Quote:
Originally Posted by jimclark
Which confirms my suggestion that going back to old school, harder, race-lasting tires (tyres?) would be a good thang....  |
I think that more durable tires would be a good thing. Maybe tire manufactures should be allowed to show what they can do vs the series mandating particular characteristics? And I don't think this requires a tire war to result in a better tire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl
but doesnt a more durable tire mean a slower car?
i do like the notion of a lower/thinner gauge tire as suggested by LH in that article...many wont like that though as i assume it will mean more pit stops will be necessary.
|
It might or it might not. So based upon your comment (and my lack of knowledge of what a "thinner gauge tire" means, I tried to find out what the backstory is. I also didn't know if this meant more pit stops due to a durability hit. I found this article from a number of months back...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...22739/1400291/
My interpretation is that the FIA has VERY specific ideas of what the tire should do and that also includes thickness of the rubber and overall weight. It sounds like to me that Pirelli said "we can do better... please let us build something slightly different" and then the FIA allowed them to do that for three events. So the result is a slightly thinner tire (that is also lighter), but has similar durability but less issues with blistering. It may not work everywhere, but it sounds like they clearly can do better. Which may be why the drivers are asking for this tire to be used more.
So the point here is that better solutions exist, but Pirelli have their hands tied. Maybe this success will adjust thinking by the FIA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremySmith
I don't to watch racing where the team spends $350 Million a year and has to crawl around during on their tyres...
Less emphasis on engineering and a lot more on the talent of the driver...
|
And to my points above, this is less about "engineering" creating this problem, but rather the rules makers creating a spec tire that creates this problem. In a sense, this problem is the result of anti-engineering. The FIA trying to manipulate things to create specific scenarios. In short, they are playing games with durability in an attempt to "try" to spice things up. But instead of teams suddenly finding "oh no, our performance is dropping off, we need to pit (with associated impacts to on-track positions... i.e. the FIA goal here)", they have figured out the tires performance window and avoid running in the range (i.e. running them as hard as the car is capable of doing) that creates problems. So they have done the math to determine it is better to motor around at a less than full pace than run fast and pit for new tires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer65
There are plenty of series where there is more emphasis on the driver but F1 is every bit as much about engineering as it is driving.
|
Agree. I think F1 should remain a mixture of engineering and driver. I think the problem these days is less about the engineering overshadows the driver than it is about disparity in engineering solutions (haves and have nots). Hence, great drivers can't overcome their inferior equipment (Alonso for example). For me it is the disparity that needs to be addressed. We can all say we love competition, etc. but its no fun to watch if everyone gets stomped on a regular basis.
Richard