Tire management has been here since 70s but not to this degree and what's the point of
stopping twice? if a driver is 20 seconds ahead he still will be after. Now if they didn't limit fuel like their going to it could be fun.
The F1 2014 season
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Tire management has been here since 70s but not to this degree and what's the point of
stopping twice? if a driver is 20 seconds ahead he still will be after. Now if they didn't limit fuel like their going to it could be fun.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Please ignore.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Why would derestricting fuel capacity improve racing? They already underfuel to gain performance.
No it hasn't. In the the 70s they were still running tyres which would sometimes be raced for several events.
If that is the case, along with the new pitstop and tyres rule we actually could see drivers pushing rather than conserving tyres.
But what they give with one hand, they take away with the other, as they would force everyone onto the same strategy. Everyone doing a 2 stop, and with everyone pitting at the same time. There's only a 10% excess (2x 30% and 1x 50%), which in a 50 lap race would be just 5 laps, split between 2 stops so 2.5 laps, or in reality 2 laps per pit window. So in a 50 lap race a option, option, prime strategy would see drivers forced to pit between laps 14 and 16, and laps 24 and 26.
And what the hell happens if you get a puncture 15% into the race having started on primes? You have to pit, but cant do the rest of the race (85%) with 1 more stop as you need to run an option stint at 30% max, leaving you 55% of the race left with primes you can only use for 50%?
Its massively over complicating things just to keep the 2 compound rule, which is retarded and useless as its designed to mandate pit stops, but they are mandating them anyway? The simpler solution is remove the tyre link between qualifying and the race, and allow them to run any of the 2 compounds in the race. But say they must stop twice.
And leave on a different compound tyre than the one they entered the pits on or whatever they choose?
I am hoping that the drop in downforce and the increase in torque may mean a few more slides from the rear tyres when they mash the go pedal and the extra boost comes in. Doubt it though.
I am hoping that the drop in downforce and the increase in torque may mean a few more slides from the rear tyres when they mash the go pedal and the extra boost comes in. Doubt it though.
No restrictions lets have pure racing for a season or two.
Tires should not say who will win or lose i.e PDR\force india was doing great and RBS was not running away to a win.
Then they changed it now PDR will be lucky to get a drive next year and RBS was gifted the wdc\wcc.
Give the car back to the drivers bring a spending cap in or F1 will die.
This is just my opinion but I can't wait to see the world viewing figures
Really? well I'm just watching from 1962(German GP) again and oh look they changed the tires
Will let you know when I get to 1970s which will take a few weeks
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Really? well I'm just watching from 1962(German GP) again and oh look they changed the tires
They changed tyres in the race (depending on conditions, though only if the conditions absolutely demanded it), but the tyres themselves were usually used in the following events, usually for practice, sometimes in the race.
Cool, thx
No restrictions lets have pure racing for a season or two.
Tires should not say who will win or lose i.e PDR\force india was doing great and RBS was not running away to a win.
Then they changed it now PDR will be lucky to get a drive next year and RBS was gifted the wdc\wcc.
Give the car back to the drivers bring a spending cap in or F1 will die.
This is just my opinion but I can't wait to see the world viewing figures
You want no restrictions, but a spending cap, but also the car given back to the drivers, but want unpredictable exploding tyres. Royal Bank of Scotland are the champions, and the global viewing figures are somehow linked to something in the mess you just typed?
Come again?
So it is YOU that tries to cause arguments here by re-writing a post
Where did I say "exploding tyres" that's right no where.
Where did I mention banks? that's right no where.
Give the car back to the driver=less aero
No restrictions=Have tires that can do a quali lap many times and they can have as much fuel as they like.
Do away with false overtaking like DRS and kers.
Cap on spending= All teams wanted this but red bull vetoed it. But do away with aero and that will save a bomb.
The viewing figures have everything to do with the way they race. No racing no viewers F1 dies.
Simple really but I forgot that you are the one with the bad attitude with members here.
Yes I read your posts in GD you even had a go when people tried to help you and even they gave up. Now grow up.
But he said he didn't mention the banks?
How does a restriction on spending and a restriction on aero fit with making the formula unrestricted?
And how did Red Bull veto the spending cap when in 2008 they were a midfield team with only a podium to their name?
How does a restriction on spending and a restriction on aero fit with making the formula unrestricted?
And how did Red Bull veto the spending cap when in 2008 they were a midfield team with only a podium to their name?
Last edited:
Many times and many links have been post in many threads about RBS and not wanting a cap.
No aero and the car behind can get up close to over take and real racing drivers can race.
With all the crap and lies from horner over the years RBS stands for Red Bull ****
Why did you ask if it was a typo when I said what it meant or which part of
"With all the crap and lies from horner over the years RBS stands for Red Bull ****"
don't you understand and I will try to explain it
As I've already said many links..many posts already posted in this section.