Bahrain Grand Prix 2012, Sakhir - Race 4/20

clv101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Disagree - it should be about as equal as possible, neither style should be significantly advantaged.

The ideal place to be is where the guy going 110% but taking an extra stop, really does need to be at 110% otherwise he might slip behind the guy who is driving at 90% but is making his machinery last better for him and saving himself the need of an extra stop whilst the guy at 90% really does need to be careful or he'll falter at the last hurdle as his machinery begins to feel the pressure.

The styles should compete, rather than one or the other be a complete waste of time to even try, they are equally valid styles of racing and having both sensibly competitive makes for fantastic racing as you watch the two strategies converge at the end of the race.
 
werent they on about introducing a fuel budget for the years races? which will make races even slower

almost every comment on james allens blog is against the tyres to

btw vergnes last stop shows what happens if you try and go flat out
verp.gif

ROFL
 
Last edited:
clv101 said:
.

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.
Click to expand...


dont forget the increase in dimensions of the fuel cell (and therefore the car) to hold the extra to alloow for 100% for the whole race would also increase the total race time, ontop of the additional pitting time you mentioned (and refueling time which I seem to recall was the bulk of the stationary pit stop time anyway)

Until the environment doesnt have an effect on the rules that is does now, we are stuck as it is

On top of this, the world financial climate forcing engines to be "frozen" for year upon year, and spending (on developments) in general to be frozen also doesnt help

Not saying its right, but its the way it is and will stay like that for a while (even the new engines from 2014 are more efficient than they are now)
 
Agreed FrankJH, external factors like the environment and finance are just starting to becoming too great for F1s bubble to ignore. Fans need to realise the paradigm shift and that what we once had is unlikely to come back even with the kinda money that moves through F1.

Those factors with reliability are getting to the point where they outweigh raw speed.

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
ps3ud0 said:
Agreed FrankJH, external factors like the environment and finance are just starting to becoming too great for F1s bubble to ignore. Fans need to realise the paradigm shift and that what we once had is unlikely to come back even with the kinda money that moves through F1.

Those factors with reliability are getting to the point where they outweigh raw speed.

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

eh? F1 doe sno damage to the environment. Agriculture produces 30% of the CO2, that is more than all transport together, and finance? If the teams can afford (which they can) then what's the problem? You don't solve the finance problems of the world by stopping big companies such as McL and Ferrari limit their spending.

I think the rest of the world needs to realise F1 is a bubble and will remain a bubble.
 
As is being said, drivers are not allowed to drive at 100%. They have drive at 80% BUT they have to use their heads on where and how they want to use up the rubber on their tyre. This is where the difficult and skill comes in.

What if we introduce a "super tyre" introduced.
In every GP, Pirelli should bring 3 tyres choices.
The standard 2, which we see these days. Then a super tyre. This tyre is super grippy. Lasts half as long. Is wider and allows drivers to go about 5s/lap faster than the other tyres.

What this will do, is give the option to a driver - if he dares - to use the super tyres throughout (and I can imagine Hamilton using these a lot) and pummeling in fastest lap times, then coming in for tyre changes, 5-6 times in a race. This way, drivers who choose to use this tyre, will have no option but to go at 100% in order to pull out a big enough advantage to take their next pitstop and still come out in front of the cars using the normal tyres.

I can't see any other way where a driver will be allowed to go flat out.
 
sunama said:
What this will do, is give the option to a driver - if he dares - to use the super tyres throughout (and I can imagine Hamilton using these a lot) and pummeling in fastest lap times, then coming in for tyre changes, 5-6 times in a race. This way, drivers who choose to use this tyre, will have no option but to go at 100% in order to pull out a big enough advantage to take their next pitstop and still come out in front of the cars using the normal tyres.

I can't see any other way where a driver will be allowed to go flat out.
Click to expand...

It would be GREAT to see, but I would think this might stress the engines and fuel economy far too much for it to be viable (within current rules)

Without considering the fact SO many more tyres would be used, and the 1000's extra that would have to be provided

Great idea though :D
 
I am really conflicted about the current state of F1. I love the exciting races where anything can happen and there is constant action in the race with lots of overtaking etc, but i also feel that F1 shouldn't be about driving around carefully to be kind to your tires, it should be about who can put their foot down, and launch the car around the track at the absolute maximum possible speed. The races are great fun to watch at the moment, but I feel that for example, if Senna was racing today he wouldn't be amazing like he was back in the day, he wouldn't be able to throw the car around the track at an extreme pace, as he would just destroy the tires and be beaten by essentially slower drivers.

I want the races to remain fun, but i also want the drivers to be at their maximum potential, i really don't know what needs to be done to be honest.
 
Kenai said:
Disagree - it should be about as equal as possible, neither style should be significantly advantaged.

The ideal place to be is where the guy going 110% but taking an extra stop, really does need to be at 110% otherwise he might slip behind the guy who is driving at 90% but is making his machinery last better for him and saving himself the need of an extra stop whilst the guy at 90% really does need to be careful or he'll falter at the last hurdle as his machinery begins to feel the pressure.

The styles should compete, rather than one or the other be a complete waste of time to even try, they are equally valid styles of racing and having both sensibly competitive makes for fantastic racing as you watch the two strategies converge at the end of the race.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. In a perfect world, the two different approaches should be comprable. It's a shame that gearbox and engine reliability requirements, and fuel limits as well as the tyres are all conspiring to favor the '80%' approach.
 
Kenai said:
Disagree - it should be about as equal as possible, neither style should be significantly advantaged.

The ideal place to be is where the guy going 110% but taking an extra stop, really does need to be at 110% otherwise he might slip behind the guy who is driving at 90% but is making his machinery last better for him and saving himself the need of an extra stop whilst the guy at 90% really does need to be careful or he'll falter at the last hurdle as his machinery begins to feel the pressure.

The styles should compete, rather than one or the other be a complete waste of time to even try, they are equally valid styles of racing and having both sensibly competitive makes for fantastic racing as you watch the two strategies converge at the end of the race.
Click to expand...

So you're essentially saying that smoother (slower) drivers should be given a handicap? why should a driver cruising at 90% of the cars capability be able to compete with someone giving 110%?

Before these rubbish tyres 'smooth' styles of driving were generally known as slow drivers (as pointed out Prost used to save his tyres which meant he would drive more slowly), but the current state of tyres actually rewards drivers who are slow and hinders those who are capable of going much faster.

Ideally, from a purely racing standpoint tyre wear should not even be a factor and if we're talking about F1 being economical and good for the environment, then surely a durable tyre should be what they're after? rather than muliple sets of rubbish tyres that get discarded after 15 laps.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the tyres degrade based on temp and usage style rather than distance.

The tyres should simply go off at a rate proportionate to the distance, not the speed/temp(those will obviously effect it but effect everyone at the same rate, and differently at each race/diff conditions). So that instead of the choice of 20 laps at 80% of the speed, or go 100% to catch up and pass someone, and then the tyres go completely off after 10 laps you simply have a tyre that just gets worse every lap give or take, till after 20 laps its worth getting new tyres rather than losing more times.

Meh, its just boring, 99% of overtaking, even with DRS is about fresh vs old tyres, and its not about straight line speed really, its simply about drive out of the corner onto a straight being so much faster on new tyres that you catch all the way down the straight and then DRS makes it stupidly easy.

For all intents and purposes we have what amounts to, faster cars and/or faster drivers being punished for driving fast.......... how on earth can that be the way the sport has gone. Should we punish football teams for winning by a bigger margin, give runners heavier shoes with soles that fall apart and need changing frequently unless you run slower. It's racing, I want to see racing, I want to see driver skill rule the day, I don't want to see tyres being what racing is about.

Older tyre system where there was a real genuine advantage to either running less stops and slower tyres, or more stops and faster tyres at least made a heck of a lot more sense than currently.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Older tyre system where there was a real genuine advantage to either running less stops and slower tyres, or more stops and faster tyres at least made a heck of a lot more sense than currently.
Click to expand...

Older tyre systems, didn't have qualifying rule, didn't have two tyre mandatory compound and also refueling. Untill the first two are gotten rid off then there's no point and then you still couldn't race flat out due to fuel.
 
Glaucus said:
...then there's no point and then you still couldn't race flat out due to fuel.
Click to expand...

This is why they need to make an uber soft tyre which is ridiculously quicker than the other tyres. Using those tyres, you need to make twice as many pitstops (minimum). If the tyre is about 5s/lap faster than the hardest tyre, then it should be close.

Drivers will have to decide whether to fill the tank to its maximum and then qualify and race with the uber soft tyre. They can drive to the limit, however, they still need to consider fuel as well as other parts of the car (if a car is driven to its limit for a whole race there is more chance of car failure).

So, before qualifying starts, the driver/team need to make a decision whether to risk (the uber soft tyre) or not. They also need to have a driver capable of driving a car to its limit for every lap of the race. Furthermore, if you get stuck behind a slower car for even 10% of the entire race distance (which is possible), the driver would be losing a heck of a lot of time and his strategy will be screwed. You also have to think about safety cars.

At present, what we have are 2 types of tyre for each race. All teams generally use the same strategy. They use the same tyres. They pit at the same time (within 1-2 laps of eachother). This creates a procession and no variation.

We all saw that when a few teams decided to take 2 stops (vs 3 stops), in the last race, it created excitement on the last lap. We saw Di Resta hanging on by a thread, to his position on the very last lap (vs Alonso on a 3 stopper). This sort of excitement is brought about by having varying strategies.
 
Another point.

What is people's opinion on Kimi?
Did he really do that well in the last race?
If you look at his rookie team-mate, he finished 7 seconds behind Kimi.

If you look at the team-mate battles:
Vettel finished about 39s ahead of Webber (RBR should thank their lucky stars they have Vettel)
Rosberg finished 16s ahead of his team-mate (MSc did well, considering he qualified so far behind)
Alonso finished 7s ahead of his team-mate (bear in mind that this is Massa's strongest track).

So, given the above, did Kimi really do "that" well OR was the Renault just a very quick car in Bahrain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom