# Why was the tire rule introduced in the F1?



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

The single tire rule for the whole weekend was for what? 

To reduce speed (more) ? I thought the threaded tires was responsible for it. 

To reduce costs? Hmmm, what do you think how much $$$ Raikonnen's accident is going to cost Mclaren? (you can also calculate the costs in terms of new tires - 10,20,50?)

Anyone?


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Reduce speeds by forcing a harder compound. They should have gone to a spec tire, instead.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Fastest laps comparison between 2004 and 2005

--------------------------------*2004*------------- *2005*
Australia................1.24.125........1.25.683
Malaysia................1.34.223........1.35.483
Bahrain..................1.30.252........1.31.447
San Marino.............1.20.411........1.21.858
Spain.....................1.17.450........1.15.641
Monaco..................1.14.439........1.15.842
European................1.29.468........1.30.711

Is F1 a lot safer now? Or better said, was it dangerous last year?

Or much better said, when can F1 be considered as safe?


----------



## BMWRacerITS (Mar 17, 2004)

Alex...it's not as easy as comparing lap times this year to last year, because given last year's tire rule, the cars would likely be much faster than the 2004 times.


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> Why was the tire rule introduced in the F1?


The FIA finally figured out a regulation change that would give other drivers a chance to win races. 

Michelin has so much experience in endurance racing that they are kicking Ferrari's...er, Bridgestone's a$$. :thumbup:

I wonder if Ferrari could just switch tire suppliers? :dunno: :eeps:


----------



## Mr. E (Dec 19, 2001)

A broader question is why all these rule changes in F1 period? Are they hoping that by reducing costs they'll get more "perpetual loser" teams like Minardi to join the fray (or keep them there)? 

Off the top of my head, the following rules have been implemented in the name of cost savings, and I don't like any of them!

Single lap qualifying/parc ferme (to prevent special qualifying setups and cars)
Single engine for 1/2/a season of races
Single set of tires for a weekend
In the near future, V8 powerplants

Let's assume they can save 10% in costs with these rules (doubtful, but for the sake of argument). Now Ferrari's budget can be decreased from $300 million per year to $270 million. Is that really going to determine whether a team can stay in? Would Ford have kept funding the Jaguar team if they only had to spend $180 million instead of $200 million? I think not, and these new rules are detracting from a big part of what makes up the spectacle of F1 racing. :thumbdwn:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

PhilH said:


> The FIA finally figured out a regulation change that would give other drivers a chance to win races.
> 
> Michelin has so much experience in endurance racing that they are kicking Ferrari's...er, Bridgestone's a$$. :thumbup:
> 
> I wonder if Ferrari could just switch tire suppliers? :dunno: :eeps:


I am not trying to find a lame excuse for Ferrari's miserable performance. My idea was to point out how some half-assed tire rules could cause some serious damage without being effective at all (in terms of speed reducing).

1-1.5 secs difference is nothing, it can easily be caught during a season by optimizing the aerodynamics and tweaking the engines.

They turned the F1 into a circus and I hate this. Look at the King of Motorsports...look and cry :madrazz:


----------



## BMWRacerITS (Mar 17, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> 1-1.5 secs difference is nothing, it can easily be caught during a season by optimizing the aerodynamics and tweaking the engines.


Then where does it end? If the car continue to get faster and faster every year, you run out of any safety margin.

And, it's not JUST a 1-1.5 second difference. Under the old tire rules, further car and tire development would mean that the cars would be 1.5-3 seconds faster this year than last, making the total gap something more like 3-4.5 seconds.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

BMWRacerITS said:


> Then where does it end? If the car continue to get faster and faster every year, you run out of any safety margin.
> 
> And, it's not JUST a 1-1.5 second difference. Under the old tire rules, further car and tire development would mean that the cars would be 1.5-3 seconds faster this year than last, making the total gap something more like 3-4.5 seconds.


Don't worry, it will end there where the physics will limit the game. It is not that the top speeds will reach 300mph and the lap times are going to be like 30 secs. :dunno: The current engine and aerodynamic limits are enough. Only the tire and engine rules sucks.

I'd hope that you'd get the idea, but you are sounding like Max Mosley now. 

10 years ago, the fastest lap times were 9-10 secs faster. We saw hell of a lot more passing and action on the track, it was pure racing (20 years ago, it kicked ass, but that's another story)

Of course, those who didn't watch F1 in the 80s will hardly understand what I'm trying to say


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> 10 years ago, the fastest lap times were 9-10 secs faster. We saw hell of a lot more passing and action on the track, it was pure racing (20 years ago, it kicked ass, but that's another story)
> 
> Of course, those who didn't watch F1 in the 80s will hardly understand what I'm trying to say


eh...I've watched nearly every F1 race since at least 1984. We've had some good passing on the track recently. Passing in F1 hasn't changed much IMO over the years.

I think it's the personality of the drivers that determines whether or not there's going to much passing. You have to be nearly crazy to try passes on a lot of the circuits on the F1 calendar, and some drivers are crazier than others...


----------



## BMWRacerITS (Mar 17, 2004)

Where does physics limit them? The cars continue to corner faster and faster each year. It's not as if the rules are open on development anyway...if they were, the designers would use a wider track, more advanced underbody aero, etc. There are always rules to limit the cars' speed and price, so should we get rid of all of them? We're not even close to the edge of the physical limit.

Top speed isn't really the problem. Cars were faster 10 years ago because of horespower and less drag due to less reliance on aero grip. Racers rarely have wrecks and get injured on the straights. The higher cornering speed and much higher reliance on delicate aero grip are what make the cars today more dangerous. You saw more passing 10 years ago because the cars were less delicate...you could slide the cars through the turns and balance them with the throttle. Now, the tire construction and aero aids mean that you can hardly afford to drive the car with any yaw angle and the slightest bobble can mean a spin.

As for all the passing and excitement you liked so much in the 80's, compare this season to last season and tell me which has been more exciting and had more passing. So why are you against the tire rule again? 

I think F1 fans just like to complain, period.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

BMWRacerITS said:


> Where does physics limit them? The cars continue to corner faster and faster each year. It's not as if the rules are open on development anyway...if they were, the designers would use a wider track, more advanced underbody aero, etc. There are always rules to limit the cars' speed and price, so should we get rid of all of them? We're not even close to the edge of the physical limit.
> 
> Top speed isn't really the problem. Cars were faster 10 years ago because of horespower and less drag due to less reliance on aero grip. Racers rarely have wrecks and get injured on the straights. The higher cornering speed and much higher reliance on delicate aero grip are what make the cars today more dangerous. You saw more passing 10 years ago because the cars were less delicate...you could slide the cars through the turns and balance them with the throttle. Now, the tire construction and aero aids mean that you can hardly afford to drive the car with any yaw angle and the slightest bobble can mean a spin.
> 
> ...


You are twisting the words. I didn't say that we should get rid of all the rules. Where did I say that? I'm just saying that I am against the one set tire for one weekend and one engine rule for the 2 race weekends.

I am still not convinced that one set tire for the whole weekend adds anything to the race security. The engine rule is there to save financially weaker teams' butts anyway (as if F1 have ever been a cheap sport  )

Soon the GP2 cars will have more horsepower than the F1 cars. Shall we perhaps call it F1.5 ? :lmao:

Cars didn't have more horsepower 10 years ago. Ferrari F310 - V10 (1996) had ca. 690hp. Current Ferrari has something like 900hp. 



> I think F1 fans just like to complain, period


No, I just complain when I feel that some rules are not well thought and against the soul of motorsports. And I have my reasons. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me as well.

Did you know that they are planning the same engine rules for the WRC? :rofl:

PS: This season is exciting for the anti-ferrari gang, because finally some other teams are winning


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> You are twisting the words. I didn't say that we should get rid of all the rules. Where did I say that? I'm just saying that I am against the one set tire for one weekend and one engine rule for the 2 race weekends.
> 
> I am still not convinced that one set tire for the whole weekend adds anything to the race security. The engine rule is there to save financially weaker teams' butts anyway (as if F1 have ever been a cheap sport  )
> 
> ...


 Weren't times faster in the past at least partly thanks to different track configurations?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Weren't times faster in the past at least partly thanks to different track configurations?


Yes Sir. In some tracks they added some chicanes.


----------



## WILLIA///M (Apr 15, 2002)

One tire rule. Bad.
One engine rule for 2 race weekends. Bad.
Changing rules, i.e. switching to V8's from V10's and throwing away years of development, does not save money. Bad.
And last but not least, single lap qualifying. The worst.


----------



## Rich_Jenkins (Jul 12, 2003)

I am venturing into deep water here amongst you guys, but as a relative F1 noob I was wondering if it was because of the interest in the F1 Leadership to increase the number of cars finishing a race?

I think one of the Speed commentators said at the end of the last race, that if Kimi's car had not had its suspension break it would have been the first race in F1 history in which no car retired due to mechanical failure.

Think about it...less retirements due to failure = more cars on the track for longer time = more opportunities for the sponsor's logos to appear on TV = more passing (since there are more backmarkers to pass = happier global customers?


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Good discussion, but trying to figure out what Max Mosley is doing is futile.

Abrupt changes in the rules open the opportunity for each of the teams to come up with a better or worse solution. Ferrari had a platform that was very successful. They weren't doing anything radical to stay ahead of the competition. Just evolutionary development. Very good development, but still evolutionary not revolutionary. Change the rules and make everyone come up with new ideas, then see who's on top. In this case, I think the Bridgestones are way off and it's thus hard to say how good the Ferrari is. In any case, they haven't gotten the most out of their car yet. 

I don't want to get started on the V8 rule because I think they should set the engine size and let the manufacturer choose the configuration. I'm not for anything spec in F1. If there's a tire manufacturer who wants to be in the sport, how can you possibly tell them to stay out?


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

I'm not a fan of the newer rules. Yes, the racing this season is more exciting, but I feel like we've lost the spirit of innovation and anything-goes that was once part of F1. I'm talking years and years ago.

I'd much rather see a firm budget limit for every team, along with a minimal set of safety rules. I know that a spending limit would be nearly impossible to enforce, but how much cooler would it be if manufacturers could design whatever engine they wanted to suit them? And went with whatever tires they wanted? What if the body designs weren't so constrained (although of all the rules, I have the least problem with the aero rules)?


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

I don't like most of the new rules.

Back in the old days (I have been watching F1 since ABC carried Monaco only). There wasn't a lot of passing then. Lots of people found it boring because after the first turn the only thing that changed the order was retirements. This was in the days of NO pitstops at all. Full race distance on one fuel load and ne set of tires.

Turbo cars stopped the single fuel load since many cars didn't make it to the end of the race due running out of fuel That and playing games like liquid nitrogen cooling of fuel to get more into the fuel capacity (in liters) required by the rules. And a desire to limit fuel onboard to limit fires.

Old days, displacement limit only. But most teams ran Csoworth V8s. Ferrari and Matra had 12s (Ferrari a flat 12, Matra a V). Interesting. All V10s, boring.

And I give it 2 years and the 2.4L engines will be making as much power as the 3L is today. Expect the revs to be into the low to mid 20K range. 

And WRT budget, Ferrari is much higher than $300 million, more like $800 - 900 million, with Toyota over $1 BILLION. A cheap team is at least $300 million.

Heck, it takes $3+ million to run a year of a one car Daytona Prototype team.


----------



## BMWRacerITS (Mar 17, 2004)

Alex - I was thinking more along the lines of the big horespower days of 10+ years ago with the BMW 1500hp turbo motor, etc.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Also uses skip shift, extremely high ovedrive ratios, and other fun things to get the better mileage.

Think about it, the LMR V12 will also fit in an E46 M3 engine bay, at over 700 HP. Also an inline 6 has inherent higher order balances that make them run smoother naturally.

It is easy to make power with displacement. It is an accomplishment to make power with less displacement.

As an ACCOMPLISHMENT piston speed, HP/liter, etc is very important. 

It all comes down to what YOU want in your car. You want HP and torque, buy American large displacement hunks. If you want a technological accomplish, buy something that took some engineering.


----------



## Tangent (Jan 18, 2004)

I really don't understand the logic behind requiring V8s instead of V10s to save money. Not only will every team have to start from scratch to design entirely new engines, but who's to say that any less money will be spent? If Ferrari was spending a billion dollars to develop the V10 why wouldn't they spend just as much developing the V8? It's not like they're R&D costs are tied directly to cylinder count...


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> It all comes down to what YOU want in your car. You want HP and torque, buy American large displacement hunks. If you want a technological accomplish, buy something that took some engineering.


Fair enough. But a large displacement hunk that's cheaper, faster, and more efficient, than a high-tech accomplishment is not something that should be relegated to the dirty corners of the automotive universe. If pushrods can compete with VANOS, then let 'em.

Which actually gets back to the original point of this thread. Screw the useless cylinder regulations, displacement limits, RPM limits, and other artificial rules that attempt to reign in costs but will likely do nothing. If F1 seriously wants to control costs, then set a cost limit. Everything else is indirect manipulation, and F1 engineers and directors are far too smart to let those things get in the way of winning.


----------



## F1Crazy (Dec 11, 2002)

There is one very simple way to reduce and control costs - limit testing. If there is no testing done then development slows down.

There is no doubt that teams with big budgets will build state of the art testing rigs, etc. but in a long run it's still going to be cheaper then testing all these new parts and ideas every week. At the end the mid-pack and the smallest teams will benefit the most and that's the idea.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

I am against limiting costs. And I have my reasons. F1 was never supposed to be a cheap sports. (as if motorsports is cheap at all). It is the King of the Motorsports, no?

1) Every manufacturer behind the teams will know when to put a financial limit. It's all about marketing. Why is BMW not taking part in the DTM? Because they think that the brand is going to benefit from the success in the F1 is much more than in the DTM. So, they are investing in the F1 instead of DTM. When they think that they are not profiting from the money spent, they'll reconsider their position.

It's like limiting the study time of a student, who is trying to achieve high scores. Limit the scope (i.e. displacement, aerodynamics, material usage), but let them spend any amount they want. 

2) By nature, F1 is an expensive club. He/she, who thinks that he could build a race team with $20 million and be successful for the next 10 years, is dreaming. It's never going to happen. Development costs money, period. And huge budgets doesn't mean instant success (see Toyota). 

3) Where is Porsche, Nissan, Mazda, Peugeot, Chevrolet? Instead of stirring s-hit, Ecclestone and Mosley should start negotiations with those manufacturers and convince them to join the series. I don't think that it should be difficult for these companies to find $400-500 million sponsors money. And think about the marketing.

A socialist approach is totally against the soul of motorsports, IMO.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

I believe that F1 should represent the best of the best -- the most brilliant minds in motorsport pumping out the best cars to pair with the best drivers in the world. That certainly costs money, and it would be laughably stupid to set a limit like $100 million/year. I would want to see a limit set to somewhat less than the current spending levels of the top teams in the sport today -- take the average of Ferrari/McLaren/BMW and cut it by 10%. Then get rid of the rules intended to slow down the cars, get rid of tire regulations. Keep a sensible set of rules in the name of safety, such as tethered wheels and crash tested vehicles. But if a team wants to put a Chevy small block mounted up front, let them do it. If another team wants to stuff a modern F1 V10 into the back, go ahead. If Jordan decides to give up internal combustion altogether and produces a car with electric motors at each wheel, why not? If a team thinks they can build a car that produces competitive lap times, then they should be free to build it. The spending limit would be there as the equalizer, not engine displacement or downforce. Spending limits may strike you as socialist, and I suppose they are...but so are rules that make everyone use the same displacement engine, have the same car layout, use the same tires for an entire race, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, I've mentioned spending limits in the past, and I've also said that it would be nearly impossible to accurately track team spending. I'd rather see a no-holds-barred series than one that limited spending, but I'd rather see a limit on spending than a set of weird rules like the ones we have now.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> I am against limiting costs. And I have my reasons. F1 was never supposed to be a cheap sports. (as if motorsports is cheap at all). It is the King of the Motorsports, no?
> 
> 1) Every manufacturer behind the teams will know when to put a financial limit. It's all about marketing. Why is BMW not taking part in the DTM? Because they think that the brand is going to benefit from the success in the F1 is much more than in the DTM. So, they are investing in the F1 instead of DTM. When they think that they are not profiting from the money spent, they'll reconsider their position.
> 
> ...


For every "purist" argument re: limiting cost is bad, there's a good argument that shows limiting cost is good.

1) Marketing...It is also "marketing" for F1 to come up with competitive races. Nobody wants to watch Spoonface take parade laps like he did last year. You cap developmental cost, and make the engineers and team managers get creative with how they manage their assets, you can possibly come up with a series where the technological advancement continues, but each team will choose to advance in a different area and thus creating a more interesting, dynamic competition, competition which is good for F1 overall by attracting more viewers to more diverse teams.

2) No argument there, but think about this: It's becoming more of a "richest" man's club, where Toyota is beginning to see results from their effort and cash inflow. It may not be immediate, but the team with the most $$$ to spend will eventually be the winner in this series.

3) There's good reason why car manu. participation is limited. Porsche don't like to lose, so you won't see them wasting their resources in a series where they can't dominate like Porsche Cup, er, I mean, ALMS. Nissan and Renault are partners, Mazda belong to Ford, GM has expressed no interest outside of NeckCar...The global consolidation of manufacturers has left basically 5-6 massive manufacturers that is capable of competing in F1, and a few of them have already bowed out (Ford). If F1 wants to continue down the path of diversity, PRIVATEER teams are the way to go, and privateers (Minardi, Sauber, Jordan...etc) can only compete if the ever expanding budget is limited.

Sure, a socialist approach to motorsports is against the "soul" of the sports, but sometimes you gotta sell your soul to the devil in order to make ends meet.


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

the current state of affairs in F1 makes the baby jeezus cry


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

TeamM3 said:


> the current state of affairs in F1 makes the baby jeezus cry


I'm not sure about this one. :dunno:

There has always been a segment of the motorsport community in the UK (particularly) that has wanted the privateer to be the focus of F1. Like it used to be in the days of Rob Walker and Ken Tyrrell. Of course, many years ago there was still BRM and Matra to go along with Ferrari. As teams connected with a manufacturer there was a financial advantage. I think F1's most boring time was in the Ford DFV years, when so many of the cars were very similar. Then Brabham had Alfa and then BMW, you know the rest. They weren't really a manufacturer's team like Toyota and Renault are now. Benetton was not a factory team, they had BMW engines then Ford and eventually Renault, now they are Renault. Still, there are people who think the cars should have no advertisements on them they should be British Racing Green or Silver or White and of course Red and they should not have advertisements at all.

If F1 is going to be the pinnacle of motorsports it needs the manufacturers and the engineering that comes along. Testing reductions would reduce costs, but you can't put a spending limit on the teams. You can limit the activities that can be monitored and that's testing. They should move the testing to Fridays on the race weekends, so we can see more of the team and drivers. This would give the teams with less funding a chance to test without incurring the cost. It would also force a more conservative tire development, even with multiple manufacturers.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

I agree that there should be no limit to costs. It is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing.

Peugeot and Citroen and Subaru and Misu were spending their money in WRC, but the first two are out after this year.

As for limiting testing, then they will develop elaborate test rigs to simulate the cars on track and the engines running on track and probably spend MORE than on track testing. 

Remember the old adage of racing, "It costs money to go fast, how fast can you afford."

The days of the privateer in any pro racing level is pretty much gone. Even IRL which touted low cost, saw big bucks teams come in and start winning everything.


----------

