Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

[nae]

the top team spent 100s of millions (the lower teams 10s of millions) developing the car to work in a certain way the FIA then mandate a wrong part to use in the drive chain

its like saying you must run your monaca gearing at monza

or a fuel pump that doesnt flow enough fuel

or in other sports terms asking a marathon runner to carry a fat bloke for a few miles

it may spice up the racing but its isnt in the spirt of the sport


having a tyre that isnt ment for the job by such a margin is nie on dangerous and flys int he face of saftey

it could be said that the kubic / vettel incident was a direct result of this tomfoolery

[Giblet]

I disagree.

The tire disparity you are speaking of to me can exists in many different forms in racing, not just supplied compounds, and teams have to adapt.

If both Kubica and Vettel were on hards, and once of them had been out too long and run them ragged, the accident could still have occurred.

You seem to have a serious hate on for these tire compound differences, which I think makes the racing more exciting.

Keep in mind, the teams have had access to all the compounds in testing, and have spent their 100's of millions (and sometimes 10s!) developing their cars to work with the very same tires they are using in the race.

Heck Mclaren even has an advanced simulator just for tires.

If you level the playing field completely with tires, you move closer to a spec formula.

[ISLAMATRON]

I have to agree Giblet... also may I add, I hate the idea of a tire war because tires are too critical a factor for racing cars for there to be parity. We saw it in 2005 when Michilin won every race they entered. But if we are to have a spec tire supplier then having differing tire compounds adds to the strategy options of the race.

Although I dont like that the teams are REQUIRED to run both options, this race proves how that rule can improve the show.

As it is now is a good compromise between spec tire & all out tire war.

[Ian P.]

Bridgstone will be taking a load of heat for intentionally supplying poor or mismatched tyres (tires for the West-Coasters) for the race.
If they continue to do this, then they will suffer in the public domain. What value is the F1 exposure (which cost them a small fortune) when even the commentators are trashing one or both Bridgstone compounds as unsuitable for the cars and the conditions.
How many cars finished the race on a one-stop strategy....none. Apart from Massa (who didn't finish) I believe all the drivers did two stop strategies.
I suspect we will see the strategies all start to look like the one Button used. Two stints on the hard to get you to within 10 to 15 laps of the finish and then the softs which will work better once the track is runbbered in.
Even Ferrari can't make them work.

[nae]

i dont accept the argument that the show must be spiced up for a start by supplying a part that works and a part that doesnt

if the teams where asked to run none optimum fuel for a stint then there would be
uproar, same goes for any other non optimum part, say brakes or ecu or cooling

i didnt like the system for tyres last year

this year is worse

its contrived

i would accept if Bridgstone only brought 2 compounds from there range and the teams could select one,

imho it makes a mockery of the idea of R&d

maybe this is the idea

i watched some wrc where using a similar rule they where using gravel tyres on tarmac, what next slicks on ice?


it detracts more than it adds


be as well make the driver drive with only one hand for the first stint then the other for the next and so on, that would sure as hell spice up the racing, increase the crashes for the crash fans too

win win (not)

[ISLAMATRON]

Who says it doesnt work? If the super softs didnt work then the teams would not have qualifyed on them. The tires were fine and did their job... the situation was the same for evryone... some rose to the challage and others fell on their faces... such is F1.

You actin like the FIA was handing out busted SECU's or something.

neither tire was optimum... the hards were difficult to get to temp and lost heat during the SC's... engineering is about comprimise... there is no 1 "best tire" to bring to every event. or they would making thousands of different compounds & constructions to fit every different track, under every different weather condition, for every differnt car and every different driver... since each one is specific.

If you want to see some tire that "didnt work" watch NASCAR last year at Indy, or for that sake F1 at indy 2005. Those are tires that didnt work and were not safe... these tires were fine.

[nae]

by work you mean 'held air' ?

no matter i said my piece

others disagree, fair do's

or i disagree with others
(depends on your view point)

[ISLAMATRON]

Would you trust your only qualifying flyoing lap to a tire that didnt work? Especially when you have a choice? I didnt think so, the super softs worked fine for what they were designed for.

[gcdugas]

Would you trust your only qualifying flyoing lap to a tire that didnt work? Especially when you have a choice? I didnt think so, the super softs worked fine for what they were designed for.

I think the teams just got it wrong. The softs were like the quali tires of the 80's... good for just a few laps. If they all did two very long stints on the hards and then 5-6 laps on the softs everything would be fine. Everyone knew the softs went off after a few laps so they should have adjusted better. The tire requirement is an artifice though. They might as well use wooden spoked carriage wheels. The teams should deal with the givens during the race and seek to change it afterward... that change I guess is what people on this forum want.

[ISLAMATRON]

KIMI, Massa, Truilli, Kubica, & LH all went between 10 & 12 laps with the super softs in the first stint, and for all of them it served their puposes.

Silly Vettal went only 16 laps in the first stint with Hards... if he was lite(657 kg) like we all knew he was why not start out with the super softs... going so short with the hards made them have to go longer with the super softs later in the race. Just plain bad race strategy.

The super softs were probly good for 10 laps with the appropriate 10 lap fuel weight on board. If you had more fuel on board than for those 10 laps then the tires would last even less.

58 lap race, 10 lap super soft stint, leaves us with 48 laps to split with 2 sets of hard tires, 24 laps each set, easily done, especially with the saefty car laps thrown in.

Why start heavy on the supersofts like the Ferrari's or lite on the Hards like VEttel? it makes no sense.
either start the race lite on the supersofts, or heavy on the hards.

[bonjon1979]

"I wonder did the variable geometry front wing have any effect?

(i.e. did the drivers actually use it to rebalance their car while in the wake of another)


Or was it purely used as another tool to balance the car through the race (akin to tyre pressures)"

I was interested to read that both Alonso and Hamilton said prior to the race that they didn't intend to alter the front wing at all. I did wonder about the concept to begin with as I'm sure it would make the car much more unpredictable as the changes are being made. Drivers always talk about wanting a car underneath them they have confidence in, I'm not sure if you can gain that confidence with an ever changing down force set up.

On KERS, although there seemed to be a consensus between many of the drivers that the system's effcts were negligible/no help to overtaking, I don't think there can be any argument that it helped Hamilton a lot as he made his way through the field. Maybe it was the way he was using it or perhaps the Mclaren system may deliver the boost more effectively.

More controversially, I have to admit that I liked the look of the cars on the track today. I even thought the front wing looked good... Also, I saw a clip of the cars last year and they just look plain wrong...

[Conceptual]

I have to agree Giblet... also may I add, I hate the idea of a tire war because tires are too critical a factor for racing cars for there to be parity. We saw it in 2005 when Michilin won every race they entered. But if we are to have a spec tire supplier then having differing tire compounds adds to the strategy options of the race.

Although I dont like that the teams are REQUIRED to run both options, this race proves how that rule can improve the show.

As it is now is a good compromise between spec tire & all out tire war.

Forcing the teams to run tyres that grain and slow way down in no way increases the show... Unless it is a spectacular incident like the Kubica/Vettel one.

Having vast differences in speeds on track (3 seconds during the graining stage) is inherently dangerous.

I think giving the teams the option to use what they want, but NOT making them use ALL options in the race is the best option.

I think that if you want is close racing that shows the best car builders/race drivers that there should only be ONE tyre option per race weekend.

Forcing the teams to use tyres that they would otherwise avoid at all costs is f*cking stupid.

My hopes of F1 returning to being a sport are long gone.

[ISLAMATRON]

Forcing the teams to run tyres that grain and slow way down in no way increases the show... Unless it is a spectacular incident like the Kubica/Vettel one.

Having vast differences in speeds on track (3 seconds during the graining stage) is inherently dangerous.

I think giving the teams the option to use what they want, but NOT making them use ALL options in the race is the best option.

I think that if you want is close racing that shows the best car builders/race drivers that there should only be ONE tyre option per race weekend.

Forcing the teams to use tyres that they would otherwise avoid at all costs is f*cking stupid.

My hopes of F1 returning to being a sport are long gone.

The tires can grain whether hard or soft... the teams want them to heat up quickly and I think that is what leads to graining. There wouldnt be these huge speed differentials if the teams used the tires properly, for the correct distance and on the correct fuel loads.

Giving the teams options and requiring them to make the correct strategic decisions makes for exciting racing... thats why we all love rain races so much.

They surely didnt avoid the super softs when they were qualifying, so making them use them in the race is not that big a deal.

[timbo]

Wow...
What "skip-one spec" tyres have to do with OWG proposals? Normally I don't mind OT, but I believe tyres and strategies deserve own thread.

[Pingguest]

I don't like the mandatory compound change. It is artificial and thereby against the spirit of the series. If the FIA really want more unpredictability proved by the tyres, it should allow a tyre ware again and make sure drivers do the entire race distance without pitstops, except for changing weather and punctures.