Silverstone Shambles - Page 4

wraymond · 9th July 2012, 16:45

It's always puzzled me, but then lots of things do, how the tyre manufacturers get away with it. I know the stresses are huge, in no way comparable to other forms of motor propulsion. I know track conditions play a major part in tyre selection, both for 4-wheel plots and two.

Bike tyres are these days multi-compound (at different places across the same tread - how technically clever is that?) and the cost of these competition tyres is scary. If driver/spectator/pitman safety is to remain the primary consideration I can see the need to have tyre stops for weather purposes, but not for fuel. That's merely to reduce weight to increase speed and as that is common to all, and as there is no advantage, why allow it?

No, it's the appaling wear rate of the tyres compared to the cost of them. Is it beyond the wit of an immense industry to produce a tyre that can be driven very hard for two hours (notwithstanding punctures)? Or is it that because it's a billion pound industry they know it's an earner and Joe Public will always pay? If I were a vulcanologist I would be ashamed of myself.

rovexCDTi · 9th July 2012, 16:53

Pit stops are REQUIRED under the rules, the idea is to test the car, the crew and the driver. If it was only about the driver it would be a 1 make series.

The wear rates are designed in a way that forces the teams to make tactical decisions, to force the teams to advance development of the car. The current tyres are actually extremely cleverly designed and something to be proud of, not ashamed of.

F1 is designed to generate new technologys and processes, the rules are there to hinder the teams at every stage, yet every year the cars get faster and faster. Compare that to Indy cars where the cars have stagnated.

wraymond · 9th July 2012, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by rovexCDTi

Pit stops are REQUIRED under the rules, the idea is to test the car, the crew and the driver. If it was only about the driver it would be a 1 make series.

The wear rates are designed in a way that forces the teams to make tactical decisions, to force the teams to advance development of the car. The current tyres are actually extremely cleverly designed and something to be proud of, not ashamed of.

F1 is designed to generate new technologys and processes, the rules are there to hinder the teams at every stage, yet every year the cars get faster and faster. Compare that to Indy cars where the cars have stagnated.

Thanks for that, interesting points. As I said, lots of things puzzle me! It seems that at the moment it’s largely a three-make series anyway, engine wise at least. If every team had to produce their own engine it would be a short grid!

You’re right about pit stops being in the rules but it seems to me that the rules, unless for a specific safety issue, allow stops rather than require them? The main strategy being 1 stop, 2 stops or 3? I’m not advocating no stops, merely what perhaps ought to be unnecessary ones.

I’m just questioning the wear rate of the tyres really and I wouldn’t have thought that manufacturers would deliberately design tyres to make the teams work harder to develop the car! I would have thought that the teams would strive to get the best from all available technology, and might be proactive in lobbying designers to achieve more and to get costs to manageable levels. I’m not convinced that the driving force (no pun int.) in the industry are the tyre manufacturers. I think they are playing catch-up. If a new development in just about any area was made available, then, subject to rules, it would be jumped on! The strategy may change, but I’m pretty sure it would still exist.

It’s true there are many new and beneficial innovations coming from competitive arenas that find their way to benefit us all. However I’m not entirely sure that ’ F1 is designed to generate new technologies …. the rules are there to hinder the teams at every stage …’or ‘ that every year cars get faster….’.
I believe technologies emerge as a result of competitive endeavour, that rules do not hinder, rather they remove unfair advantage or cheating, and that speeds are significantly slower now (at top speed) than they used to be, mainly as a result of justified safety concerns.
If I gave the impression that I thought designers ought to be ashamed of themselves, may I suggest that a re-read of my post would suggest I was referring to myself! And that if I were a vulcanologist!

On the point of ‘cleverly designed’, and I accept the charge that it’s easy to stand outside and criticise when you know absolutely nothing about something, at a very early stage in most races there are plenty of examples of rapid tyre degradation. Especially ’marbles’ for instance. Covering the track, mostly at corners where most of the wear may be expected! Just how long is a lap?

Incidentally, for the life of me I cannot see the attraction of the Indy car variant. Takes either incredible courage or complete stupidity. Neither of which attributes I possess.

rovexCDTi · 9th July 2012, 20:23

The rules state that the teams must use both types of dry weather tyres provided during the race, this obviously means they have to pit at least once.

Pirelli is the only tyre provider and was given a mandate to create tyres that would wear suddenly and be sensitive to a car set up. The idea being that the teams would have to design the cars to care for the tyres, or be at a disadvantage. F1 tyres have always (in the modern era) produced marbles. The tyres behave as they do by design.

Every year the rules (which the teams have to agree) change to (try to) reduce power, reduce downforce and increase safety, the pressure to win is so great that despite that they get faster and faster. Many of the recent rule changes have come about to try to reduce speed, but as we have seen the innovation in F1 is so great that the cars have simply maintained a similar speed over the last 10 years or more. As a result of this we have traction control, advanced braking/stability systems, KERS like systems, variable valve timing, semi-auto gearboxes and all sorts of other things, all from F1.

Its actually rather scary to think how fast the cars would be now if the rules hadnt changed to moderate them.

9th July 2012, 16:45	#31
wraymond This is my second home 75 Auto 2.5 SE Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Westcliff on Sea Posts: 5,197 Thanks: 423 Thanked 1,680 Times in 1,014 Posts	It's always puzzled me, but then lots of things do, how the tyre manufacturers get away with it. I know the stresses are huge, in no way comparable to other forms of motor propulsion. I know track conditions play a major part in tyre selection, both for 4-wheel plots and two. Bike tyres are these days multi-compound (at different places across the same tread - how technically clever is that?) and the cost of these competition tyres is scary. If driver/spectator/pitman safety is to remain the primary consideration I can see the need to have tyre stops for weather purposes, but not for fuel. That's merely to reduce weight to increase speed and as that is common to all, and as there is no advantage, why allow it? No, it's the appaling wear rate of the tyres compared to the cost of them. Is it beyond the wit of an immense industry to produce a tyre that can be driven very hard for two hours (notwithstanding punctures)? Or is it that because it's a billion pound industry they know it's an earner and Joe Public will always pay? If I were a vulcanologist I would be ashamed of myself. __________________ member no. 235

9th July 2012, 16:53	#32
rovexCDTi This is my second home MG ZT+ 135 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Exeter Posts: 3,626 Thanks: 9 Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts	Pit stops are REQUIRED under the rules, the idea is to test the car, the crew and the driver. If it was only about the driver it would be a 1 make series. The wear rates are designed in a way that forces the teams to make tactical decisions, to force the teams to advance development of the car. The current tyres are actually extremely cleverly designed and something to be proud of, not ashamed of. F1 is designed to generate new technologys and processes, the rules are there to hinder the teams at every stage, yet every year the cars get faster and faster. Compare that to Indy cars where the cars have stagnated. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

9th July 2012, 20:23	#34
rovexCDTi This is my second home MG ZT+ 135 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Exeter Posts: 3,626 Thanks: 9 Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts	The rules state that the teams must use both types of dry weather tyres provided during the race, this obviously means they have to pit at least once. Pirelli is the only tyre provider and was given a mandate to create tyres that would wear suddenly and be sensitive to a car set up. The idea being that the teams would have to design the cars to care for the tyres, or be at a disadvantage. F1 tyres have always (in the modern era) produced marbles. The tyres behave as they do by design. Every year the rules (which the teams have to agree) change to (try to) reduce power, reduce downforce and increase safety, the pressure to win is so great that despite that they get faster and faster. Many of the recent rule changes have come about to try to reduce speed, but as we have seen the innovation in F1 is so great that the cars have simply maintained a similar speed over the last 10 years or more. As a result of this we have traction control, advanced braking/stability systems, KERS like systems, variable valve timing, semi-auto gearboxes and all sorts of other things, all from F1. Its actually rather scary to think how fast the cars would be now if the rules hadnt changed to moderate them. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]