How about going back to no tyre changes?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Wims

F1 teams arent racing to capture the hearts and minds of the public, they are racing to win titles.

And that's the real shame of it all. Why don't they do it behind closed doors?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

And that's the real shame of it all. Why don't they do it behind closed doors?

Marbot I am shocked....

Team orders!
Stewards decisions!
Race Directors calls!
Decisions to switch parts!
The mechanic on the rear wheel...

Of course they do ... more so than on the track

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Spritle

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

Indeed it did. Monaco was a thriller as it wore on, as was Nurburgring and countless other races.

Only people that didn't enjoy that year were Ferrari fans.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by 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?.

They spend the rest of their weekend as engineers, truck drivers and support staff, and being involved in the pitstops will only be one of their many many jobs over a GP weekend.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by steve_r

They spend the rest of their weekend as engineers, truck drivers and support staff, and being involved in the pitstops will only be one of their many many jobs over a GP weekend.

Steve Matchett used to get very upset when his mates said he only worked for seven seconds on a Sunday afternoon. To read his book he actually did something like 18 hours a day 6.5 days a week 48 weeks a year and for most of that was hundreds or thousands of miles from home living in a hotel room.

[Woolley]

Another thought. Tyres that last the full race don't create as many marbles off-line, effectively making passing easier.

[ECW Dan Selby]

How about tyres that wear without marbling? Or is this impossible?

Selby

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Indeed it did. Monaco was a thriller as it wore on, as was Nurburgring and countless other races.

Only people that didn't enjoy that year were Ferrari fans.

Yea, a safety car and Kimi leading from pole and winning and a crash from a flat spotted tyre that could have been catastrophic was thrilling. Is that avatar of yours effecting your ideas of thrilling?

Maybe we should bring back the aggregate qualifying time to the mix and really reminisce how great 2005 was.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I was going to say, the more I hear about 2005 (even though I did watch most of it), the more I want to re-watch it.

Selby

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The thing for tyre manufacturers about tyres not being seen to be rubbish, is down to how the manufacturer presents the issue.

What's wrong with clearly stating...

We are designing several compounds of tyre to do different things. That way when they do as they say on the tin, there is no loss of face for the manufacturer.

Most races are of similar lengths (total distance not laps) these days it's easier to work in percentages from the start with full fuel and percentage from the end where they should be on minimum.
I'd also get rid of the starting on the same tyre nonsense, giving everyone freedom of strategy.

So for me I'd like to see compounds that work like these....

Compound A = Good for 25% from start and 50% measuring back from end of race.
Compound B = Good for 15% from start and 40% measuring back from end of race.

This would lead to a variety of 2 stop strategies, which depending on the traffic, grid position etc would create good racing.

[duke_toaster]

That would be good, as it would make the 2-stop strategy viable again.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The thing for tyre manufacturers about tyres not being seen to be rubbish, is down to how the manufacturer presents the issue.

What's wrong with clearly stating...

We are designing several compounds of tyre to do different things. That way when they do as they say on the tin, there is no loss of face for the manufacturer.

Most races are of similar lengths (total distance not laps) these days it's easier to work in percentages from the start with full fuel and percentage from the end where they should be on minimum.
I'd also get rid of the starting on the same tyre nonsense, giving everyone freedom of strategy.

So for me I'd like to see compounds that work like these....

Compound A = Good for 25% from start and 50% measuring back from end of race.
Compound B = Good for 15% from start and 40% measuring back from end of race.

This would lead to a variety of 2 stop strategies, which depending on the traffic, grid position etc would create good racing.

I always thought this exact same thing, but I think it's more about being perceived as "being the best". Everything's meant to be the pinnacle, so having Bridgestone and their ever-lasting tyres followed by Pirelli and their degrading early tyres would be a bit of a no competition as far as the perception from Joe Public goes.

Selby

[F.O.F.]

Ehh, Spirtle. Suzuka '05; maybe you didn't enjoy it but I distinctly remember it being one of the best races of the last decade...

Anywho, I'd agree with those saying remove the mandatory stop rule and bring 3 or more compounds to a weekend, the hardest of which will be good for about 80-85% of the race and will keep it's structure for 100%. The softest would be basically glue in the shape of a tyre.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Yea, a safety car and Kimi leading from pole and winning and a crash from a flat spotted tyre that could have been catastrophic was thrilling. Is that avatar of yours effecting your ideas of thrilling?

Maybe we should bring back the aggregate qualifying time to the mix and really reminisce how great 2005 was.

Loads of overtaking at Monaco, Alonso trying to fend off the Williams'.

And Kimi not looking after his car and the tension of whether he'd finish or not.

What's not to like?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Loads of overtaking at Monaco, Alonso trying to fend off the Williams'.

And Kimi not looking after his car and the tension of whether he'd finish or not.

What's not to like?

It's the same reason why some don't like 'fuel economy runs', I think.

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

I always thought this exact same thing, but I think it's more about being perceived as "being the best". Everything's meant to be the pinnacle, so having Bridgestone and their ever-lasting tyres followed by Pirelli and their degrading early tyres would be a bit of a no competition as far as the perception from Joe Public goes.

Selby

Well based on my perceptions and past experience this statement couldn't ring any truer.

I had Pirelli's ONCE and they wore out so quick I never bought and never will buy Pirelli's again. I expect a similar result when they come to F1. On the other hand, F1 had a direct influence on my decision to try Bridgestone and I couldn't be any happier. Maybe Bridgestone won't get rich on my tyre purchases but they have loyal customer with three cars.

Did I mention why I didn't drive on Michelin rubber...?

Joe Q. Public

[neiltb]

lots of banked corners on your commute?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by neiltb

lots of right hand banked corners on your commute?

Fixed.

I had Pirelli's ONCE and they wore out so quick I never bought and never will buy Pirelli's again. I expect a similar result when they come to F1. On the other hand, F1 had a direct influence on my decision to try Bridgestone and I couldn't be any happier. Maybe Bridgestone won't get rich on my tyre purchases but they have loyal customer with three cars.

Did I mention why I didn't drive on Michelin rubber...?

Joe Q. Public

Funnily enough I run Michelins on my car, purchased for the same F1 inspired reasons, although my dislike of and refusal to use Bridgestone is more deep rooted and goes back to a dislike of the days of Bridgestone / Schumacher / Ferrari.

I have not needed to buy tyres since Michelin dropped out of F1!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It's the same reason why some don't like 'fuel economy runs', I think.

They're hardly the same thing!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It's the same reason why some don't like 'fuel economy runs', I think.

My thoughts exactly....

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

They're hardly the same thing!

I disagree. Drivers will have to choose for a given strategy. They can push it in the first part of the race and slow down in the later stages of the race, or visa versa, or drive 'on average'.

Not that it'd be a bad thing, quite the opposite. Recently I watched the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix. It was considered as a 'fuel economy run', but it seemed to have more on-track passing than the 2010 races all together.