First, I don't like the requirement to have to use both compounds of tires in the race. Just not sure I get it, but F1 isn't the only organization doing it so there must be some reason to do it.

Ron Dennis blamed Heidfeld for McLaren losing the race due to Heidfeld starting on the soft compound and short fueling the BMW.

Which leads to my question. Shouldn't there be some advantage to start on the soft compound and short fuel the car to build a lead and switch to the hard compound? I haven't seen the lap time data to see how much different the times are, but I recall hearing the softs are 0.3-0.4 seconds a lap faster. Couple that with the low fuel loads could give a second or more per lap, stop early and try to hold on. It is easier to maintain a lead than it is to pass so it makes sense to get out front and stay out front.

I am sure my logic is flawed as I am sure the engineers for all the teams have run the scenarios.

Yes but the problem is that the soft compound tires were blistering or not lasting longer than one lap, which is worthless..

Yes but the problem is that the soft compound tires were blistering or not lasting longer than one lap, which is worthless..


But they all have to use them sometime during the race.

dont you guys think that its ridiculous that Ron Dennis is blaming Nick for McLaren losing the race? I find it to be a joke that a team owner is blaming his faliure on the fact that another team used a certain tire strategy. I would hope that McLaren has engineers working on the tire situation. I mean, McLaren is considered a power house in F1. So why blame another team for a mistake made by your own team?? I think F1 is getting a little ridiculous.

First, I don't like the requirement to have to use both compounds of tires in the race. Just not sure I get it, but F1 isn't the only organization doing it so there must be some reason to do it.

Ron Dennis blamed Heidfeld for McLaren losing the race due to Heidfeld starting on the soft compound and short fueling the BMW.

Which leads to my question. Shouldn't there be some advantage to start on the soft compound and short fuel the car to build a lead and switch to the hard compound? I haven't seen the lap time data to see how much different the times are, but I recall hearing the softs are 0.3-0.4 seconds a lap faster. Couple that with the low fuel loads could give a second or more per lap, stop early and try to hold on. It is easier to maintain a lead than it is to pass so it makes sense to get out front and stay out front.

I am sure my logic is flawed as I am sure the engineers for all the teams have run the scenarios.


.4s over the course of one lap, not for every lap. The soft tires grain and therefore lose performance after just a few laps thereby negating the initial advantage

.4s over the course of one lap, not for every lap. The soft tires grain and therefore lose performance after just a few laps thereby negating the initial advantage

Ok, but that is kinda my point. Why require using 2 different compounds. I just don't understand the reasoning.

They mandated the use of two different compunds to mix it up. Some cars may work better on one type rather than the other.

The reason most teams used the hard for the first to runs was that the track was very green (only used once year/rain over the weekend).

The Softs were graining to much but the teams hoped that by the end of the race with more rubber down they would be ok.

The real reason they do the two compounds is that is gives the TV crew something to talk about. Now that everyone is on Bridgestones, they run the risk that no one would talk about the tires (or tyres).

Think about how many times tires were mentioned during the race and how many close ups of the sidewall we got to see just looking for that white dot.

Good marketing idea, even if a bad race idea.

Vince

Well, again unless I mssed something, Bridgestone has 4 compounds (not counting rains) for the year. At each race they are required to provide 2 choices, and the teams must run both at least once in the race.
That means both maybe sub-optimal for the course, but the best of the 4. I'm guessing the soft may work better at other circuits. Either that or the other 2 compounds not used at Melbourne are hard and frikkin' hard.

Hold on, im confused as to what im reading here.

Every team on the grid MUST use 2 different kinds of compounds through the course of one race OR the weekend???? Why are teams mandated to use different compounds? Strategy is strategy, you should just have certain elements available to play with such as compounds....not consider the fact that you HAVE to use these 2 compounds within your race strategy computations.

Look two posts up... it's all about marketing for Bridgestone. The announcers on Speed talked more about the tires than any other race I can remember. The announcers were the ones that said the 2 compound rule was in place to generate talk about the tires as Michelin is out and they don't have the usual Bridgestone vs Michelin debate as such Bridgestone is afraid no one will talk about the tires.

Vince

I don't mind the two tire ploy, although it does seem a bit contrived and forced. It does add more strategy to the race, kind of like not having a DH in baseball makes the game much more nuanced and interesting from a strategy standpoint.

Oh yeah, and can someone explain to me how on earth BMW's choice of tires affects McLaren? I don't get how McLaren can blame their failure on a different team.

Oh yeah, and can someone explain to me how on earth BMW's choice of tires affects McLaren? I don't get how McLaren can blame their failure on a different team.

OK, first we throw out reality. Then we go to into F1 spin mode...
BMW's tire choice meant that Heidfeld prevented the McLarens from running with Kimi long enough for their fuel strategy to go out the window. When Heidfled pitted (early) he took himself out of the McLaren/Ferrari race but the damage was done.
Then the unicorns stampeded and chased away the meddlesome leprechans, and the magic spell was broken. The end.

I'd run soft at the start and get as many positions as you can. Then soft after the 1st round of early stops to maybe pick up a spot or two. Then hards and block like nobody's business to maintain what you got for a long stint to the finish.

There is alot of attrition and traffic early in races. Run soft till they go of any at all. Come in and get out of traffic with softs again for clear track. Turn laps at gang busters until they go off any at all, then the 2nd stop will take you to the end and hopefully you'll pick up a few at the end when guys blow up or crash out.

If you have a ferrari I'd run hards from the start. Then run soft at the middle stop if anybody is close to you to protect the position on the in and out laps.

I think as the season goes on you'll see there really is no strategy or guessing to this. There is only one logical way to do it to have the best chance at getting spots.

I'd run soft at the start and get as many positions as you can. Then soft after the 1st round of early stops to maybe pick up a spot or two. Then hards and block like nobody's business to maintain what you got for a long stint to the finish.

Although I thought part of the problem with the softs is that you end up BEING one of the early stops, not that you can outlast the others and then pit. Otherwise that makes perfect sense . . .

I'd run soft at the start and get as many positions as you can. Then soft after the 1st round of early stops to maybe pick up a spot or two. Then hards and block like nobody's business to maintain what you got for a long stint to the finish.

There is alot of attrition and traffic early in races. Run soft till they go of any at all. Come in and get out of traffic with softs again for clear track. Turn laps at gang busters until they go off any at all, then the 2nd stop will take you to the end and hopefully you'll pick up a few at the end when guys blow up or crash out.

If you have a ferrari I'd run hards from the start. Then run soft at the middle stop if anybody is close to you to protect the position on the in and out laps.

I think as the season goes on you'll see there really is no strategy or guessing to this. There is only one logical way to do it to have the best chance at getting spots.

Especially valid for tracks that have a tight first corner. Plays into quali since you don't need as much fuel on board and can therefore run a faster lap. The strategy you discuss wouldn't have worked in melbourne since the soft tires were graining so much.

I'm sorry, but mandating the use of several compounds is a stupid rule which serves no purpose. In what way does it make for more even competition or excitement for viewers? It doesn't. The tires are all the same, so there's no need for mandating compounds.

Although I thought part of the problem with the softs is that you end up BEING one of the early stops, not that you can outlast the others and then pit. Otherwise that makes perfect sense . .

I was referring more to a mid pack car with that, which seems like everybody but Ferrari based on the first race, if you are mid pack you are in traffic. Think about Button holding up the ferrari and other honda car. If those guys caught up on softs and were faster than button but falling off quickly and can't get by. It makes sense to come in for a stop, then do another quick stint on softs and hope you beat them on the overlap. If you are on mediums/hards and a full tank you are kinda forced to attempt overtaking. This could take ten laps, and in an F1 race that'd totally screw you up.

If you are up front, well you allready have the advantage so play it conservative and make sure you have a car that can finish.

With the data gathered and test miles those teams do, they know exactly when the window to pit before you start losing time is. Bridgestone will get better at bringing optimal tires to the track too. I'd say it was a good effort for the first race.