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

[Nealio]

From one of the tech articles on F1Technical:

2007: Contrary to previous years, all cars are required to race both available tyre compounds sometime during the race. To mark the difference, Bridgestone came up with an idea to paint one of the grooves white when it consists of a soft compound (the softer one of two dry weather tyre compounds available) or the full wets (compared to no marking on the intermediate tyres).

Who is responsible for this requirement? There are obvious safety issues involved in racing with two levels of performance in tires. Also, throughout the entire history of racing it has been the goal to optimize the performance of the vehicle in order to gain victory. This rule deliberately compromises the performance of the car and requires the driver, in the heat of battle so to speak, to instantly adapt to altered traction levels in his or his competitors vehicles.

I am amazed that the FIA, and the drivers in particular, accept such an unsound practice. Reading the reports from the free practices in Australia a large number of drivers and engineers commented on the problems of adapting to tires, graining, not getting up to temperatures and what have you. I can't image that Bridgestone thinks this is good advertising for their products.

So, does anyone out there know why the tech rules are this way?

[Conceptual]

From one of the tech articles on F1Technical:

2007: Contrary to previous years, all cars are required to race both available tyre compounds sometime during the race. To mark the difference, Bridgestone came up with an idea to paint one of the grooves white when it consists of a soft compound (the softer one of two dry weather tyre compounds available) or the full wets (compared to no marking on the intermediate tyres).

Who is responsible for this requirement? There are obvious safety issues involved in racing with two levels of performance in tires. Also, throughout the entire history of racing it has been the goal to optimize the performance of the vehicle in order to gain victory. This rule deliberately compromises the performance of the car and requires the driver, in the heat of battle so to speak, to instantly adapt to altered traction levels in his or his competitors vehicles.

I am amazed that the FIA, and the drivers in particular, accept such an unsound practice. Reading the reports from the free practices in Australia a large number of drivers and engineers commented on the problems of adapting to tires, graining, not getting up to temperatures and what have you. I can't image that Bridgestone thinks this is good advertising for their products.

So, does anyone out there know why the tech rules are this way?

Because making the race more difficult, even rediculously so, is done by Bernie and Max to increase the spectacle for the casual fans of F1.

They seem to forget that the lifelong fans of F1 will eventually be alienated by this, but they don't seem to mind.

[theoracle]

From one of the tech articles on F1Technical:

2007: Contrary to previous years, all cars are required to race both available tyre compounds sometime during the race. To mark the difference, Bridgestone came up with an idea to paint one of the grooves white when it consists of a soft compound (the softer one of two dry weather tyre compounds available) or the full wets (compared to no marking on the intermediate tyres).

Who is responsible for this requirement? There are obvious safety issues involved in racing with two levels of performance in tires. Also, throughout the entire history of racing it has been the goal to optimize the performance of the vehicle in order to gain victory. This rule deliberately compromises the performance of the car and requires the driver, in the heat of battle so to speak, to instantly adapt to altered traction levels in his or his competitors vehicles.

I am amazed that the FIA, and the drivers in particular, accept such an unsound practice. Reading the reports from the free practices in Australia a large number of drivers and engineers commented on the problems of adapting to tires, graining, not getting up to temperatures and what have you. I can't image that Bridgestone thinks this is good advertising for their products.

So, does anyone out there know why the tech rules are this way?

it is purely to give bridgestone higher visibility.
this way they have to tlk about tyres all the time and every time, otherwise they would become something barely mentioned.
the difference for bridgestone marketing is huge, even if sometimes it might not sound as a necessarily 'good' ad, the important is that it is mentioned that F1 car drive on bridgestone.

[Nealio]

So, You are saying that all PR is good PR, in effect? I recall that Goodyear won three hundred and fifty F1 victories without having to artificially manipulate the outcome of races. I'm afraid that Bridgestone, although technically brilliant, has gone down a marketing cul de sac on this one. Have you noticed how they have to continually restate the purpose of this inane rule? What will happen when a driver is killed due to this mandate from Bridgestone, if in fact it originates with Bridgestone's marketing goals and not the usual ineptitude of the FIA?

[Jersey Tom]

So, You are saying that all PR is good PR, in effect? I recall that Goodyear won three hundred and fifty F1 victories without having to artificially manipulate the outcome of races. I'm afraid that Bridgestone, although technically brilliant, has gone down a marketing cul de sac on this one. Have you noticed how they have to continually restate the purpose of this inane rule? What will happen when a driver is killed due to this mandate from Bridgestone, if in fact it originates with Bridgestone's marketing goals and not the usual ineptitude of the FIA?

Think it's 368 actually.

Not that I'd know anything of that...

[Giblet]

The reason for it as I understand from a racing point of view is that Goodyear left F1 because everyone the same tires ensured nobody needed to talk about them.

For Goodyear, no PR was bad PR.

As well, the performance difference between the two compounds for each race is not as much as some think, and the drivers fully know the type and expect the performance they will get out of the tires at each stop.

Not enough a difference in compounds to say the lives of drivers are being put in danger at least

[xpensive]

Look, technical rules in F1 have been a mockery ever since Mosley started to impersonate an engineer and MrE realized the opportunity to tailor show and results to his liking.

From slicks to grooves and then back, electronic-aids coming then going and back again as you couldn't police it, wings moving up and down, from mad-money on KERS to budget-caps, from no-development on engines to just-a-tweak then standard, etc. It's just a mess, sometimes WWF seems serious.

[shir0]

<snip> It's just a mess, sometimes WWF seems serious.

It's called WWE. And before anyone asks, Yes, I do watch that "serious" show. That's why I love F1 just as much...

[xpensive]

Whatever, why haven't anyone considered Vince McMahon as MrE's successor?

[Dukeage]

Remember his attempt at american football ?

[xpensive]

No, plese enlighten us! From the face of it, he seems to be fit to wear Bernie's shoes in other respects?

[alelanza]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73981

Q. How difficult will strategy be with the new allocation philosophy?

"Tyre strategy should be very difficult and this is the desired outcome. We have heard drivers say that the super soft is too soft for here and the medium is too hard, and that is by design. In conjunction with the desires of the FIA to enhance overtaking opportunities, we are not bringing optimum tyres here in terms of their performance, instead we are bringing tyres which make the teams and drivers think hard before they use them.

"When to use the medium or the super soft tyres in the race is not the only consideration, as the setup of the car has to be a compromise in the race to allow it to work with both tyres. It will be a lot of work for the engineers and drivers, but should provide a lot of entertainment for the spectators and viewers."

Ehmm.... would it not be cheaper and thus inline with the cost reduction/pseudo green theme to simply have a dung slinging monkey in a couple of the hardest braking areas?
"hey remember that the monkey is not here for performance reasons... it's by design etc etc entertainment of viewers.... etc etc"

[pitlaneimmigrant]

I'm afraid that Bridgestone, although technically brilliant, has gone down a marketing cul de sac on this one.

Which is why as soon as the single tyre rule was announced Michelin got out. They didn't even want to put a bid in. Their argument was that without the tyre war there would be no publicity and no avenue for them to develop their tyre technology. Given that they were in F1 for (a) marketing and (b) to be doing cutting edge development, they rightly got out.

"hey remember that the monkey is not here for performance reasons... it's by design etc etc entertainment of viewers.... etc etc"

Next thing you know they'll be voting a driver off after each round

[Nealio]

Giblet, Goodyear did not quite F1 because of PR, good or bad. They quite because they did not want to spend the money to develope the FIA mandated grooved tire. This showed good sense on their part.

Quotes from Australia: Raikkonen, " Definitely the main problem was in managing the tyres...", Button, " I was purposely driving very slowly for what pace I think we could do to look after the tyres. I wasn't turning in aggressively on any corners."
Barrichelo, "the softer of the two tires could have graining issues..."

Comments like these really inspire confidence in Bridgestone's tire making ability, no? What has f1 become when the exclusive tire supplier is purposely designing tyres to have performance problems during races?

[Giblet]

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

Tires have problems, and the drivers adapt, and have adapted for ever.

You assume that Bridgestone engineered tires to degrade on purpose?

I'd like to see some evidence other them quotes from drivers on tire performance.

Could you please supply some kind of evidence that Bridgestone is purposefully engineering tires to degrade?

These cars are also producing more downforce then the OWG originally planned, which I assume also leads to early degragation.

It's just a few tenths per lap that are lost with the worn supersofts, and this is not as dangerous as you think.