Poll: British Grand Prix 2020, Silverstone - Race 4/?

[englishpremier]

https://wtf1.com/post/pirelli-has-r...0LVaA-vZfAJPu4RSuvAtWInP34WQw2i1fvs20wsxZiQu4

Pathetic really. Make a better tyre. They shouldn't just let go like that, there should be some feedback to the team/drivers that they have worn. Pirelli useless as ever.

I don't remember the tyres going pop during that time when Bridgestone had to make a single tyre last the entire GP distance.

The main criticism of Bridgestone was that they were far too conservative.

The tyres being a step softer and the higher pressures should have an interesting affect. Curious to see how it affects the teams. Especially Mercedes which seems to love the harder tyres more than the softs.

 

[Kenai]

Whilst there is merit to the idea they should have 'dropped off' rather than 'popped off', going back to this idea that Pirelli somehow can't make a tyre last a race is a complete nonsense - of course they could.

They don't, because they were asked not to. They've been asked specifically to create a range of compounds for the season that last to varying degrees, to suit the governing bodies attempts to force some interest into the sport when they demand teams run at least 2 compounds. I might be wrong but i've never seen anything to suggest that Pirelli were asked to make any of these compounds last a full distance on a particular circuit.

Ultimately, this is one of the reasons that tyre competition was interesting - it isn't a challenge to make a high performance tyre that will last a race distance, every major tyre manufacturer could do it, the challenge was to create one that lasted the race but was also better performing than the other brand. The downfall to that is if one brand was crap, you were screwed for the entire season.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I thought the reason they went pop was combination of wear and debris?

 

[Joxeon]

Well it spiced up what was quite a dull race to that point.

 

[deuse]

The last time a F1 car could push the whole race is when BridgeStone tires was used.

It just seams funny to me that all these tire problems over the years.
Not one was pirelli's fault ...yeh sure

 

[CaptainRAVE]

I thought the reason they went pop was combination of wear and debris?

Not according to Pirelli.

 

[pepp77]

Not according to Pirelli.

Their statement doesnt say that, it says the early change and the long running of the tyres left them more susceptible to the forces in play. This could be more susceptible to debris, more susceptible to cutting corners, they didn't say, nope the tyres just gave up.

 

[mmj_uk]

The problem is F1 has become too artificial.

The rubbish Pirelli tyres are a result of removing refuelling, in the past cars would run low fuel loads because it was faster and that would mean they would pit 2-3 times per race for fuel and throw on new tyres as a bonus. When you remove refuelling cars no longer have any reason to pit if the tyres are built to last, so then you have to go to someone like Pirelli and ask them to make tyres using floor scrapings and bring in compound rules just to ensure teams don't try to go a full race without pitting.

Things like KERS and DRS are also a result of banning refuelling because when everyone is on the same strategy and with the same fuel load, you aren't going to get very much overtaking.

I think most of F1's problems go back to the ban on refuelling.

 

[Kenai]

The last time a F1 car could push the whole race is when BridgeStone tires was used.

It just seams funny to me that all these tire problems over the years.
Not one was pirelli's fault ...yeh sure

It was also when the rules were that no tyre changes were permitted, rather than the rules now that stipulate you have to run two different compounds.

But i'm sure it's nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with Pirelli just being crap and unable to make a tyre that can last a bit longer.

 

[MissChief]

The problem is F1 has become too artificial.

The rubbish Pirelli tyres are a result of removing refuelling, in the past cars would run low fuel loads because it was faster and that would mean they would pit 2-3 times per race for fuel and throw on new tyres as a bonus. When you remove refuelling cars no longer have any reason to pit if the tyres are built to last, so then you have to go to someone like Pirelli and ask them to make tyres using floor scrapings and bringing in compound rules.

Things like KERS and DRS are also a result of banning refuelling because when everyone is on the same strategy and with the same fuel load, you aren't going to get very much overtaking.

I think most of F1's problems go back to the banning on refuelling.

Refuelling is the very antithesis of exciting racing. The stats back this up. Any time refuelling has been part of F1 on track passes have dropped dramatically. The radios were full of ‘no need to try and pass him Kimi, we expect him to pit in a lap or two’ and ‘Box, box box, were going for a lighter stop to get track position over Villeneuve’. Some may appreciate the tactical battles but for the average fan who wants to see actual racing it was deathly dull and I really wish people would stop saying to bring back refuelling. It would also add significant extra costs when F1 is about saving money at the moment.

 

[MissChief]

It was also when the rules were that no tyre changes were permitted, rather than the rules now that stipulate you have to run two different compounds.

But i'm sure it's nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with Pirelli just being crap and unable to make a tyre that can last a bit longer.

Pirelli were specifically asked, by FIA mandate and contract, to create tyres that wouldn’t last a whole race and had a significant drop off in grip levels to force teams to pit. The teams then got on top of these tyres, learning how to manage them better, as you’d expect. So the FIA introduced the current ‘two tyre’ rule.

 

[Mr Jack]

Things like KERS and DRS are also a result of banning refuelling because when everyone is on the same strategy and with the same fuel load, you aren't going to get very much overtaking.

I think most of F1's problems go back to the banning on refuelling.

Linking KERS to banning refuelling seems weird to me; KERS came from the manufacturers desire to be developing hybrid technology on the cars. I don't have any problem with KERS; it's driver deployable and a skill to manage.

I also can't agree that ending refuelling was the reason for DRS. The Trulli Train was very much a thing prior to refuelling being banned for the 2010 season, and, in fact, 2010 - the sole season between the end of refuelling and the introduction of DRS - had more overtakes per race than any of the previous sixteen seasons. DRS is there because F1s over-dependence on aerodynamics and the well publicised issues with following close to another car.

I'd like to see refuelling return - and the abolition of the idiotic rule that you must carry tyres from quali to race - but I don't think it's a panacea for F1's ills.

 

[deuse]

Linking KERS to banning refuelling seems weird to me; KERS came from the manufacturers desire to be developing hybrid technology on the cars. I don't have any problem with KERS; it's driver deployable and a skill to manage.

I also can't agree that ending refuelling was the reason for DRS. The Trulli Train was very much a thing prior to refuelling being banned for the 2010 season, and, in fact, 2010 - the sole season between the end of refuelling and the introduction of DRS - has more overtakes per race than any of the last sixteen seasons. DRS is there because F1s over-dependence on aerodynamics and the well publicised issues with following close to another car.

I'd like to see refuelling return - and the abolition of the idiotic rule that you must carry tyres from quali to race - but I don't think it's a panacea for F1's ills.

In my opinion. DRS should used from lap 1.
This will stop people from getting to far ahead.

I would just bring in Ground Affect. Job done.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

In my opinion. DRS should used from lap 1.
This will stop people from getting to far ahead.

I would just bring in Ground Affect. Job done.

Would be far too chaotic and unpredictable under braking with them all so close.

 

[this_is_gav]

The last time a F1 car could push the whole race is when BridgeStone tires was used.

The whole reason we have these Pirelli tyres is because of the Bridgestone tyres at the 2009 Australian GP.

Drivers didn't push for the whole race during Bridgestone's era either. They was regular fuel saving and engine saving. There hasn't really been a prolonged period in F1 history where drivers weren't protecting tyres, fuel, equipment or a combination.

The only era that came close to pushing for a full race would be the period between Goodyear leaving (1998) and Michelin starting (2001). Other than that there's always been some degree of pacing yourself, with the odd race exception.

 

[MissChief]

In my opinion. DRS should used from lap 1.
This will stop people from getting to far ahead.

I would just bring in Ground Affect. Job done.

Ground effect is part of the new regulations in 2022.

 

[deuse]

The whole reason we have these Pirelli tyres is because of the Bridgestone tyres at the 2009 Australian GP.

Drivers didn't push for the whole race during Bridgestone's era either. They was regular fuel saving and engine saving. There hasn't really been a prolonged period in F1 history where drivers weren't protecting tyres, fuel, equipment or a combination.

The only era that came close to pushing for a full race would be the period between Goodyear leaving (1998) and Michelin starting (2001). Other than that there's always been some degree of pacing yourself, with the odd race exception.

Sky done a thing about the tires last year.
That's when looking at the lap times, BridgeStones last year was the best for pushing the car.

I don't think there should be fuel savings either.
Bigger fuel tanks and fill them to the top.

Ground effect is part of the new regulations in 2022.

Yes part, but not full.

 

[MissChief]

Sky done a thing about the tires last year.
That's when looking at the lap times, BridgeStones last year was the best for pushing the car.

I don't think there should be fuel savings either.
Bigger fuel tanks and fill them to the top.



Yes part, but not full.

True about ground effect, the reason they don’t go full is if one part of the car loses the ‘seal’ between body and the ground the loss of downforce and be very sudden and therefore very dangerous.

 

[deuse]

Would be far too chaotic and unpredictable under braking with them all so close.

That's what F1 are trying to do.
Or do away with DRS altogether.

 

[deuse]

True about ground effect, the reason they don’t go full is if one part of the car loses the ‘seal’ between body and the ground the loss of downforce and be very sudden and therefore very dangerous.

OMG lets wrap them up in cotton wool

F1 driver. I've hurt my hand so I can't drive.

MotoGP rider. I've got a broken ankle. pulled my shoulder and need crutches to get on the bike. Lets do this.

Edit= Ok not full Ground effect. But something near.