Possible New Tyre Rules

[www.autosport.com]

Formula 1 teams have agreed to introduce an extra strategic element to races this season by forcing leading drivers to start races on the same tyres that they qualified on, AUTOSPORT can reveal.


I'm on the fence with F1 at the moment and I might fall the other way, what's your opinion on this?

will make for some good starts on shot tyres. also, if it saves money, i don't see the problem.
you're gonna see drivers caning it in quali and killing their tyres and sliding down.

so the driver who gets the best balance out of speed and kindness to tyres will get pole and still retain an advantage in the race.
it'll pan out fine, nout to worry 'bout.

its artificial. let the best cars/best drivers fight for the win equally.

I.Tz No Problem
For all your home and business I.T needs
[www.itznoproblem.com]
enquiry@itznoproblem.com

rapid_f1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its artificial. let the best cars/best drivers
> fight for the win equally.
This Exactly.

If it turns out that the championship or important races are lost because Driver A qualified worse than Driver B and gained from doing so, it already cheapens the win to me.

Why?

Nothing matters but the race. Why should a qualifying result cheapen a race result?

The general belief was that the teams would start on the harder of the two compounds, then at the end of the race use the softer when its more favourable (generally).

However now, a driver can qualify on the softer, get a persumably better grid spot and work strategy from there by doing an short first stint. If it opens strategy options I like it.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

yeah i think the new tyre rule does give the possibility to spice things up a little bit.

the one change i'm glad got blocked was the mandatory number of pit stops rule as it would have almost completely removed any need for tyre management.

i think the battle between those who can make their tyres last and those that can't is going to be one of the things to watch this year.

IMO they should get rid of using the both compounds rule, that would add more strategy than this. Everybody is on nearly the same strategy every race anyway. If you're stuck with one compound, you'll have a greater variance of strategies I think.

Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO they should get rid of using the both
> compounds rule, that would add more strategy than
> this. Everybody is on nearly the same strategy
> every race anyway. If you're stuck with one
> compound, you'll have a greater variance of
> strategies I think.

Agreed. I'd love to see drivers have the option of going through races non-stop.
When drivers had to stop anyway for fuel, the two-compound rule was fair enough. But now it restricts strategy and will make races seem unnecessarily complicated.

---

I think they should go back to the 97 tyre rules, where you choose one of the compounds,hard or soft, after the practice sessions, and you have to qualify and race on that.

Ooh yeah, 1997. When they made the tyres that much softer than they'd been in previous years, and we got some juicy tyre dramas as a result.
That kind of thing has been missing far too much in recent years.

Yeah, one compound for everyone each race would be a much better idea.

---

salvasirignano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they should go back to the 97 tyre rules,
> where you choose one of the compounds,hard or
> soft, after the practice sessions, and you have to
> qualify and race on that.

yes, that sounds like a good option.

If Bridgestone won't do it in 2010, let's hope whoever replaces them comes in with some good ideas like this (assuming we get a control tyre again)

---

X (@ed24f1)

y2cwr2005 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rapid_f1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > its artificial. let the best cars/best drivers
> > fight for the win equally.
> This Exactly.
>
> If it turns out that the championship or important
> races are lost because Driver A qualified worse
> than Driver B and gained from doing so, it already
> cheapens the win to me.

mates,
+1 from me.

Tyre compound selection should be absolutely free.
Each driver to choose the compound that fits better his driving style and his abilities to handle braking, tempratures and tyre wear.
No need for "both compounds" rule.
Instead of mixing up things and force the drivers to struggle at some part of every race, let them choose what tyres make each one faster and more competitive.
And more competiveness for all, is the key to boost the show, on a clear and fare basis.

_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...

I don't mind strategy options, but F1 is turning into a bit of a gimmick.

At least with fuel strategy it was because teams thought that was the fastest way of getting from the green to the chequer. When the Q3 qualifying load was introduced it was similar to this. Why? What will it actually bring? All the teams, once they've figured out the optimum strategy after a couple of races, will be doing exactly the same.

I just can't see how it will add anything to the sport, unless you have a Melbourne style tyre drop off early in race, but Bridgestone tweaked the compound options to avoid that.

Gav, important word you mentioned.

Optimum.

When is the optimum optimum? When all things are normal (i guess would be the easiest way of saying it). How often does this happen in F1? What influence could a saftey car have?

It gives say a team not performing that weekend a possible grid boost compared to the others. Though perhaps its not the most favourable race strategy it could put the driver into a better fighting posistion.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Yes Chet, but that's fuel, where you've a much great range for potential. Here you've got sod all range - you either go soft or hard, and how many laps you choose to do in Q3. Hardly much scope for an 'unoptimal' strategy.

I just can't see how this would add anything after the first few races. Everyone will end up doing exactly the same.

Even more pointlessly, it applies to the whole of the top 10. Sort of does nothing to add excitement to the end of the grid fighting for wins, because it applies to all of them.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes Chet, but that's fuel, where you've a much
> great range for potential. Here you've got sod all
> range - you either go soft or hard, and how many
> laps you choose to do in Q3. Hardly much scope for
> an 'unoptimal' strategy.
>
> I just can't see how this would add anything after
> the first few races. Everyone will end up doing
> exactly the same.

Probably true but imo if a team does feel that they cant, say make the top 4 on merit, i generally think they could gamble the soft, if only to get grid posistion.

Monaco aswell is the obvious interesting one.

Grid posistion or endurance?

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

wow most of you are such killjoys, are you secretly fans of James Allen? because all I see when somebody tries to improve the entertainment value of F1, because lets face it, without rain it is a borefest, you try to shoot it down.

F1 isn't solely about entertainment. If we wanted a "more entertaining" series, we'd all be clamouring for a random "flood track" button on the pit wall, or paintball snipers on the sidelines trying to hit the drivers' visors.

F1 is a business masquerading as a sport. Whether you prefer it as a business or a sport, the 'entertainment factor' should be LOW on the agenda of either.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.