Id like the best tyres that last all race, but maybe enforce tyre pit stops. The way the teams now have to select tyre compounds per venue, it could also be decided at least 1 or 2 pit stops per venue. Just a thought, faster tyres and also strategy involved. More pitstops than the allocated are allowed if required.We've talked about this on here a few times.
The last time we had this, the tyre wars were "interesting". Usually there was a decent gap, so one set of teams were just fucked from the start on most tracks, although sometimes it would reverse at some tracks. Same problem though - it spoiled the racing.
Then you had the situation where Ferrari were paying Bridgestone direct to make increadible tyres that the other runners didn't get. Eddie Jordan said he managed to pinch a used set for a test and they were over a second a lap faster than what they had.
Do we really want more costs? Its already stupidly expensive to get into F1 as it is. About half a billion needed to set up a new team these days (£250m entry fee needed IIRC, before you build a factory and make a car).
Anyway, put all that aside.
What do we actually want from the tyres? Do we want "The best tyres you can make please". What would that be? Almost certainly tyres that will last the entire race and run flat out the entire time. At most, 1 stop.
Is that the best for the race? Its certainly "pure", but I doubt it would be the best for us to watch.
If we start asking them to build tyres that act in certain ways, you can no longer have more than one provider of tyres, as they're building to a spec, not building the best they can. You can't "compete" like that.
Like everything in F1. We are where we are because of many reasons, and there is rarely an easy answer to "how to make it better".
That is the alternative. You add something in the rules that says "Teams must change all 4 tyres at least X times per race".Id like the best tyres that last all race, but maybe enforce tyre pit stops. The way the teams now have to select tyre compounds per venue, it could also be decided at least 1 or 2 pit stops per venue. Just a thought, faster tyres and also strategy involved. More pitstops than the allocated are allowed if required.
Chainbear did a video on enforced 2 stop minimum. It was enlightening, and seemed to make sense.That is the alternative. You add something in the rules that says "Teams must change all 4 tyres at least X times per race".
Then let them build the absolute best tyres to fit that rule.
This might be better than asking for tyres that do X, Y & Z to get to a goal of forcing 1-2 stops per race.
If the regs actually nail the "close racing" remit, then all these artificial things (wierd profile to tyre wear, DRS etc) can all go in the bin and F1 can be pure racing again.
Does DAS make that list?I'm sure all the teams will look to find the new secret bit of design to elevate their car. They always do.
Brabham fan car
Tyrrell P34 6 wheeler
Williams FW14B active suspension
Double Diffuser – Brawn BGP 001
Lotus 78 - Ground effect
I'm sure there have been loads more - I wonder what the F1 boffins have in store for us next year?
They only got as far as Version1.0 with it before they knew it would get banned. They wanted to actually change the angles during the corners too to get more grip, but that would have came later.DAS is a Merc trick to get the other teams to waste millions.
I bet it’s not even connected!
Bet that was alonso's faultFirst casualty of the season, Cyril has gone.
Brivio leaving the suzuki moto gp team last week for alpine, was the first signal change was afoot. but, i think it was assumed that cyril was moving up within the road car side of the operation - that he's left altogether seems more of a surprise.First casualty of the season, Cyril has gone.
theyd said last year that the rebranding to apline would see cyril move more towards the car manufacturer side of the operation.Bet that was alonso's fault
And gets RB out of a hole, the FIA don't have to muck about with engine regs etc. The only loser would be Honda, who wouldn't have a buyer for their engine outfit.That was my first thought actually. Makes the engine deal more acceptable to both parties now. Renault will 100% want to make some money from selling their engines, surely?