Interested in peoples thoughts on this, I've voted for 'lots harder'. My reasons:

1 - If wear isn't a problem, the drivers can push, go flat out. I can't think of a lot more boring things than seeing the best drivers in the world go 2-3 seconds under their limit for 90% of a race.

1.5 - If we made them softer, it would just encourage the drivers to look after them even more until they could pit and slot into a gap.

2 - Harder tyres would hopefully grain less, leaving less marbles offline, perhaps allowing some side by side action.

3 - With very little grip from the tyres, we'd see more mistakes, it'd be like a wet race without the rain, but with no wear, exactly the same for everyone for virtually the entire race.

4 - Taking the wear variable out of the equation makes the racing 'purer'. An overtaking manouver because the guy in front has wrecked their insanely soft tyres, or the guy behind has just pitted isn't interesting. We got that in Bahrain, did anyone get excited about Buemi being passed by 3 cars in 3 laps? I didn't.

5 - A tyre manufacturer is more likely to be interested, their brand would be associated with tyres that just keep going and going, as opposed to imploding after 3 laps.

I know the knee-jerk was to call for softer tyres, I did it myself, but I've come 180. Can someone sway me back?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I reckon even harder than Lots harder, but there was no option for harder than lots harder so i just went with lots harder.

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

Little bit harder, with 2 mandatory pit stops.

What are the results you are trying to achieve by making the tyres harder (or softer?)

To me, the only difference we will see is that they will be faster because they won't be slower to conserve their tyre wear. However, because the tyres are harder, they will ultimately be slower.

Quote:

LoudHoward
1 - If wear isn't a problem, the drivers can push, go flat out. I can't think of a lot more boring things than seeing the best drivers in the world go 2-3 seconds under their limit for 90% of a race.

If everyone was going flat out, and tyres were not an issue... would the race result be that much different? (I think Vettel probably would have finished lower.)

Quote:

LoudHoward
2 - Harder tyres would hopefully grain less, leaving less marbles offline, perhaps allowing some side by side action.

Interesting point... a cleaner track.

Quote:

LoudHoward
3 - With very little grip from the tyres, we'd see more mistakes, it'd be like a wet race without the rain, but with no wear, exactly the same for everyone for virtually the entire race.

Arrrgh, i'm going to expose myself as someone who knows nothing about f1 here and say, harder tyres have less grip? I guess that makes sense, they are faster on the softer tyres. In a way, even harder tyres will slow them down even more? so, like wet races, the drivers will be even slower... (And webber will zoom past them like he did many times last year in the rain - I'm sold on the hard tyres if this is true )

Quote:

LoudHoward
4 - Taking the wear variable out of the equation makes the racing 'purer'. An overtaking manouver because the guy in front has wrecked their insanely soft tyres, or the guy behind has just pitted isn't interesting. We got that in Bahrain, did anyone get excited about Buemi being passed by 3 cars in 3 laps? I didn't.

But how could this be different? The overtaking manouver will be because the guy in front has run wide, or spun because of the speudo wet conditions

We should have more tyre manufacturers providing tyres.

I like it LH ,if tyre wear wasn't a problem then the guy following could keep attacking without fear of ruining his tyres,eventually the red mist would have to come down and force the issue,i vote goats head hard.

Quote:

General
To me, the only difference we will see is that they will be faster because they won't be slower to conserve their tyre wear. However, because the tyres are harder, they will ultimately be slower.

The ultimate speed isn't the issue for me (to an extent), the relative speed to the limits of the car is.

Quote:

General
If everyone was going flat out, and tyres were not an issue... would the race result be that much different? (I think Vettel probably would have finished lower.)

Most probably not, I think it would've been more interesting though, and Mark and others may have been able to force the driver in front to make a mistake. I don't think it's technically harder to follow a car than it was last year, it was just that the effort the following car put in wasn't forcing an error cause the guy in front had a lot in hand.

Quote:

General
But how could this be different? The overtaking manouver will be because the guy in front has run wide, or spun because of the speudo wet conditions

The grip would be reduced equally for both cars. If they're running together and the guy in front makes a mistake, and the guy behind doesn't, and they're on the same tyres that haven't worn at all, then kudos to the guy behind. He pressured the guy in front, forced an error, didn't make one himself despite the dirty air and got an opening. That's cool in my book.

Pitting and coming out behind someone and passing because you're 4 seconds a lap faster than someone because of your tyres? Doesn't float my boat.

A tyre war may be interesting, but at this point I think it would be somewhat of a "hey look over here at the flashy lights!" rather than working to solve the problem. The rock hard tyre theory isn't going to happen this year anyways.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I've gone for lots softer - but really just to be different.

Problem we appear to have now is that the tyres will just about last on a one stop strategy if you look after them, the speed gain in going for a two stop when combined with track position considerations isn't enough to make it worthwhile. A change either way would be beneficial.

If the tyres were much softer it would necessitate at least two, and perhaps three stop strategies which would give us something to watch.

My concern with going ultra hard is that drivers wouldn't have the confidence going into braking zones. We saw this problem when grooved tyres were introduced. The drivers just didn't know what was going to happen in a braking zone and weren't therefore able to commit to a pass.

---

Admin@racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net

I want softer....and @#$%& off all their fancy aero!

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

Much harder, or much softer. In between is for Goldilocks!

Either change will result in better races.
Why can't they make this change this year loud? If they don't do something now, then they will lose half their audience.

I was just thinking, what if part of the reason Ferrari was so wary of heating up the engines following our RB was due to the low positioning of our exhaust, possibly creating a situation where the hot air was feeding directly into the sidepods on that Ferrari?

Thats just nasty!

If I have ever seen a more directionally skewed pole then I'll be a monkeys uncle. That's pathetic Loud.

Softer is the key. So soft that they can't possibly drive to conserve as they lose more time doing that than racing. So soft they have to pit twice or their tyres melt into goo.

Also, with guys driving to save their tyres, you'll have that potential speed differential you are banging on abou. It isn't there with hards at all!

Soft all the way you fools. Don't let this imbecile trick you into the wrong direction. I have the McLaren team boss on my side.

As for the marbles, well we might get guys just driving out there to pick up some extra rubber they'd be so soft.

---

I've seen some idea's online, and there is one that sounds cool, virtual slipstreaming.

Some sensors would detect when a car was following a wake and allow a slight increase in maximum revs whilst in that wake.

Seems doable to me, so long as there is a definite way to detect such a wake (seems likely, but NFI really), and that said system would only switch on at around 200kph or so.

Fake it till you make it?

Ha Ha - nice one blight!

Next we just need the knives in the wheels to slash opponent tyres and front/rear torpedo tubes (perhaps that's what the exhausts are for?!).

Happy St Paddy's to you all!

---

PS I voted for a tyre war, but couldn't find the option...

---

I would go for lots Softer. It is the aero that makes it hard to pass not the tires. Yes if you push too hard behind someone you can ruin your tyres but this is because of the disturbed air and the need to drive under conditions that cause you to wear your tyres more - less down force more wheel spin / sliding etc. If drivers had harder tyres then yes they would be able to push without fear of destroying their tyres however they are still in a disadvantaged position and more likely to make mistakes than the car in front who has clean air.

Why softer? I am with Growler on this one, more stops and more strategy. Do you go for 3 quick stints and push your tyres for quicker laps or try to two stop it and go easier on the tyers but save on a pit stop. Of course the real reason is I want to see more Tyres blowing out half way down the straight (Nigel Mansell, Adelaide, 1993?).

How about bring back another tyre supplier ?

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

i was under the mistaken impression that prior to last years actual racing, that the overtaking group had introduced the 'movable front wing flaps', in order to minimise the effect of airflow on a following car to help/assist with overtaking. why is it that no one seems to be questioning that aspect of the cars aero at the moment?

It is the aero effect that hampers overtaking.

People have come to think of overtaking and stops in the same vein because we have been relatively poor at on track overtaking for some time, and have done most of it during the stops for the last few years.

It's the aero that needs fixing.

If you are good enough to catch a car, you should be able to pass it too. at the moment, you cant. Clean up the aero and you can.

---

I liked 2006 rules the best. High revving engines that sometimes blew up, tyre war (suuuuuper soft tyres for maximum G's in the corners) with different compounds used by different teams and drivers, fuel and tyre stops. Every stint was using the same compound tyres so all chassis were using their preferred tyre. It had the highest number of on track overtakes in the last 5 or 6 years, that season. Bahrain and Melbourne alone, I think there was 20 or more each. Even Monaco had some that year.

2005 wasn't too bad either. Beefy V10's, one tyre rule which meant late in the races some people would have no tyre left and someone behind could try an overtake.

Everything is opposite now, everything is stock standard. Protecting everything because it has to last alot of races. Same tyres for all, same revs for all etc. It's more about protecting rather then attacking.

For 2010, I don't really know what would fix the problem. Because the problem isn't just the tyres. Even with two mandatory stops this season, it's still going to be boring. An improvement but boring. One tyre rule is better then no refuelling in my opinion. Having different fuel levels was another thing that created overtaking opportunites if a car was 3 stopping for example.

The rules have tried to go back in time, but the aero works differently now then it did then. 70's, 80's and 90's etc. If you go back to that old aero, which is virtually impossible due to how skilled the F1 teams are, you are just in a time warp. The engines were more powerful back then compared to now. And these drivers are so skilled, they can drive the torquey V8's with no TC in the rain without testing like it was no big deal.

It's a very complicated issue. Cost saving just makes it even more complicated. In my opinion the cost saving ideas and "good racing" completely contradict each other so first step should be to decide what is the main priority. F1 was expensive in 2006, but I loved the ontrack action on most tracks. If the show is good, sponsors want to be a part of it. F1 at the moment is like a bad football team, they can't win or get sponsors, so they can't get good players to come to their club, and so the next year is even worse and it keeps getting worse. The limited testing is one example where it saves money but doesn't hurt the show.

The other thing is you can never get people to overtake if they are the same pace. So if Alonso and Lewis are two tenths off each other in different cars, they can't overtake. But you don't just want 4 seconds slower backmarkers overtaking. There is a middle ground which I believe in retrospect in 2006 was pretty good. Cars in 4th, to 8th could overtake for example. A quicker car could overtake to get onto the podium. Kimi in 2005 overtook Fisi for the win on the second last lap!

For the poll, soft tyres in 2006 were great. Hard tyres in 2005 were good. Either can be good in the right circumstances. But for 2010, nothing will probably make much difference. Which is why it's so frustrating. I liked DC's comments on the issue.

Quote:

Duffer
If I have ever seen a more directionally skewed pole then I'll be a monkeys uncle. That's pathetic Loud.

Err, thanks? I was hoping jam would win tbh.

Quote:

Duffer
Softer is the key. So soft that they can't possibly drive to conserve as they lose more time doing that than racing. So soft they have to pit twice or their tyres melt into goo.

Isn't that where they were anyways? Think about it Duffer, a two stop race is typically ~20 laps stints, the softer tyre in Bahrain was basically soft enough to do that, and to make it that far they had to toddle around. If they made the harder tyre to be at the softs level, and the soft softer on the weekend what would've happened? They would've cruised on the super soft for the first 10 laps, then done 2 more stints on the softs, 15 laps stints each at the speed they did the opening stint (slow!).

Quote:

Duffer
Also, with guys driving to save their tyres, you'll have that potential speed differential you are banging on abou. It isn't there with hards at all!

Yeh I banged on about it, in the negative. Overtaking because of the large potential speed difference is toss, we got that on the weekend and everyone seems to agree it wasn't interesting.

Quote:

Duffer
Soft all the way you fools. Don't let this imbecile trick you into the wrong direction. I have the McLaren team boss on my side.

Yeah well I have Frank Dernie on my side; "We will never fix it whilst so many people ignore the facts and fixate on long held views which are completely at variance with the data.

The problem is that quite a few influential people, like drivers and ex-drivers in the media [LH - Dare I say it, team bosses?], do not want the changes which certainly worked in the past. The drivers hate hard tyres, despite them probably being 50% solution."

Quote:

Duffer
As for the marbles, well we might get guys just driving out there to pick up some extra rubber they'd be so soft.

Should I dignify that with an answer?

Quote:

Duffer
Aero stuff etc etc

I'm basically just talking about quick fixes, we're not going to have the cars completely redesigned by Melbourne

I don't really recall Bahrain last year, I suppose it was okay because we didn't name it Boregate, but there was probably the same amount of passing. Other than an extra round of pitstops to look at in the latter part of the race, the only difference I can see from last year to this year is how hard the drivers were pushing.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Quote:

blight
I've seen some idea's online, and there is one that sounds cool, virtual slipstreaming.

That's actually a decent idea, I don't think the revs way is how I'd do it. But I'm totally stealing that idea for an article I'm writing on Patty!

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Harder.

Thought Frank Dernie made a lot of sense in this article.

[www.jamesallenonf1.com]

Wow great read! Did you see the poll at the bottom? 88% agreed with those sentiments, a whopping 4,300 yes votes.

After reading that, definitely hard tyres for me.

i voted for the 'rock hard' solution after reading frank dernies report 48hrs ago. makes a lot of sense and he knows an immense amount about F1.

Quote:

LoudHoward
That's actually a decent idea, I don't think the revs way is how I'd do it. But I'm totally stealing that idea for an article I'm writing on Patty!

Poor Patty! I hope you use a crayon or something soft.

Quote:

blight
Little bit harder, with 2 mandatory pit stops.

Haven't read other ideas, but this is what I think as well.

Harder tyres so you can push and not be totally screwed by using them up (cause they won't use up!), but still 2 manditory stops so if you locked one or whatever, you can pit and not be totaly compromised by it.

I am pleased that no one chose 'the same'. Someone will just to spite me now, so, 'the same' doesn't count after this post

Dernie is a complete pillock! Of course he's going to say that...HE'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. He quite deliberately went round the issue and tried to obfuscate. Nobody is saying that the down-force is the problem so his 82 / 83 example is meaningless. The problem is the aerodynamic designs that deliberately create turbulence behind the car meaning that following cars can't get close enough to make use of slight power / driver skill advantages. The two things may go hand in hand but I don't believe for a second that you can't create down-force without the resultant turbulence. Typical of James Allen to give voice to such a self-serving pratt.

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

How is he part of the problem?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Lets face it, with all the control, aero is really the one biggest thing that makes a car faster or slower. Without the aero differences between the aero on these cars they's all be much the same.

This means if the trailing car has it all taken away, then of course it will not be able to pass.

Surely with softer tyres, depending on how soft they go, there will be a point at which it is faster not to save them, but to drive faster and pit for a fresh set. It's dead set obvious.

---

Really? Well, even if you made it so they only lasted for 5 laps going flat out before you need to pit, say for Melbourne, if you took it easy on them and got them to 8 laps, you'd save yourself 3 pitstops

Hopefully Bahrain was the exception because it was so hot, but I'm finding it difficult to come up with a scenario using Bahrain as an example where softer tyres is going to make them drive harder for most of the race.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Amazing stuff an aerodynamacist suggesting that aerodynamics are not at fault.

It's more of a science though, so aerodynamacist usually can't lie - or else it would be obvious.

take your pick, an experienced aerodynamicist or a bunch of armchair pundits? i know whom i will favor for a reliable dissection of the facts, as they are known and presented.

some two years ago, unless every one has forgotten, it was suggested that the rear wing be split in two for a reduction in blanket 'downwash'. this was calculated to assist in the dispersal of turbulent air.

it was rejected for purely 'commercial' reasons. it may well have sorted out some of the problems now being seen as a major component of dissatisfaction.

Actually I think the CDG Wing just didn't work, I think CFD and windtunnel tests disproved the theory, and led to the creation of the Overtaking Working Group, which kind of did okay, but obviously not good enough.

The introduction of the current aero regs did cut down the distance you get stuck behind someone, not enough though.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Quote:

K1
some two years ago, unless every one has forgotten, it was suggested that the rear wing be split in two for a reduction in blanket 'downwash'. this was calculated to assist in the dispersal of turbulent air.
it was rejected for purely 'commercial' reasons. it may well have sorted out some of the problems now being seen as a major component of dissatisfaction.

The "Commercial reason", as far as I understand it, was that it looked bloody hideous, so they canned it!

*edit*

sorry, inserted these pics, but they are like 1000% times too big to fit!

[www.fia.com]

[www.fia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19/03/2010 00:16 by GB2009.

If you guys can't see the obviously self-serving nature of his comments then I'm certainly not going to engage in a debate where your primary argument is that he knows more than me so he must be right.

In fact, I say screw the whole harder / softer / aero debate and let's just pray for rain.

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

He doesn't even have a job? If they cut the aero back, they're still going to need aerodynamicists?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Quote:

GB2009

Quote:

K1
some two years ago, unless every one has forgotten, it was suggested that the rear wing be split in two for a reduction in blanket 'downwash'. this was calculated to assist in the dispersal of turbulent air.
it was rejected for purely 'commercial' reasons. it may well have sorted out some of the problems now being seen as a major component of dissatisfaction.

The "Commercial reason", as far as I understand it, was that it looked bloody hideous, so they canned it!

*edit*

sorry, inserted these pics, but they are like 1000% times too big to fit!

[www.fia.com]

[www.fia.com]

I think they look cool!!

---

So, here is my theory of what F1 should do to bring back the fun.

Never going to happen, but I think it would rock, and would have all the stuff I actually want to see in F1.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Well... it's thorough!

Not bad Loud, just forget that hard tyre@#$%&and small brakes crap.

---

That underbody thing isn't bad idea. I've heard of an implementation like your one, but they say that with a twin underbody one like it is now, with another under the front wing leading back.

I've just fed the following suggestions into my state-of-the-art CAD system:

- aerodynamic downforce limit
- standard underbody
- rock hard single compound tyres
- small brakes
- minimum size radiator inlets
- mandatory Kinetic Energy Recovery System

and it spat out the recommended F1 car design below:

---

=)

Great, but I don't think technology has progressed far enough to allow for such a radical design.

Interesting twist though... putting both drivers into the one car.

Those tyres might produce real marbles! So much for Louds argument!

---

As to the poll, I say all of the above! Drivers go into a draw to decide what compound they have to use.....after qualifying. Garanteed to get overtaking!

Bring on Wacky Races