F1 drivers outright pace vs tyre conservation

[Zico]

Due to the recent fragile tyres F1 seems to have become more of a form of endurance racing with everyone driving to a delta lap time. This negates the value of the very quickest drivers hired by the richest teams by making their potential extra few tenths advantage much less valuable on race day.

Although with the introduction of DRS we have much easier overtaking, the fragile tyres of recent have swung the balance way past the point we were at pre re-fuelling ban... even more towards endurance through tyre conservation and strategy.

I appreciate that getting the balance right must be a very difficult challenge and I don't claim to know the answers but would like to hear others thoughts on the subject.

I'd like to see more value placed on a drivers outright pace than who can conserve tyres the best.
A comparison someone made recently sums it up for me pretty well.. 'Who wants to watch the worlds top sprinters run a 100 metre sprint at only 70-80% in case their running shoes disintegrate ?

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

F1 is way more long distance running than sprinting - you've got to keep something in reserve

[gert]

At least in Endurance the tires are durable.
There they make a pit stop because they need to refuel the car, not because the tires are useless.
Sometimes they double- or triple-stint the tires.

[Aysedasi]

The simple answer is just to give every driver in F1 a Red Bull. Or at least, Vettel's Red Bull... Then no-one would have any problems at all.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by gert

At least in Endurance the tires are durable.
There they make a pit stop because they need to refuel the car, not because the tires are useless.
Sometimes they double- or triple-stint the tires.

This is an astute observation, but, F1 should be about who can drive the fastest for the longest!

Even if you accept Biscuits In A Red Bull's assertion that F1 is more long distance racing than sprinting; which it probably is, but shouldn't be; then the driver who can drive the absolute fastest for the longest should be the winner!

[Paradise City]

F1 should be on an equilibrium between sprint and endurance.

Whereas Touring Cars are typically and categorically sprint, sportscars are categorically endurance, F1 is supposed to be, in my view, a fusion between the best of both.

I do think pitsstops and strategy clutters this sport up too much but don't eliminate pitstops nor the strategic dimension outright. You should be able to reap a certain benefit from the conservation of equipment in ready for such a time where you have to go all out. Easier typed out than done particularly with a bunch of cutthroat, ultra-competitive teams but there's a delicate balance there that should be sought after.

[Marbot]

Even if you had longer life tyres the cars would still run to a delta time.

There has been no limit on the amount of fuel you can carry during a race for quite some time, and this means that there has to be a balance between the weight of the car and the performance of the car over a race distance. If you over-fuel the car, then it will blunt performance because of the excess weight, and if you under-fuel the car, then you'll have to turn the engine down, or short-shift, in order to finish the race at a reduced performance. So it's not just the tyres that drivers, and teams, need to worry about with regard to all-out performance.

Sure, we could go back to Bridgestone's 2010 'race distance' tyres, but it was only when Bridgestone got it wrong (Canada 2010) that the punters liked what they saw i.e. races where the finishing order wasn't decided over the first three laps. Should we go back to pre-Canada 2010? Should we also get rid of the two-compound regulation? What about DRS?

We know that the engines will play a major part in the races in 2014, so what if one chassis/engine/ERS is dominant, but it's not being driven by drivers you would expect to be winning a WDC?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

We know that the engines will play a major part in the races in 2014, so what if one chassis/engine/ERS is dominant, but it's not being driven by drivers you would expect to be winning a WDC?

Right now, that sounds pretty good to me.......

[Greem]

Sounds like it would be good, but I can hear the hideous ever-loudening whine already from certain quarters.

The fact that they haven't started whining yet just means it will be intolerably loud when it starts...

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Greem

Sounds like it would be good, but I can hear the hideous ever-loudening whine already from certain quarters.

The fact that they haven't started whining yet just means it will be intolerably loud when it starts...

I thought that the whining sound in F1 was truly quadraphonic........

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Sure, we could go back to Bridgestone's 2010 'race distance' tyres, but it was only when Bridgestone got it wrong (Canada 2010) that the punters liked what they saw i.e. races where the finishing order wasn't decided over the first three laps. Should we go back to pre-Canada 2010? Should we also get rid of the two-compound regulation? What about DRS?

Maybe my memory is not so good, but I thought the 2009 and 2010 seasons produced some great racing, and I dont really see why they had to fiddle around with these deliberately rubbish tyres. DRS and KERS should have been enough to promote more overtaking without these chewing gum tyres.

Anyway, it's funny you should mention finishing orders being decided by the end of the first three laps. A lot of races this year have been decided by the end of the first three corners!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Maybe my memory is not so good, but I thought the 2009 and 2010 seasons produced some great racing,

Button running away with everything for the first half of the 2009 season was perhaps the only reason that Vettel doesn't have 5 WDC to boast about. The 2010 season is possibly best remembered for the Canadian GP, and I think I'm right in saying that the race received a very high rating on this forum.

Originally Posted by steve_r

and I dont really see why they had to fiddle around with these deliberately rubbish tyres. DRS and KERS should have been enough to promote more overtaking without these chewing gum tyres.

I think so too. I hope that Pirelli will be much more conservative with the tyres for next season because I don't want those races to be decided by anything other than who has the best Chassis/Engine/ERS package. But we don't always get what we want, and that's just the way it has always been since I've been watching F1.

Originally Posted by steve_r

Anyway, it's funny you should mention finishing orders being decided by the end of the first three laps. A lot of races this year have been decided by the end of the first three corners!

They have, but you could point to Pirelli's U-turn on tyre philosophy midway through the season to account for that. Since the tyres were changed back to 2012 spec, Red Bull have cleaned up, and teams like Lotus, Ferrari and Force India, have been penalized for building cars that were designed with Pirelli's 2013 tyres in mind.