tyres ....are they too big an influence on results ?

[lebesset]

well , here we go again !
bridgestone change the tyre specs for the final races of the year to something harder

ferrari complain that this won't be best for their cars

what a surprise .... the days of renault having their specific michelin tyre and ferrari bridgestone are over it seems ; everyone with the same chassis design next year ? what you think people?

like I said in the first place , the single tyre manufacturer can now choose who they want to win the championship out of the leading contenders ; can't be right ! tyres biased to ferrari ? no problem ! renault ?...just as easy

as regards to logistics , what's the extra cost of transporting a few extra containers of tyres in a F1 budget of $2 BILLION +

[Jersey Tom]

like I said in the first place , the single tyre manufacturer can now choose who they want to win the championship out of the leading contenders ; can't be right ! tyres biased to ferrari ? no problem ! renault ?...just as easy

That's not how it works.

[pgj]

I support every view that has been put forward stating that the present tyre regulations are artificial and cause too many problems for teams. I also support reducing unnecessary costs in F1.

I have not seen this idea put forward before, apologies for plagiarism if it has.

Within the existing four or five set compounds, why not allow teams to select any two for a race? New compounds could be tested throughout the testing season and a decision made on tyres for next season on or around the existing September cut-off date. Teams would then select their two compounds for each race by the end of September. Once a choice is made, it cannot be changed. This would mean that teams could choose the best two compounds for their car at any track and a wrong choice would be no one else's fault. It would give Bridgestone plenty of production and transport time and would not significantly increase costs.

[mx_tifoso]

Within the existing four or five set compounds, why not allow teams to select any two for a race? New compounds could be tested throughout the testing season and a decision made on tyres for next season on or around the existing September cut-off date. Teams would then select their two compounds for each race by the end of September. Once a choice is made, it cannot be changed. This would mean that teams could choose the best two compounds for their car at any track and a wrong choice would be no one else's fault. It would give Bridgestone plenty of production and transport time and would not significantly increase costs.

That's a good idea, but possibly teams could make a decision a few weeks before the race. Seeing how some circuits are resurfaced, and a compound one year could not be the ideal the next.

As for the idea that some compounds do not compliment some cars, the teams should have to adapt their settings for them to work properly. There shouldn't be a revolution in tyre specs because one or two teams can't make them work as they want them to, taking the easy way out is not the real answer.

Regardless, Bridgestone has already announced that they have done some changes to the specs for next season (aside from converting to slicks), hopefully ending many of the current issues being faced this season. The article about that is a few days back in the news index here at F1T.

[pgj]

Tyre use has always been a variable in F1. I do not propose going back to the days when teams could have A,B,C and D compounds on the car at the same time. But when teams worked with a supplier some teams would go for a harder or softer compound tyre than other teams. It strikes me that by having prescripted tyre compounds the FIA is, in effect, homogolating chassis design. Unless a car can chew its tyres, we hear the same thing from at least one team at each race "we could not get heat into our tyres". It is a handicap that detracts from F1 and should not be eradicated from it IMO.

I am hoping that when we go to slicks, we will see more even tyre use across teams, but I am not holding my breath.

[RacingManiac]

I don't see how tires themselves are the deciding factor in who has the advantage. How the teams use them is the deciding factor. But thats part of the competition. Bridgestone brings 2 types of tires to each race. Same for everyteam. The teams build their car under the same set technical regulation, working with the same weight level, power level and so on and so forth. Now they are all using the same tires. It is up to each team to best exploit the available grip for these tires, and if they are slower, it is up to them to figure out why they are. I don't think one can complain that the Bridgestone tires are suitable to one car over the other. Seeing how Ferrari's been on BS non-stop since 1999, and have been the sole developing partner before the switch to single tire supplier in 2007, one would think that they should dominate. But that did not happen to be the case, as seen by how well the McLaren was doing last year, coming from running on Michelin. Seeing how they were all given the same time to test the new tires over the winter and given data in how the tires behave, it was up to the teams to use that information to make a car. In the same period McLaren found it, and Renault didn't and the results speaks for themselves. Its the same deal for this year, and the tires themselves did not change. Bridgestone just pick different tires for the some races where their selection from last year did not work as well as they thought it would.

IMO eliminating tirewar was a good thing, and using control tires is also a good thing. Having specific tires made for each car does nothing to improve anything, just more cost and resources use to make one car go faster.

[Ogami musashi]

IMO eliminating tirewar was a good thing, and using control tires is also a good thing. Having specific tires made for each car does nothing to improve anything, just more cost and resources use to make one car go faster.

Well basically i agree that it brings good things, just that this is the opposite of a true constructor/engineering series.

I like the idea of spec series (i don't know if that's what you meant) but the problem is that reality is sometimes disappointing. First, a bunch of teams always dominate, second the "driver makes the difference" is often over-rated as, on driver is always dominating (being the best, having the best car or both) or they are all on par so once a gap is there nobody catches nobody.

The only difference in F1 is that cars are chassis wise still free so some teams better adapt than others.

But i'd prefer a tyre war as it would motivates a bit research, and more it would make some cars specifically driven.
Of course that also led to some boring gaps i concede.

Maybe we could make more restrictive rules about specificities of the tyres and then let a tyre war coming.
I thought the idea of the unique wet tyre is good, designing an all weather tyre could be interesting too provided it doesn't ruin the grip.

[RacingManiac]

Well spec tires means that the car and the drivers at the end of the day have to make the difference, not the tires. Since right now(and since the beginning of F1) we have constructor's(the car) and driver's(um, the driver)championship, have a third influence like tires aren't making things any clearer. If we want to compare engineering, you always keep as many things the same as you can, and the things you are changing will be the deciding factor. And having control tires in a WDC/WCC setting does not influence the fact that you are looking for a best driver and best constructor. If you are putting tire into the mix and each team basically have to work with a constuctor to develop a tire for them, it really adds to the logistic of things since not only now they are developing parts for the car, they have to be constantly testing to develop the tires. Look at 2005 when you have a crappy BS and good Michelin. There are weekends where all the Michelin team would do well because their tires, and team like Ferrari on their inferior BS will get beaten by the likes of Toyota. Does that really reflect the status quo of the real "constructor" championship, in that Toyota makes better F1 cars than Ferrari, or its just so happen that they are on the better tires?

[Ogami musashi]

Well spec tires means that the car and the drivers at the end of the day have to make the difference, not the tires.

I see what you mean but i think we need to nuance it. In every driver's difficulty to heat the tyres there's the mechanical/aero set up of the car influencing.
I reckon some driver's style just fit more than others to that, but should we say then the one that can heat up their tyres are better?

I mean wouldn't the driving challenge be based on each one style and see who's the best one.

I say that while knowing that a good driver is someone who can adapt but this time i think it nullifies a bit each drivers specificity, so i don't really agree this let the driver in commands.

But for sure many races in tire war's day were even not at this level, there was simply too much difference in performance.

If we want to compare engineering, you always keep as many things the same as you can, and the things you are changing will be the deciding factor.

I disagree. If you keep thing even and see who is adapting better, you are in a set up challenge which is not different from spec series.

Engineering challenge is based on who brings the best answer to specific problem hence that means differents solutions.
I think in F1 the current real engineering challenge is KERS.
Aerodynamics are second but shrink more and more.

And having control tires in a WDC/WCC setting does not influence the fact that you are looking for a best driver and best constructor.

For sure but that blanks the car construction's differences. You have one type of tyre so you need to build your car for them.
This was not the case before and seemed logical.
It is like if your imposed standard brakes or engines, you would need to built the car for maximizing performance according their architecture and thus it would make the thing even.

A very good example are aerodynamics. Restrictions in dimensions, uniques tyres and freeze of the engines just made the aerodynamics solutions very similar between teams.

If you are putting tire into the mix and each team basically have to work with a constuctor to develop a tire for them, it really adds to the logistic of things since not only now they are developing parts for the car, they have to be constantly testing to develop the tires. Look at 2005 when you have a crappy BS and good Michelin. There are weekends where all the Michelin team would do well because their tires, and team like Ferrari on their inferior BS will get beaten by the likes of Toyota. Does that really reflect the status quo of the real "constructor" championship, in that Toyota makes better F1 cars than Ferrari, or its just so happen that they are on the better tires?

Yeah i agree, but as i said above, the benefit of having tyre war is that you can ask for tyre redefinition (at least in the form of tyre war that existed in F1).
That adds costs for sure and yes that can have so much influence on performance that tyres can make a worst car being faster but that's part of the formula.
As you said, michelin equiped cars were not all equiped with the same michelin. Many teams had their own tyre specificities so that is part of the constructor equation to me.

[lebesset]

anyone notice the statement from bridgestone regarding the recent year on year tyre changes ...the tyres we provide last year were too soft ?

in other words only ferrari with the longer wheelbase could use the softer tyre properly
notice the effect at SF....suddenly renault start to look better ; as I have stated previously they have been the worst hit by the tyre selection