Comments on: Debate: F1 better since end of tyre war?

By: SoLiD

SoLiD — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:26:13 +0000

to begin, we need slicks!!

And yes it’s better with one supplier, last year the difference between tyres was to big and it wasn’t down to the drivers and car anymore.

look at MotoGP, wouldn’t it be much cooler to see Rossi and Stoner fight it out instead of one having a winning tyre and the other not?

the soft/hard rule doesnt have a big impact but its ok.
they need to let q3 be a free running without the fuel rule, then you have a cool format!

By: Haplo

Haplo — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:01:19 +0000

I think one supplier is the answer, but without that stupid compound rule. Let each driver/team choose the compound(s) they want to race.

And of course, bring back super sticky slick fat tires.

I mean look at how things have gone: We go from slicks to girly grooves. Then from V10′s to silly V8′s. Now they want all teams with customer chassis and homologated aero.

By: Fer no. 65

Fer no. 65 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:50:51 +0000

Don’t think a sole suplier is the answer here.

Different manufacturers compete each other, also (in some cases) the engines (remember Peugeot, Mugen, Yamaha and others that didn’t have a team but they raced their engines).

Why not the tyres? Imagine 3 different tyres, for example, Michelin, Bridgestone and GoodYear.

That should be cool.

By: Al

Al — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:05:31 +0000

The move to a single type supplier has impacted racing negatively. For one, it reduces on track overtaking even further – Significant differences in tyre characteristics allowed more of it in the past. Bridgestone’s spec tyres have marginal performance differences, and more often than not, one of the compounds is unusable, leading to predictably short stints on it.

More importantly, we need tyre competition (and a move to slicks) to provide more mechanical grip. That makes it easier to follow a car. More mechanical grip also allows for greater regulation of downforce.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:53:19 +0000

I’m glad with the tyre war finished. But really, I hate seeing pilots changing his driving because of the inefficient tyres brought by Bridgestone to competition. I’d like to see that violent turn of Alonso in the McLaren, and what would be the real difference between Hamilton and Fernando.

The compound rule it’s only crap, an artificial way to ruin races.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:24:48 +0000

I’m glad to see the back of the tyre war because frankly I don’t care which tyre is better. It is an element of competition that no one asked for an no one cares about. Where was the championship points and trophies for best tyre?

The new forced compound rule is interesting but makes no difference really. It is still an artificial measure to try and make racing more interesting, instead of more competitive.

What we really need is an end to refuelling, let anyone buy whatever tyres they want provided they have to use them to pass on the track I don’t care.

By: Nathan Jones

Nathan Jones — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:03:49 +0000

i think the compound rule has not worked simply because more often than not, all drivers choose the same compound at the same time!
the rev limit has hurt the racing as well. as seen at indy this year when alonso was trying to take the lead!

for mine TC has ruined motoGP as well…………..

By: Paul Sainsbury

Paul Sainsbury — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:00:39 +0000

I hate tyre wars and I am glad to see the back of them is F1, even if the ‘racing’ is still non-existent.

Look how tyres have wrecked Moto-GP. Rossi plodding around in seventh, for goodness sake………

By: Phill

Phill — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:28:22 +0000

the use of two compounds has been good as shown at canada from sato’s move on alonso, however that is the only thing that stands out.
as for the tyre war of 06, I think I prefered that. I would rather see some toyotas up towards the front of the grid every once in a while than being able to predict the front 6 ever race, like now.