It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
My head said brake, but my heart cried never.
Glad I stayed with the cricket. Very happy that Scotland beat England.
Pirelli are doing what was asked of them. They arrived with the instruction to deliver tyres that would not last the full distance and would force strategic variation and reward drivers that can make tyres last.
If you recall there was criticism of tyres not playing a role. Drivers could push for the full race distance and usually fast qualifying cars would be fast in the race (predictable). The hope was that some cars would be better in race trim than others which were stronger in qualifying and the tyres would introduce some variety.
Again this is fans not knowing what they are asking for. "Fixing" the tyres might make it more fun for the drivers across the race distance, but it won't improve the racing and everyone will be whining about how the fastest qualifying cars just drive away at the front of the race and pit only when the gaps are suitable, not because of tyre life.
And around and around we go.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
If Horner wants a three pit stop system, then it would be simple to instigate the system I talked of earlier. Of the three pit stops, you can have one 30 second minimum stop and two "as fast as you can do it" stops.
IF people still want different compounds then go simple. Indycar has two compounds for street and road tracks, one compound is used for ovals. Far simpler to understand than ultra hyper mega super make America great again soft being rejected in favour of over ultra hyper mega super StopBrexit soft.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
A big part of the problem with tyres is that every team does the numbers and comes to the same conclusion in terms of the optimum tyres strategy every weekend. Requiring the teams to do at least 2 stops and use at least 2 compounds would be a start. But I’d also like tyres that grip really well for max 20 laps then give up. Honestly I had no issue with “the cliff” we had a few years back when everyone was complaining of cheese tyres. At least that was unpredictable, and did benefit drivers who were easy on tyres at least to some extent.
I’m also 100% in favour of every weekend having “hard/med/soft” or “hard/soft/quali” tyres, irrespective of what actual compounds are being used. I can’t understan why so many comments-section fanboys are whinging about that. It’s as if they think suddenly their sport is going to stop being elitist and they won’t feel like kings of their little exclusive club any more. Much like indie music fans when they complain of bands selling out because they suddenly get successful
Having three pit stops (1x 30 second stop, 2x as fast as you want stops) means teams can be more strategic about their stop strategy. Imagine a track like Singapore. You reach the first round of pit stops and there have been no safety cars. Driver A is in first and comes in for his first stop. Does he go for the 30 second stop in order to get it out of the way, knowing that a long stop later on in a safety car period might fuck things up for him, or the short stop to retain his lead?
When Blancpain ran the recent Paul Ricard 6 hour event with the one joker pit stop, it worked really well. It jiggled the order around, strategies were different between teams, and the whole race was eventually won by a Lexus passing the leader on the final lap. Some teams chose to double stint tyres on their short stop, meaning seconds gained as GT3 tyre changes aren't rapid like F1. Others chose different options.
Now imagine if we had tyres that you could double stint in F1. I think it could offer a strategic element that would enhance F1.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
My view on all of this is that this is just what F1 is like. Anyone could implement rules that would improve the racing hugely, but they won't because it has to be this and that and this and that. And those things are what make F1, F1.
F1 has always evolved as technology has evolved. Now it's hard to see where the next load of advancements would come from.
If you go back through to 1982 then Id say the biggest change is reliability. People gained places and results because better competitors would blow up or fail. The much improved reliability coupled with far harder overtaking due to aero means processions are more likely.
So if F1 to be F1 means slightly boring races and that is the proclaimed pinnacle of motorsport, then I'll take entertaining races in a lower formula every time. Monaco and Canada were worse than watching Peter bloody Ebdon on the green baize.