planetf1.com

Here's brundles take.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

So what he is saying is that its all down to tyres, thats not what F1 should be about though is it?

_________________

That's 1980s. more power, less grip. Cars going sideway through corners fighting for positions and stars like Senna and Villeneuve can prove their talent.
Yeah, would be great, but then again, you could argue that making bad on purpose isn't Formula 1. And soon someone will shout that it's dangerous...

_________________

hey guys, i hv some question regarding the 2013 spec tyre. Paul mentioned while it will house wider working range, but the rear tyre will deflect abit and change the aero of the car.

exactly how will the tyre affect the aero?? presumably more on the rear end of the car with the exhaust flow?? or much more than that?

Yes but not because they were durable because of lack of grip. At least thats my take.

What is F1 about?

Tyres are just part of the equation and there is no one size fits all. Say RBR and Ferrari were equal but the hard durable tyres provided all season suited Sebs driving more than Alonso. Doesn't that make it all about the tyres?

No matter what tyres the supplier provides there will always be winners and losers depending on what team or driver uses them better. Doesn't matter if they are hard or soft, self destructing or indestructible because they are the point of contact between car and surface they will always be a factor.

Even if the teams and drivers were able to pick which, when and where. tyres would still be a factor if one team/driver picks better or worse than the others.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Another thing about these tyres, has anyone noticed the unbelievable amount of shredded tyre pieces that build up off-line since using the Pirelli's ?? I keep thinking they need a jet-blower truck to run the track every 10 laps just so the cars can actually drive more than 1 line in the turns!

_________________
As soon as you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high.

I could be wrong but I remember hearing that with previous tyres rubber used to stick to the tarmac but now it just crumbles.

_________________

Thats just it, it was never a factor before but is has been more of a factor than anything else, F1 isn't a tyre championship but thats exactly what it has become.

_________________

i agree. get rid of this 2 tyre compound rule

It's always been a factor.

Look at the Williams Michelin Vs Ferrari Bridgestone days when Michelin brought the tyres that were eventually banned. Or indeedthe whole Michelin Bridgestone era. Another example I used in the thread at the beginning of the year was Mansell Vs Piquet in '86? . France I think Mansell took it easy and one stopped and Piquet drove hard and two stopped Mansell won. the following race Piquet decided to go easy and one stop and Mansell two stopped. Charged hard and won. The tyres were a factor. If they were indestructible they wouldn't have had the option of a hard charging 2 stop.

Smaller teams used to use the 2nd hand cast offs of the bigger teams because they were better than the new ones they could afford. Are you saying they weren't a factor then?

Teams used to mix compounds not just between axles but across them too. If tyres weren't a factor then why do that?

Or in 2005 when the bridgestones couldn't match the Michelins to last the race. Was that not the tyres being a factor. A tyre championship.

Or the infamous Indy race. Tyres were a big factor there.

These days we have more access, more media almost instant sound bites. More column inches that need filled. More things get talked about and things like Tyres come to the fore. Before when the F1 journo had to do a few inches for the back of the red top and BBC were doing a 1 minute segment it didn't get talked about as there was enough other stuff going on to fill the inches/time. Or the teams had a choice of compound they couldn't blame the manufacturer if they got it wrong. They couldn't say the tyres don't suit because they picked them.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Reverse that.

I don't agree with scrapping the current Tyres, DRS and KERS at all i will take them 1 by one.

KERS: technological advance. everyone has it and so balances things out when you use it will depend on driver position and skill. having it or not will not hurt the racing as we saw in 2009 and 2010, but in terms of F1 as the peak of technology then we should have it in as it has no cons only pros.

Tyres: people who say tyres were not a part of F1 before need to have a deep look back, Prost was known to be good on strategy and tyres wasn't he? 2010 Webber pitted in AbuDhabi because he radioed "rears starting to go mate" using the almighty Bridgestones, then pitted and lost the tittle subsequently while Vettel held on and won! now that had an effect on racing don't you agree?
In every series big be it or small the winning team who can design his package to get the most of the tyres, which has been one of Mclaren's and Lotus problems this year! tyres always have been and always will be part of racing (Remember Michelin vs Bridgestone in the MSC era?). Perelli only made tyres that don't last that long to put strategy into effect, and the results of that has been better racing all round. even in 2011 when the championship was dusted we had better racing than 2010. even the USGP where the OP is fond of, Teams who made their tires work better (Mclaren) were able to pass others (such as Alonso and Kimi) who struggled to get the tyres to operate in the air temps. less wear is not really a problem it is just a factor and nothing more and has been present in the sport since it has been made (hence why Murray saw that pitting for new tyres was a faster way around a circuit!).

Now for the most debated. DRS: Mclaren already had that in 2010 through the Fduct and sooner or later teams were going to get versions of it (even if banned by FIA throughout). the DRS is merely a more controllable way of the Fduct and as we have seen repeatedly if you are as fast as the car behind you can defend even if they do have DRS (Vettel iand Hamilton in US, Australia and other tracks as examples) and if you really can come to less than a second from the car ahead then you really should be able to overtake don't you think? Bahrain and Valencia 2010 had 2-5 overtaking moves IIRC, does anyone want that back? ABudhabi had the same and was a championship decider.
DRS zones are now controlled and very effective and i see it as an addition to the sport more than anything. and i don't want to see a much faster car stuck behind a slower one just because the track layout doesn't allow it to pass


If you want the "good o'l racing" back then lets ban all Aero, remove necessary FIA safety and tests have drivers wear hats instead of Helmets, switch TVs to black and white and have them go in the full Nurburgring.

Technology advances and so must the rules, we want F1 to have the best racing, technology/cars and drivers. this is currently in supply, if you don't like it as it is then you will have to choose 2 from the previous.

Eh?

Bridgestones not being able to match the Michelins was one of the reasons Ferrari dropped.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Yes, the big money tobacco advertising allowed teams to function as racing teams. The tobacco money went away, the major car manufacturers moved in and had a heavy influence on the direction and regulations in Formula One. It went from being an irresponsible waste of resources with boy toys (which I happen to agree with and embrace) into a corporate "we're friendly to the environment" racing series.



I tend to agree on that theory. For the first two-thirds of the season Pirelli were dishing out tires that had everyone scratching their heads, and the finishing orders were wild and crazy. And where was Vettel? But for the last few races Pirelli made the deliberate decision not to change anything, teams started to get to grips with the tires, and they became much less of an issue. true, the teams had learned a lot about how to work the tires, but it helps to suddenly find everything nice and stable. And who came from a behind to now lead in the WDC? I don't know if it was planned ( you could not anticipate Spa), but the driver who benefitted most from the recent stability in the application of tires was Vettel.

Even though most of it is groundless speculation, some facts are true. In Brazil, Alonso would just love to have a wild and unpredictable race, while Vettel is praying for no rain and a race with no variables.

I disagree on some points though, Formula One is not a sprint, it's a race where strategy is relevant and important.

I agree, people are very quick to forget the only way to overtake was during the pit stops, unless you were over a second a lap quicker, before the 2009 aero shake up that helped with dirty air.

I honestly think they should allow more downforce through a skirt or another method that is not affected by being in dirty air. Shift the aero balance towards that so cars can follow and then think about removing the "overtaking aids".

If you are 0.5 seconds per lap quicker you should be able to overtake, that was not the case pre 2009 and at certain tracks in 2010 before KERs gave more options.

First into the first corner won the race not so long ago.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk