you would pit, added a certain element of unpredictability as well.

With these tyres, it's hard to predict, because the durability of the tyres are closely connected to how the driver and car use the tyres and if they are in the ideal temperature operating window and what the track conditions are. The problem I see is that they are so sensitive, that drivers are avoiding 'racing' because it damages the tyre and therefore the strategy which is rather unflexible. I think the optimum way would be to have tyres with limited life (say compound A 10 laps and compound B 20 laps), but that they would do that regardless how a driver treats them (or with less of an impact). But that'd be impossible to achieve, by the nature of how rubber works.

A driver will not compromise his race in order to battle an opponent, because the cost is too high. That cost needs to be lowered in order to have better real racing again.

In regards to this season - even if I don't think this is particularly the best thing for the sport, I do think as the season progresses and teams get to understand the tyres better, the racing will hopefully improve too.

[raymondu999]

Sorry have to disagree with you there

Lol no reason to be sorry mate - everyone has their own opinions and preferences.

with no pitstops and no overtaking I think racing will just become a snore fest as it was in the Schumi days

If all you did was watch the race highlights - yes. The BBC put it the best when in their hour-long 2011 season review, they gave an entire 4 seconds to the Valencia GP. It's just that I think F1 is more than the television show, and more than the on-track action. I probably spend 60% of my time during a GP staring at timing screens and working out strategies and calculating ahead to the race finish, and so I really don't mind. (I proudly correctly predicted Button to finish P5, and Vettel to be P4 and harassing P3 by the end of the race )

....with aero being the dependent factor that they are and have been for a while the cars would end where they started, given the reliability these days...

If they managed to build a car reliable enough to win the race - and at a greater speed than the others - then you've done the best job, in my opinion. You should be rewarded.

so than my question to you is why even have an F1 race when all you need is a 1 lap qualifying shoot out like we used to have(boring in my opinion) and award the points accordingly and decide the world championship that way.

Well it wouldn't be *as* grim, because race vs qualifying pace would probably still be different to each other.

It is absolutely pointless if you are going to have a race with no overtaking...

Tell that to the Olympics and the sprint races.

F1 should, IMO - be a competition, not a show. Or should we start giving Usain Bolt success ballast?

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the Sport has evolved from a niche one into a huge business viewed by millions of people with expectations. This finances the sport. So, while I too would prefer better racing, I think it's something that can't be realistically achieved...

Agreed.

With these tyres, it's hard to predict, because the durability of the tyres are closely connected to how the driver and car use the tyres and if they are in the ideal temperature operating window and what the track conditions are. The problem I see is that they are so sensitive, that drivers are avoiding 'racing' because it damages the tyre and therefore the strategy which is rather unflexible. I think the optimum way would be to have tyres with limited life (say compound A 10 laps and compound B 20 laps), but that they would do that regardless how a driver treats them (or with less of an impact). But that'd be impossible to achieve, by the nature of how rubber works.

Wow. I have the polar opposite view. Because my "unrealistic" dream of flat out, 60-lap races is, as you say - not feasible in real life, I'd actually prefer tyres that *could* last 10 gp seasons - but wouldn't last you half the race if you abuse them at any more than 95%. Ideally the degradation curve should mean that any and all strategies (from 1 stop to 10 stop) all meet at the finish line, with the more-stopping strategy being a quicker strategy (hence having to overtake)

In regards to this season - even if I don't think this is particularly the best thing for the sport, I do think as the season progresses and teams get to understand the tyres better, the racing will hopefully improve too.

Amen!

[Vasconia]

I love back-to-back weekends.

Me too!! sadly after this race we have to wait 3 weeks before the spanish GP, which is always a little bit dull.

This tyre change is embarrasing, but the worst thing is the change of tyres for Barcelona, it seems that Mercedes and RB have too much infuence in the competition.

[godlameroso]

Well it wouldn't make much sense to bring the soft and super soft here as they wouldn't last more than two laps to 6 laps

[raymondu999]

I think some cars will go for a two stop, some for 3. The two stoppers have to commit early though, as do the 3 stoppers - to get the best out of their strategy. The two stoppers are locked in to pretty much OPP - while the 3 stoppers could see some going OOPP and some OPPP - or any of their permutations.

[turbof1]

I couldn't care less, really. In an ideal world (which it isn't) I'd rather have tyres that had absolutely 0 degradation and wear - though such a tyre would be impossible in the real world. Tyres are to me simply a necessary evil in terms of connecting the car to the ground. The less we hear of them is, in my personal (and I stress *personal*) view, the better. I'm not a fan of this whole business of "in/out of the window" etc. To be quite frank, I'd take a 0-pitstop, 0-overtake race if it meant we'd see drivers pushing flat out, qualifying-style, on their heavy fuel loads.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the Sport has evolved from a niche one into a huge business viewed by millions of people with expectations. This finances the sport. So, while I too would prefer better racing, I think it's something that can't be realistically achieved...

Since re-fueling was banned, the tyres give back the possibility for quicker cars to drop behind slower cars (by having to use both tyre compounds) at some point in the race, thus adding the chance of exciting overtakes. The extremeties of the durability of tyres adds the unpredictability which brings the field closer together or adds an element of surprise, similar to what rain or a safety car might bring to the race on an ordinary weekend.

The only issue I have is that the tyres are what they are. During re-fueling, the choice to how quick the car could lap the circuit was mainly in the teams and drivers hand. If they wanted quicker lap times, they would do shorter stints with less fuel - if they wanted a different strategy, they would do more fuel with longer stints. In that sense, it was easy to calculate what is mathematically the quickest way to complete the race, but not knowing what the other drivers do and where you would drop into traffic when you would pit, added a certain element of unpredictability as well.

With these tyres, it's hard to predict, because the durability of the tyres are closely connected to how the driver and car use the tyres and if they are in the ideal temperature operating window and what the track conditions are. The problem I see is that they are so sensitive, that drivers are avoiding 'racing' because it damages the tyre and therefore the strategy which is rather unflexible. I think the optimum way would be to have tyres with limited life (say compound A 10 laps and compound B 20 laps), but that they would do that regardless how a driver treats them (or with less of an impact). But that'd be impossible to achieve, by the nature of how rubber works.

A driver will not compromise his race in order to battle an opponent, because the cost is too high. That cost needs to be lowered in order to have better real racing again.

In regards to this season - even if I don't think this is particularly the best thing for the sport, I do think as the season progresses and teams get to understand the tyres better, the racing will hopefully improve too.

The thing with the "show" is, we don't really have one. We have more overtakes, yes, but literally in the sence of the word "overtake". If we watch, and for alot of people pay, motorsport just for overtaking, I suggest to everybody to get in your car and start doing the same safely and legal on your local highway, because you don't have to be an f1 driver to get pass a car.

What is show then? Battles. 2 drivers giving it all for a place, lap after lap after lap. 2 great examples: schumacher-alonso hungary gp 2005, and hamilton-vettel usa gp 2012. That is show. That is entertainment. That is a thriller worth paying for. Not one driver overtaking another one who has older tyres and not bothered to try and defend because it would ruin his tyres even more.

You've said it yourself: when the season progresses and when the teams get a better handle on the tyres, the show will improve. In other words when tyre degredation gets diminished. Something that can easily be done and without having to wait half a season by giving the drivers hard tyres that only require 1 pitstop.

I feel like we are back in the refueling era: cars would either pass eachother during pitstops or at the track because the one in front of you is heavy on fuel. Only differences are that time drivers could just push their cars to the limit, and instead of fuel being the differentiator, tyres are, but way more extreme. F1 banned refueling to increase the show and encourage overtaking on track, but that gets nullified by the tyres.

I really miss the 2010 season. The ban on refueling combined with the Bridgestone Potenza "god" tyres was a blessing. Turkey 2010, 4 cars chasing eachother within almost 3 seconds, giving eachother no quarter, for half a race. That my friends, is a show. A very good one, and I would sign the most expensive skyf1 contract inmediately if we got such a show guaranteed.

[Mika1]

I think some cars will go for a two stop, some for 3. The two stoppers have to commit early though, as do the 3 stoppers - to get the best out of their strategy. The two stoppers are locked in to pretty much OPP - while the 3 stoppers could see some going OOPP and some OPPP - or any of their permutations.

I think 3 stops is the way to go.

[tpe]

How many stops did the 3 winners had at 2012?

[Nomore]

How many stops did the 3 winners had at 2012?

Australia-2
Malaysia-3
Bahrain-2

i remember like this

[korzeniow]

3 stopper was a winning strategy last year in Bahrain

I remember because of Kimi's coming trough the field with 2 new sets of soft tyres, then he used 2 new sets of medium tyres.