F1 tyres

[Sodemo]

The main thing I don't like about the current tyres is the amount of debris off the racing line. After 10-15 laps there is a "no-go" area formed either side of the racing line. This is A) dangerous in a sport which claims is "super safe", and B) surely is off putting for a driver knowing in order to make a pass they will have to venture into this sea of marbles in order to attempt an overtaking move...?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The main thing I don't like about the current tyres is the amount of debris off the racing line. After 10-15 laps there is a "no-go" area formed either side of the racing line. This is A) dangerous in a sport which claims is "super safe", and B) surely is off putting for a driver knowing in order to make a pass they will have to venture into this sea of marbles in order to attempt an overtaking move...?

You say that like it never happened before.



It would certainly happen if there were 'tyre wars'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The main thing I don't like about the current tyres is the amount of debris off the racing line. After 10-15 laps there is a "no-go" area formed either side of the racing line. This is A) dangerous in a sport which claims is "super safe", and B) surely is off putting for a driver knowing in order to make a pass they will have to venture into this sea of marbles in order to attempt an overtaking move...?

How do the tyre companies prevent the "marbles" (debris off line) from forming on the American ovals. Marbles would be deadly at a place like Indy yet you never seem to see them. Nascar seems marble free too.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by wnut

How do the tyre companies prevent the "marbles" (debris off line) from forming on the American ovals. Marbles would be deadly at a place like Indy yet you never seem to see them. Nascar seems marble free too.

They do get a lot of marbles, but because they tend to run different lines there is less build-up.

Check out the last lap of the 2011 Indy 500 for proof they get marbles on ovals though.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

How do the tyre companies prevent the "marbles" (debris off line) from forming on the American ovals. Marbles would be deadly at a place like Indy yet you never seem to see them. Nascar seems marble free too.

Those series, on ovals, use tyres in a very different way to what F1 cars do. Think back to the 2005 Indy F1 race to see how horribly wrong it's possible to get it. But that's not to say that they don't get marbles in Indy car racing or Nascar racing, because they do.

Both series also have a single tyre supplier, possibly to ensure that a fairly 'conservative' (safe) tyre is used.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

They do get a lot of marbles, but because they tend to run different lines there is less build-up.

Check out the last lap of the 2011 Indy 500 for proof they get marbles on ovals though.

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KySJzJwP8fs

The turn four where Hildebrand hits the wall certainly has a massive groove with a lot of dust(?) on either side of the racing line, but the surface still seems free of marbles as the picture above illustrates. Perhaps Marbot may be right, but I don't know why. Is it possible to engineer the marbles out of tyres? It should be with a single tyre supplier.

The dust will still be there though as your example clearly shows.

[Kempi]

I haven't watched NASCAR in a while, but two to three years ago it looked exactly the same in the areas where no car drove as it did in the picture (of Monaco?) posted above.

But as Knowlesy said, there are two to three lines the drivers choose on an oval so the "clean path" is not quite as narrow.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Marbot

You say that like it never happened before.



It would certainly happen if there were 'tyre wars'.

I know, I remember. Doesn't mean to say that was correct either.

[davyboy]

Either accept it as a natural part of racing, like changes in the weather, or bring out a safety car 3 times during the race to allow road sweepers to clean the track.

[IceMan_PJN]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Some purists may argue this is ruined due to the "artifical nature" of purposefully fragile tyres, plus DRS and Kers.

They've chosen not to have the best possible tires, in terms of durability and endurance. It isnt really all that different from choosing not to have other available things like traction control and anti-lock brakes. Driver aids were abandoned so that the driver is responsible for more, and being forced to get the most out of tires is more of the same.

I don't see KERS as artificial since it's there for all drivers to use as they please. It's just part of the modern arsenal of an F1 car. This is in contrast to DRS, which is artificial since only certain drivers get to use it (whatever driver happens to meet the criteria).

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Peralta

Leave everything alone. Do not touch anything except maybe for KERS lol. I'm hoping for a Lotus win at Barcelona. That would make it five different constructors for the first five races. That's never happened.

Yep, let us hope that Kimi can pull it off as well. If only Checo hadn't messed up in Malaysia.

I can understand that to some degree there is a danger that the racing will all be down to the tyres. It has really spiced things up in F1. In fact, you could argue that F1 doesn't need DRS for overtaking now, it could all be done with tyre management.

It is probably good that we don't have a tyre war again. Apart from the cost, it tends to bring lap times down, and the FIA has to keep them within a certain limit.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KySJzJwP8fs

The turn four where Hildebrand hits the wall certainly has a massive groove with a lot of dust(?) on either side of the racing line, but the surface still seems free of marbles as the picture above illustrates. Perhaps Marbot may be right, but I don't know why. Is it possible to engineer the marbles out of tyres? It should be with a single tyre supplier.

The dust will still be there though as your example clearly shows.

Well some tyres create a lot less marbling, I would assume that the harder (and thus more durable) the compound the less you create. I don't recall many marbles in the 2005 season for instance, even late in races, because the tyres had to be hard enough to last an entire race (what a great rule ). Equally, public roads aren't littered with marbles, although I suspect we don't drive fast enough to generate them anyways.

The Pirellis destroy themselves artificially, so they throw rubber everywhere, in some cases chunks probably too big to be called a marble!

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Marbot

.......Both series also have a single tyre supplier, possibly to ensure that a fairly 'conservative' (safe) tyre is used.

doesn't that contradict what we see in F1?

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Peralta

Leave everything alone. Do not touch anything except maybe for KERS lol. I'm hoping for a Lotus win at Barcelona. That would make it five different constructors for the first five races. That's never happened.

Actually, 5 different winners in the first 5 races has happened. It happened in 1983. Piquet , Watson, Prost, Tambay and Rosberg. Plus, they were all for different constructors, Brabham, McLaren, Renault, Ferrari and Williams.

Fingers crossed for the Spanish race.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

Actually, 5 different winners in the first 5 races has happened. It happened in 1983. Piquet , Watson, Prost, Tambay and Rosberg. Plus, they were all for different constructors, Brabham, McLaren, Renault, Ferrari and Williams.

Fingers crossed for the Spanish race.

That was just after they banned ground effects, and before they all sorted out the new aero, IIRC.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

(what a great rule ).

Great enough to last for just one season.

It became almost immediately obvious to everyone that two tyre makers trying to make a tyre last long enough and also be quicker than their rivals tyre, was a recipe for disaster.

There was even a change of the rules mid-season to allow a tyre change without penalty.

Maybe it would work with a single tyre supplier?

But I feel that the racing would not be anything like we have seen this season. With hard tyres, the car that's leading on the second lap is likely to go on and win the race, safe in the knowledge that, barring acts of God, there is no one behind them that has the advantage of a much faster tyre, particularly if there are also no fuel stops to break up the monotony.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

doesn't that contradict what we see in F1?

The Pirelli tyre is not unsafe. There is a difference between wear and degradation.

The 2005 F1 tyres most definitely suffered from 'wear', because the tyre manufacturers built their tyres to be as quick as possible, but also needed them to last through qualifying and the race. So, as was seen at Indy that year (and elsewhere), the fastest tyre was also the most dangerous tyre. Perhaps tyres aren't something that should be used as a performance differentiator when peoples lives are at stake?

[Adam43]

The Indy example doesn't really apply, that was a one off, and could just be a coincidence it hit the fastest tyre. I liked 2005 rule too and that was because they did wear out. It was the wearing out that made it good. It is the wearing out that makes it good now. Still, people's lives at risk! All very dramatic. It isn't an unacceptable risk.

Anyway, marbles, it's not the greatest problem. I'm not feeling the hatred toward them that some do.

[JeremySmith]

In the days of Jim Clark, the cars were fitted with little more than street tyres weren't they?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

In the days of Jim Clark, the cars were fitted with little more than street tyres weren't they?

Not for very long. It was soon realised that the cars went much faster when the tread wore off!

[Knowlesy]

Do you still think the 2005 tyre regs were dangerous? You do realise Michelin had occasional issues at Indy when they were allowed to change tyres?

Also, one make tyres are no guarantee of safety. The 2008 Brickyard 400 for example.

What could be better than the combination of tyre manufacturers trying to go as fast as possible and the drivers having to make one set of tyres last. Made for great, non-artificial racing in 2005.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

This proves that Schumacher is, for once, right.

I have to agree with Michael on this subject, and David to a slightly lesser extent..

Tyre management is playing a far too bigger role therefore not allowing the drivers to race, coupled with DRS and KERS it's getting in the way of the fastest driver and the fastest car wins..

Lewis Hamilton's driving this season would be a perfect example of this, happy to get a third place finish and the points tally rather than pushing hard for the win..

Just my two cents...

[JeremySmith]

Kimi would have been on the podium from the "get go" had it not been for tyre performance going backwards or whatever they do...

Which just illustrates how brilliant he is..

[Marbot]

The problem with harder tyres is that, despite everyone being able to 'push' for a win, the car that uses those tyres best will have won the race well before race distance is completed. And with nothing other than mechanical failure to provide anything in the way of 'strategy' to stop that from happening (this isn't the 1970's), the races are likely to be somewhat boring, particularly if we have already seen the last days of refuelling.

Pirelli have already stated that they can provide tyres that will last for much more than a race distance. What Michelin and Bridgestone knew in 2005, Pirelli knows much more than that now and they don't have a competitor to force them into making any silly compromises. But their 'brief' from the FIA was to make tyres that degrade much more quickly.

It may have been the case that 2005 was only a good year (sorry) because Ferrari had been well and truly stitched up by the tyre rules. Apart from the Indy farce, it was pretty much Renault vs McLaren all season long. Both of which scored pretty much twice the overall number of driver and constuctor points than the third place driver/team.

There was also a lot of drivel coming from Luca di Montezomolos' mouth, at that time, about how F1 had turned into a "tyre championship" that year.

Not much changes, I guess.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

coupled with DRS and KERS it's getting in the way of the fastest driver and the fastest car wins..

Maybe it is. And some might think that a good thing. There's no telling who would have the fastest car on harder tyres. Maybe it's Sauber?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe it is. And some might think that a good thing. There's no telling who would have the fastest car on harder tyres. Maybe it's Sauber?

Hhhmm.. it is what is is. If you altered any parameter on an F1 car, then there's a possibility that some teams would cope better with it compared to others. All teams and drivers knew the situation with these tyres and they came up with the best package [car design, strategy and driving] to maximise their lot. Some appear to be doing a better job than others - quelle surprise !