How about going back to no tyre changes?

[Born Racer]

Or at least getting rid of the two compound rule? When you think that Vettel made his tyres last, this would promote overtaking on the track. Alonso did a top job to pass Button in Monza at the best time to do so, but if he'd known Button wouldn't necessarily have been stopping, he would probably have gone for it on the track. One step forward with the refuelling ban, but it was always a step back re-allowing tyre changes, however much the battle at the front in Monza had a lot of tension.

[Shaddix]

no tyre changes = drivers being even more carefull = no action

[SennaTheGreat]

It would certainly sppice things up on the track. would a driver pick a soft compound to try and blast away from the pack, pit in and hopefully not lose a place? or does he stick with hards, no pit stops and hope that those pitting dont get away too much?

[Adam43]

I kind of likes the no stop rule, but I'd do it slightly differently.

Get rid of the mandatory pit stop. Have a couple (or more) compounds to chose from. One will almost do a race. One almost half. Or there abouts, so that opinions change from track to track, different weather conditions, style of car and driver.

With any luck sometimes we'll end up with Jerez 1986.

[Marbot]

It should have been a no-brainer option for this season. Live and learn I guess.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Shaddix

no tyre changes = drivers being even more carefull = no action

The opposite. You would get tons more late on in the race as those who had been careful would pour it on.

Imagine no tyre changes at Monza. Alonso would have had to pass Button for the lead. Vettel and Webber would have had to race for position. And so on.

[Spritle]

That idea worked out great in 2005 with the same hype...

I'd bin the mandatory two compound rule and go with Adam43's suggestion.

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Spritle

That idea worked out great in 2005 with the same hype...

I'd bin the mandatory two compound rule and go with Adam43's suggestion.

Yeah I agree. A choice of compounds would make it more worthwhile.

[Sodemo]

The problem now is that the penalty for coming in a stopping for tyres is more than it was in the 80's due to the pit lane speed limit. Whereas say in the past it was maybe a 15-20 seconds penalty, now (depending on the track) its more like 25-30 seconds, which is time that is harder to make up on fresh rubber vs old rubber.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

which is time that is harder to make up on fresh rubber vs old rubber.

That would mostly depend on the difference in pace on each compound of tyre used by different cars and different drivers.

I was thinking how much better the Monza race would have been if no one had to stop for tyres. As it was, the main passing manoeuvre was effectively done in the pits.

It's also patently obvious that tyre management is something that hasn't really happened this season.

[Kempi]

No mandatory stop would indeed be the way to go, imho. Mandatory stops are artificial parts of racing helping noone.

[Nicholosophy]

What would be good to see is compounds that aren't going to last the full distance if you keep pushing 110% all the time. There needs to be a limit to how far you can push a tyre before performance drops off. Then the driver has the choice - push hard and risk needing a new set, or sit back and wait for the others to fall back into their grasp.

[Armco Bender]

Who's going to tell the 20 guys that do the tyres changes for each car that their down the job centre then?.

[ensign14]

What happened to them in '05?

[browney]

I don't understand why the soft tyres haven't been designed so that they are actually soft enough that they are significantly quicker but degrade more.

Bridgestone should be criticised for the soft tyre lasting on Sebastian's car until the last lap. Surely they can make a qualifying type tyre that only lasts 15 or so laps before it started to be worth a pit stop? If they did that and then removed the rule of having to use more than one tyre type you could have all sorts of strategies and driving styles.




On that, I thought Bridgestone said they were going to have bigger performance differences between the tyres this year. Why were Sebastian's tyres not completely stuffed and slow after nearly the whole race distance?

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Marbot

...
I was thinking how much better the Monza race would have been if no one had to stop for tyres. As it was, the main passing manoeuvre was effectively done in the pits.
...

Exactly how much better would the race have been? They would have been going around and around and around then, holding their position. I just dont see how it would have been any better at all.

[WapFlap]

Originally Posted by browney

On that, I thought Bridgestone said they were going to have bigger performance differences between the tyres this year. Why were Sebastian's tyres not completely stuffed and slow after nearly the whole race distance?

They have said that, but due to safety reasons they didn't brought the supersoft to Monza.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by browney

I don't understand why the soft tyres haven't been designed so that they are actually soft enough that they are significantly quicker but degrade more.

Bridgestone should be criticised for the soft tyre lasting on Sebastian's car until the last lap. Surely they can make a qualifying type tyre that only lasts 15 or so laps before it started to be worth a pit stop? If they did that and then removed the rule of having to use more than one tyre type you could have all sorts of strategies and driving styles.




On that, I thought Bridgestone said they were going to have bigger performance differences between the tyres this year. Why were Sebastian's tyres not completely stuffed and slow after nearly the whole race distance?

Yep, couldn't agree more with all of this.

We can't just slap a "no manditory pit stop" rule on this season or the next, because the soft tyre will just be the obvious choice as they can clearly last a full race, which seems completely stupid and beside the point.

Pirelli need to make a worse soft tyre, but then this goes against company image. It's tough.

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Wims

Exactly how much better would the race have been? They would have been going around and around and around then, holding their position. I just dont see how it would have been any better at all.

I did say "no one 'had' to stop for tyres", rather than 'no one could have stopped for tyres'. The option being still open to them.

[Pingguest]

With the current tyres being standardized, a ban on mid-race tyre changes won't influence the racing that much. The sole tyre supplier will always keep a large safety margin, hence tyres that will easily last the entire race. This year the harder compounds could do the entire race, although the rules didn't mandate that.

However, as a part of the low-grip and high-downforce Formula 1, I think non-spec, durable all-weather tyres should be introduced. Without mid-race refuelling, such a rule would make races far less predictable.

[Pingguest]

The 2005 European Grand Prix. What a spectacle that was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHjeAS7HQbg

Also, with pit stops the 1981 Spanish Grand Prix would've ended quite differently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMbZ9noibxQ

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Wims

Exactly how much better would the race have been? They would have been going around and around and around then, holding their position. I just dont see how it would have been any better at all.

They might have tried to, say, overtake? Rather than just sit there making no attempt and pit-stopping their way past the car in front? Is that really spellbinding racing?

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I kind of likes the no stop rule, but I'd do it slightly differently.

Get rid of the mandatory pit stop. Have a couple (or more) compounds to chose from. One will almost do a race. One almost half. Or there abouts, so that opinions change from track to track, different weather conditions, style of car and driver.

With any luck sometimes we'll end up with Jerez 1986.

I just can't understand why they don't try to do this.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by ensign14

They might have tried to, say, overtake? Rather than just sit there making no attempt and pit-stopping their way past the car in front? Is that really spellbinding racing?

I would think they had too much to lose by trying to overtake and then possibly crash, so I imagine there would be no serious overtaking attempts, at least not unless the guy infront made an error. F1 teams arent racing to capture the hearts and minds of the public, they are racing to win titles.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ensign14

The opposite. You would get tons more late on in the race as those who had been careful would pour it on.

Imagine no tyre changes at Monza. Alonso would have had to pass Button for the lead. Vettel and Webber would have had to race for position. And so on.

It would be preferable to see the action on the track. Limit the wings so that the cars can actually race one another, then Wims statement that tyre changes are just an artificial prop to racing is completely true. Currently however pit stops are about the only way of shuffling the order, and that is not what GP racing should be about!