Starting places are usually finishing places, with some exceptions further down. Snooze-fest. They’ve got to control costs and make more cars competitive. If F1 is dominated by 2 teams what’s the point????
George Russell gets his first win in Formula 1
- Thread starter Reggaemon
- Start date
Number one should be to get rid of the tire rules. Nutso imho
Interesting how opinions on Stroll have made a 180º change this year
Stroll's seat is guaranteed as long as his dad owns the team. It is good to see him and Alonso doing well this first race.
In F1 it's always been 80% car 20% driver.
In F1 it's always been 80% car 20% driver.
Yep, he did pretty well considering he didn't get much practice, he's recently injured, and is probably running most of Alonso's setup. So he kept Alsonso in sight for the first race which is pretty good really.
I like Aston's/Lawrence's moves to put the team and Stroll beside experienced world champion drivers. I assume Vettel was pretty easy to get along with, but Alonso will be more of a test to see how badly Lance wants this.
No, regardless of his injury, 2 months ago he was considered a spoiled rich kid and the only reason he's in F1 is because "daddy" owns the team (not my opinion of him - these are typical examples).
Yeah, its true for sure, Lance probably wouldn't still be in F1 if it wasn't for the money he brings, and F1 is a bit of an echo chamber, after all only a couple years ago nobody wanted Alonso.... Also I fear a bit of interference from Liberty Media on what the narrative is for some teams and drivers.
There's no question on why Alonso is racing and what he is about though, and it gives the team lots of motivation to make a good car for him, instead of a not very inspiring pay driver.... And if he keeps Alonso in sight then its also shows Lance is a pretty decent driver too.
The tire rules are the only reason why F1 races are as competitive as they are. Every major motorsport series, be it on two or four wheels, has gone to a single tire manufacturer with a controlled set of constructions and compounds for a reason.
This stuff is more boring than NASCAR these days.
F1 should be required to race exclusively in the rain, those are the only remotely entertaining races.
F1 should be required to race exclusively in the rain, those are the only remotely entertaining races.
What is The Reason?
Yours is not the first time I have read this with zero real explanation. Just "for a reason".........
SO - let's break it down.
IMHO the reason is the race should not be just about tires. I get that. Say one team discovers a compound that is the ultimate grip and dominates for years. So everyone must use the same compound, or within a range of compounds.
I have to run out right now, so won't type a bunch more, but will say this:
I think it's very stupid and limiting for teams to start a brand new season and have to use USED tires in any of the categories (S-M-H-etc) So at the very least have as many new tires available in each. Plus requiring them to use two or whatever of each category, just seems silly.
Point: The tire rules need to change. The sport is boring enough, and contrary to the goal - these rules make it less competitive and cutting edge.
I have no idea what you're saying here. They 'have to use used tires'?
If you have more than one manufacturer supplying tires, and let's say there are two brands and there is an even split in teams between them, then there will always be one brand which works better on any given track. Which means that no matter how fast a car or driver is, they will be handicapped to a certain degree, and that sucks from a competition and 'The Show' standpoint. No matter how amazing a driver is or how incredible a car is, if they are saddled with lesser tires than their competition there is no way to drive differently or set up a car differently to gain that disadvantage back.
In the years when there were more than one tire supplier, usually one was dominant. When Goodyear was king, and Bridgestone came in in '97, nobody on Bridgestones stood a chance. They were usually the lower-half of the lineup anyway, but being hampered by their tires didn't help anything. '98 was a good year for McLaren and Bridgestone over the Goodyear runners. When Michelin came in in '01, Ferrari contracted a special arrangement with Bridgestone, got tires made to fit their chassis setup and quirks, while everyone else got scraps, and the races were runaways. Boring. Michelin made a great F1 tire but they couldn't keep up with the Bridgestone/Ferrari partnership. Once F1 introduced Bridgestone control tires in 2008, all of Ferrari's advantage went away and it became a race of cars and drivers and NOT who has better tires and who doesn't.
Same thing happened in MotoGP and World Superbike. Once everyone was rolling on the same brand (but given choices to use) the runaways happened a whole lot less and the racing got a whole lot better.
Sure it would be nice to see multiple tire brands out there but 'tire wars' in any series are expensive for everyone involved. IIRC, Michelin stated at one point years ago that they would consider coming back to F1 but only if they were the only supplier because it was cheaper to give everyone the same thing than to compete with another brand and have to re-engineer their race tires every week.
I think F1 has done a great job giving teams tire choices and ways to maximize what they have to work with and making it part of the show. Being the sole tire supplier is less expensive for Pirelli, less expensive for the teams, and makes competition better. There is no downside.
In the years when there were more than one tire supplier, usually one was dominant. When Goodyear was king, and Bridgestone came in in '97, nobody on Bridgestones stood a chance. They were usually the lower-half of the lineup anyway, but being hampered by their tires didn't help anything. '98 was a good year for McLaren and Bridgestone over the Goodyear runners. When Michelin came in in '01, Ferrari contracted a special arrangement with Bridgestone, got tires made to fit their chassis setup and quirks, while everyone else got scraps, and the races were runaways. Boring. Michelin made a great F1 tire but they couldn't keep up with the Bridgestone/Ferrari partnership. Once F1 introduced Bridgestone control tires in 2008, all of Ferrari's advantage went away and it became a race of cars and drivers and NOT who has better tires and who doesn't.
Same thing happened in MotoGP and World Superbike. Once everyone was rolling on the same brand (but given choices to use) the runaways happened a whole lot less and the racing got a whole lot better.
Sure it would be nice to see multiple tire brands out there but 'tire wars' in any series are expensive for everyone involved. IIRC, Michelin stated at one point years ago that they would consider coming back to F1 but only if they were the only supplier because it was cheaper to give everyone the same thing than to compete with another brand and have to re-engineer their race tires every week.
I think F1 has done a great job giving teams tire choices and ways to maximize what they have to work with and making it part of the show. Being the sole tire supplier is less expensive for Pirelli, less expensive for the teams, and makes competition better. There is no downside.
Yes. They are allocated tires for Qual and the race. The requirement is to use 2 types in any race, sometimes yes they must switch to a previously used set.
Well stated, but F1 better do something to increase the competition and lower the boredom. I content the tire rules should be tweaked.
I fully get the one manufacturer.
I mean I did write "IMHO the reason is the race should not be just about tires. I get that. Say one team discovers a compound that is the ultimate grip and dominates for years. So everyone must use the same compound, or within a range of compounds."
But some of the sub rules, don't add much - and detract. If there are 5 tire choices, then let teams which ones they want to use and not mandate they use 2 different types (M-H, for example) in the race.
I fully get the one manufacturer.
I mean I did write "IMHO the reason is the race should not be just about tires. I get that. Say one team discovers a compound that is the ultimate grip and dominates for years. So everyone must use the same compound, or within a range of compounds."
But some of the sub rules, don't add much - and detract. If there are 5 tire choices, then let teams which ones they want to use and not mandate they use 2 different types (M-H, for example) in the race.
The tire compound they qualify on in final qualifying (the fastest 10) is the compound they must start the race on. And then during the race they must use an "alternate" tire, a different compound tire. The compounds provided on race weekends are determined by the tire supplier, Pirelli in this case. There are three compounds provided for each race, not including rain tires. This is done to add strategy into the race, making it more of a team sport. Most races see at least two pit stops so we're talking three sets of tires to complete the race, at least two different compounds. A car is required to make just one pit stop so it can use two compounds, but that never seems to work out because the loss of pace during long stints on the same tires is greater than the cost of a pit stop. Each team gets the same number of tire sets and types. Tires are used for strategic reasons, like how fast the car is on a certain compound, determining how long that compound will last at race pace or with different fuel loads, and of course tires are used to set the cars up mechanically and aerodynamically. With the exception of the top 10 in qualifying, teams starting in 11-20 can start on any compound, not just the one they qualified on (but sometime during the race they must use the compound they qualified on). Teams are not required to use the different compounds in the same order (except the top 10 qualifiers must start the race on the same compound they qualified on, but that could be a new set they "saved" and hadn't yet used over the course of the weekend). Teams do not have an unlimited supply of tires so they must use them wisely, and that sometimes means using a used tire set during the race, but a set which may only have 3 or 4 laps on it from earlier in the weekend. I do not recall there ever being a situation where a car started the race on new tires and had new sets for the subsequent pit stops. Getting maximum speed out of the car is essential and that means the teams need all the tires they are allotted for Friday and Saturday practice and qualifying. This is why used tires are often used. Strategy.
Scott
Last edited:
Thank you. Well stated.
Thanks, Pablo. I updated my post a couple of times. Your quote may not include those updates.
Scott
The tire rules just seem arbitrary........have to change tires (other compound) to comply with a rule? Meh. It just doesn't add to the race, IMHO.
I hear you and don't disagree. Back in my day when I first started watching F1 (late 60s), tires had to last the distance. A pit stop would knock a driver completely out of contention. Brakes had to be conserved too. And cars were less reliable in general so a driver who was gentle with his machinery usually finished well up in the order.
Back then an F1 race was like a chess game of bold moves versus damage control. Do you go for speed and push your car to its limits or do you conserve your car so that it finishes? Right before your eyes you could see cars, brakes, and tires degrade or fail. You could see the guy who better managed his race pace sneak up and pass the leader, who now had tire ply fabric showing on his tires or brakes that were completely fried.
Today's F1 is now so fast paced and wild the races are more like nighttime gun fights at the OK Corral where you're not sure what's going on or what's going to happen next. Of course it's exciting, but is it really better?
Scott
Similar threads
