Bahrain Grand Prix 2012, Sakhir - Race 4/20

Mr Men said:
So even back then tyres were needing to be managed in racing.
Click to expand...

but the difference back then was that Prost dictated his own pace, he chose to save the life of the tyres until the end of the stint rather than use it up early. Even if he had thrashed the tyres there was no 'cliff' that meant he suddenly went 5 seconds a lap slower after 10 laps, it was a gradual decline.

Today, Pirelli are the ones dictating the pace because their tyres are rubbish and the tyres basically have no life to do anything except cruise around like a Sunday driver.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Today, Pirelli are the ones dictating the pace because their tyres are rubbish and the tyres basically have no life to do anything except cruise around.
Click to expand...

At Bahrain maybe, but even then we seen Kimi go from 11th to 2nd, not much cruising around I thought, we seen Perez storm it in Malaysia also.
 
dannyjo22 said:
That is very interesting and the first time I've heard that they actually got a different bridgestone to the rest and far more expensive.

I know it's always said that MS had a different car to his team mates but how the hell did they get away with better tyres than the other bridgestone runners.
Click to expand...

It was well known that Ferrari and Bridgestone worked very closely with each other, it was suspected that they had an advantage and this confirms what a lot of people said/thought
 
Ferrari did nothing wrong, Michelin worked very close with Williams too, I remember Williams helping McLaren getting to grips with Michelin's then when Dennis stole JPM Sir Frank said they would never help them again.
 
deuse said:
True to a point what's he is forgetting to say is that the tires did not change every race and it never took a team half a season to get used to them.
Click to expand...

Surely though, it is up to a driver to adapt to the different tyres which are being thrown at him.

In 2012, this is what separates the best drivers from the lesser drivers. The ability to adapt and take care of their machinery is now very important. Alonso and Vettel are very good in these areas, which is why, we see them do well.

No longer is it about single lap, balls-to-the-wall pace (which was the case when Senna was around).

Personally, I like the fact that drivers are being made to work really hard now, for their £millions.
 
I still don't understand why people are saying that a tyre that would last the whole race will create stale racing? They do this in MotoGP and the majority of the pack remain close and many overtakes happen, after-all, it's not like the tyres last year stopped Vettel creating a huge lead.

Perhaps make super durable tyres but have a mandatory pitstop where they have to change tyres (not compound though unless they want to). Stop this stupid rule about having to race on the tyre you qualify on and perhaps even say when the pitstop has to happen, i.e. between lap x and y. That would create some interesting inter-team tactics as well as interesting tactics across the field.

As I said earlier it is a very odd situation to be in where you are being penalised if you go too fast. Vettel must hate it not being allowed to go for fastest lap.
 
If you have a tyre that lasts the whole race, it has to last way way past a race distance, so it doesn't degrade in speed at all.. otherwise it will be just the same as having tyres going off during a stint and be no different.
 
It would be a lot better to see what drivers had the stamina to do 70 qualifying laps though.

Bring back the qualifying tire too. All this for cost reductions is stupid because the big teams just channel the cost elsewhere anyway.
 
the 2005 endurance tyre did not seem to make thinks all that great? they are so hard it just causes the drivers to moan even more :D
 
desires said:
I still don't understand why people are saying that a tyre that would last the whole race will create stale racing? They do this in MotoGP and the majority of the pack remain close and many overtakes happen, after-all, it's not like the tyres last year stopped Vettel creating a huge lead.
Click to expand...
Thats nothing to do with the tyres but the fact their machinery has near zero aero influence on the rider behind.

Also their races are far more shorter (not much longer than a long F1 stint) and you still have tyre management in the last quarter of the race...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
sunama said:
Personally, I like the fact that drivers are being made to work really hard now, for their £millions.
Click to expand...

but they aren't unless you classify 'working hard' as driving steadily to preserve what little life the tyres have in them, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport if you haven't noticed driving at less than 100% should not even come into it.
 
I honestly think the tyres were brought in to create artificial over takes etc (when drivers tyres fall off the cliff) same as the DRS because of the aero problems. The aero problems have been pretty much sorted. The crazy tyres are not needed any more. Quali is giving a better indication of where teams actually are in pace. The race just seems so random.
 
mmj_uk said:
but they aren't unless you classify 'working hard' as driving steadily to preserve what little life the tyres have in them, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport if you haven't noticed driving at less than 100% should not even come into it.
Click to expand...

How about all the fuel saving they do as well? why is that not taking away from racing?
 
If the drivers aren't able to drive at 100% pretty much all the time, then something's wrong. The fastest way to drive the race should be 100%, with tyre degradation and pit stops associated with that pace not so high as to make driving at 80% a faster way to complete.

It seems today that the fastest way to complete the race is to drive at 80% with 3/4 stops. If the driver was at 100% the whole time, they'd end up with 5 or 6 stops and a much slower total time. That's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom