The current tyre regulations are dangerous

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

You can't on one hand blame the FIA for hypothetical injuires while at the same time saying they shouldn't try to slow cars down!

they have had the chance to slow the cars down in the last 50 years. why do it now. they could do different things other than make teams run only one set of tyres. by having the new regulations the FIA are puting drivers and others at risk. Imagine a driver had to brake suddenly for some reason like a marshall on the track or something. the car would skid or lose control because of tyre wear.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Who is to have known that Bridgestone would be so far behind Michelin at the start of the season.The FIA,no,anyone else,no.No one could have foreseen this situation,indeed Ferrari welcomed it at a time when all the other teams were crying out for a control tyre.So how anyone can say that the new tyre rule is against Ferrari is beyond me.

its not only the tyre rules they have changed. what about points systems, engines etc etc. all this was done to stop MS from winning by so much. if the FIA would have waited a couple years then MS would have retired from F1 and there would have been no need to change the rules!

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by beau1

they have had the chance to slow the cars down in the last 50 years. why do it now.

Beau if you look back at the history of F1, you will find that 'they' have tried to slow the cars on several occasions in the period you mention, starting with 1961, when the 1.5 litre cars replaced the 2.5 litre cars.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by beau1

Imagine a driver had to brake suddenly for some reason like a marshall on the track or something. the car would skid or lose control because of tyre wear.

I don't think that suggestion really warrants an answer.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Beau if you look back at the history of F1, you will find that 'they' have tried to slow the cars on several occasions in the period you mention, starting with 1961, when the 1.5 litre cars replaced the 2.5 litre cars.

ok fair enough but the cars/ teams are always going to find back the time in a couple of years they have lost by the FIA changeing the rules.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 1999 the FIA thought the same. But the drivers didn't take many risks, because the cars felt very nervous.

Perhaps if they had given the cars a sedative they would have performed better.

All racing drivers would prefer it if their car cornered as if on rails,stopped on a sixpence,and had 100 horsepower more than everyone else.If all the cars were "nervous" it would be the same for everyone.

What do you want to see,cars behaving as if they were on a Scalextric track?

At least now we can say that the drivers are actually having difficulty slowing down for corners.

[20,000rpm]

I always thought the purpose of the one tyre rule was to slow cars down, which it has done. The idea behind that must be to improve safety (debateable as to whether such a marginal decrease in cornering speed would have this affect) and increase the opportunity for overtaking (as we have clearly seen this year).

The misgiving to me is that they are leaving such a decision (whether to pit) up to the driver... well, being pumped full of adrenalin and chasing a crucial result in his quest to achieve a lifetime dream, any driver is gonna take that risk.

However, it doesnt just affect him if the car hits another car, or debris hits people.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by 20,000rpm

I always thought the purpose of the one tyre rule was to slow cars down, which it has done. The idea behind that must be to improve safety (debateable as to whether such a marginal decrease in cornering speed would have this affect) and increase the opportunity for overtaking (as we have clearly seen this year).

The misgiving to me is that they are leaving such a decision (whether to pit) up to the driver... well, being pumped full of adrenalin and chasing a crucial result in his quest to achieve a lifetime dream, any driver is gonna take that risk.

However, it doesnt just affect him if the car hits another car, or debris hits people.

If the regulations had been left as last years (which some of us would have liked) i dread to think how fast the cars would have been.Some say maybe up to 4 seconds a lap faster!

Surely, potentially even more dangerous than the current regs IMO.

Each race would have been a succession of sprint races run on even stickier tyres attatched to even stickier cars....Terrible.The best car/tyre would always win,nothing to do with the driver at all.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by beau1

ok fair enough but the cars/ teams are always going to find back the time in a couple of years they have lost by the FIA changeing the rules.

True, so surely all the more reason to try and control these advances, as Martyn points out above.

[beau1]

in which way do the FIA want to slow the cars down overall speed or lap times? overall speed i hope.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Perhaps if they had given the cars a sedative they would have performed better.

All racing drivers would prefer it if their car cornered as if on rails,stopped on a sixpence,and had 100 horsepower more than everyone else.If all the cars were "nervous" it would be the same for everyone.

What do you want to see,cars behaving as if they were on a Scalextric track?

At least now we can say that the drivers are actually having difficulty slowing down for corners.

I would like to see the return of tyre changes and soft, broad slicks. This would make the cars less dependent on the aerodynamics. I would like to see a ban on driving aids, the return of turbo charged engines and a ban refuelling during the race. This is a sensible way to make the cars more difficult to handle.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I would like to see the return of tyre changes and soft, broad slicks. This would make the cars less dependent on the aerodynamics. I would like to see a ban on driving aids, the return of turbo charged engines and a ban refuelling during the race. This is a sensible way to make the cars more difficult to handle.

I too would like to see a refuelling ban,as the potential for disaster in the pitlane must surely outweigh that out on track.

Only a huge reduction in aerodynamics would have the desired effect,but coupled with fat sticky tyres it would be worth watching.However,since most of the teams have spent millions on wind tunnels i can't see it happening.

[beau1]

the problem is that F1 has to be the fasted of all because it is at the top of the motorsport ladder. so it can not go much less slower.

[JeremySmith]

Well for whatever it is worth I have just been watching " Wind Tunnel" on the Speed Channel with Dave Dispain and co-host this week David Hobbs. David Hobbs when asked about current tyre rules in F1 thinks that they are silly, do not save any money, and are potentially dangerous. Steve Machchet former Renault mechanic feels the same way.

[Kicking-back]

Renault boss Dennis Chevrier has said the new rules are enhancing F1.

See autosport-atlas.com

[Don K]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Only a huge reduction in aerodynamics would have the desired effect,but coupled with fat sticky tyres it would be worth watching.

In case the desired affect is "to make the cars less dependent on the aerodynamics", I agree. A "hugh reduction in aerodynamics" would very probably result in cars thae are "less dependent on the aerodynamics".


However, if the desired effect would be to limit the danger, a hugh reduction in aerodynamics is a strange way to accomplish this.
A hugh reduction in aerodynamics would make it much more dangerous to drive the cars with the same speed. So the teams would probably take precautions to reduce the speed, in order to end up with a level of danger that is comparable to the current one.
As the resulting level of danger cannot be *exactly* equal, there is evidently a 50% chance that we will end up in a situation with less danger.
(Of course, there is also 50% chance that we will end up in a situation with more danger.)

[BootsOntheSide]

Imagine if the rules were still the same as in 1988 (the last year of the tubos). How fast and dangerous would the cars be then? Probably lapping most circuits in less than a minute. Not only that, but it would be so expensive and so many teams would've pulled out or folded that we'd probably be down to 5 four-car teams. There is a need to control speeds, and if a set of rules can prevent the cars being faster than they were last year, they've done the job.

It's ironic that Steve Matchett regards the one-tyre rules as dangerous. He was invovled in a dangeorus incident caused purely by tyre changing back in 1995.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by beau1

the problem is that F1 has to be the fasted of all because it is at the top of the motorsport ladder.

Why?

F1 is not the fastest of all.

Never has been.
Never will be.
In fact, the average speed on a fastest lap in F1 is still much lower than the highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle (268.831 km/h).



F1 is about much more than pure speed.
It would be stupid to throw all that away, just trying to become "the fastest".

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Imagine if the rules were still the same as in 1988 (the last year of the tubos). How fast and dangerous would the cars be then? Probably lapping most circuits in less than a minute. Not only that, but it would be so expensive and so many teams would've pulled out or folded that we'd probably be down to 5 four-car teams. There is a need to control speeds, and if a set of rules can prevent the cars being faster than they were last year, they've done the job.

If they want rules to control *speed*, they should simply introduce rules that will control *speed*.



As far as I know, they want rules to control *danger*.
Then they announce a set of rules "that will control the speed which means less danger".
And most of the time, they end up introducing some set of rules which changes something, hoping that it will result in lower speeds "and therefore less danger".



If they want rules that will result in less danger, they should simply introduce rules that will control *danger*.

[Logrence]

Life is dangerous and then you die.

[zeus_m3]

Originally Posted by Don K

Why?

F1 is not the fastest of all.

Never has been.
Never will be.
In fact, the average speed on a fastest lap in F1 is still much lower than the highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle (268.831 km/h).



F1 is about much more than pure speed.
It would be stupid to throw all that away, just trying to become "the fastest".

Are the speeds recorded on the same track? On Suzuka's fastest lap, 2003.

Moto GP: 2'04.970, Valentino Rossi,
F1: 1'33.408, Ralf Schumacher.

I think the only track that F1 and Moto GP share this year is Shanghai, so we will wait and see how F1's lap time compare to Moto GP's 1'59.71.

[thejester]

Originally Posted by Don K

Why?

F1 is not the fastest of all.

Never has been.
Never will be.
In fact, the average speed on a fastest lap in F1 is still much lower than the highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle (268.831 km/h).

Do you mean motorcycle? Otherwise tell us more!!! Lance Armstrong pedalling down a 80degree incline?

[Valve Bounce]

Yeah!! why not!! Let's make this the Mobil Tyre Economy Run

[DKGandBH]

I still don't understand how a rule can be dangerous...

Rule - 1 set of tyres per race
Implementation 0- Make tyres tat will last 1 complete race.

It is the Implementation of the rule that can become dangerous.

If they thought it was dangerous, they should have (and could have) brought him in to change it (no real change there from last year).
They didn't.
They caused the danger, not the rules, as the rules allow for a tyre change in a situation such as this (don't they ?).

DKGandBH

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by DKGandBH

I still don't understand how a rule can be dangerous...

Rule - 1 set of tyres per race
Implementation 0- Make tyres tat will last 1 complete race.

It is the Implementation of the rule that can become dangerous.

If they thought it was dangerous, they should have (and could have) brought him in to change it (no real change there from last year).
They didn't.
They caused the danger, not the rules, as the rules allow for a tyre change in a situation such as this (don't they ?).

DKGandBH

This leads me to ask:"At what stage did McLaren believe that the could bring Kimi in for a tyre change without penalty?"

We must realise that the tyre was not cut, nor delaminated (iitially) nor excessively worn out. I would also ask whether there are any specific guidelines when a car can be brought in for a tyre change without any penalty.