Soft tyre rule: exciting or artificial? (Poll)

Posted on

| Written by

Fernando Alonso has criticised F1's tyre rules

This weekend the drivers will once again have to cope with the ‘super soft’ tyre.

It made for interesting racing in Australia – but should F1 be resorting to gimmicks like forcing drivers to use un-competitive tyres?

Should F1 drivers have to use both types of tyre during a race?

  • Don't care (5%)
  • No (46%)
  • Yes - But the tyres should be closer in performance (23%)
  • Yes - I like it as it is (26%)

Total Voters: 1,711

 Loading ...

Drivers have been required to use two different compounds of tyre per race since 2007. But this year the gap in performance between the tyres has been widened.

So in Australia the super-soft tyres were falling apart after a couple of laps, and at Sepang the drivers struggled to get the hard tyres up to working temperature.

The rule was introduced partly to add interest to the racing, and partly out of a desire to maintain interest in how the teams were using their tyres following the end of the tyre war after 2006. It was previously used in the now-defunct Champ Car series, and the Indy Car championship has resurrected the idea this year.

Fernando Alonso has been scathingly critical of the rule in the run-up to this weekend’s race:

We expressed our concerns after Australia, after the accident of Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel – it was due to the difference of the speed. He tried to overtake, Vettel was not in control of the car with that tyre, you cannot brake, you cannot turn-in, you cannot do anything. And then Robert had a big crash after that because he damaged the car. And then we expressed our concerns and now in the third race we have the same tyre at a worse circuit. This is something that we need to change immediately.

I think the super-soft on this type of circuit with long, high-speed corners. Super-soft in Turn 1 will be destroyed and in Turn 10 there will be no more left tyre.

One [tyre] will be too hard and one will be too soft. The right tyre is at home! This soft tyre is at home and this happened in Australia as well. And the understanding that this is for a better show, for overtaking. As I said, for better show, maybe we can pick up our number and then whoever picks up number 15 can put on wet tyres, or whatever, and it is a better show and its funny. Like this is not funny.

Although I enjoyed the extra dimension the tyre tactics brought to the first races, I wonder if the artificiality of having races so heavily influenced by tyres might start to become repetitive after a while.

And as Alonso says, it does F1’s reputation no good to expose it to ridicule by having such wide variations in tyre performance purely because of a quirk in the rules.

Has F1 opted for gimmickry over real racing? Is this the first step down a slippery slope that leads to other forms of regulated race-fixing like success ballast and reverse grids?

Cast your vote above – and have your say in the comments.

Read more

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

61 comments on “Soft tyre rule: exciting or artificial? (Poll)”

  1. I don’t mind having drivers use two tyre compounds during each grand prix. It does add another element of strategy to the race, which I think should stay after the re-fuelling ban next season. Buuuuut, to have such a difference in performance between the two is a joke – and not a very good one. If the FIA is all about safety and (some) people are complaining about the legality of the diffusers on safety grounds, why aren’t we looking at these tyre choices and seeing the potential dangers? As Alonso said: “The right tyre is at home!” Couldn’t have put it better myself, and to me the tyre compound separation is idiocy in it’s purest sense.

  2. It is of course a bit artificial having the tyres so far apart. But then of course so is some teams having KERS and some teams not. I refuse to comment any more on diffusers :)

    All it means is that strategies will have to take this into consideration a bit more than before.

    If a team or driver makes the wrong choice then so be it. I like it, as long as it doesn’t compromise safety. Vettel tripped over Kubica because of this imbalance.. However I do expect higher standards from F1 drivers in this context. And so do the stewards, hence Vettel’s punishment. Kubica then having a nasty shunt after this contact has to be put down to Kubica not being cautious enough after the event.

  3. I would do away with mandatory use of the tyres, and each team can use what they want when they want (I know this goes against the cost cutting).

    There should be a marked difference between each of the 4 steps of tyre (super-soft, soft, medium, hard)… e.g. soft is 0.5-1.0seconds a lap faster than medium at its peak, but that peak is a smaller amount of laps… so if teams want use strategies like “hard” for the distance, or “medium” with one stop, or “soft” with multiple stops, or if they are good with tyres “medium” for the majority of the race and “super-soft” for the first/last portion… of course all this would only really work with the banning of re-fueling also.

    I would keep Qualifying as it is with the knockout format but Q3 will be low fuel, (super)soft tyres… banzai!!!

    I guess when it comes to Bridgestone, they would need to bring loads of the 2 soft variants, quite a bit of medium, and maybe a couple of sets of hard …for each team.

    1. which really doesnt do for cost cutting now, does it? That is a load, no pun intended, of tires for them to transport all over the world, dont you think?

  4. HounslowBusGarage
    17th April 2009, 12:28

    The function of this rule is to bring the attention of the audience to the tyres. As there is only one tyre supplier in F1, there has to be something to remind the spectators of Bridgestone’s significance to racing and high performance.
    But is this silly idea of running two types of tyres at each race the best that the FIA and Bridgestone can come up with?
    Perhaps it wouldn’t be so daft if there wasn’t such a wide gap between the two grades of tyre on offer at each GP this year. Option tyres didn’t make an impact on the racing last year, but as I understand it, the FIA wanted a wider gap between the tyre grades, and so we have this stupid situation; one particular grade of tyre on certain circuits will be as much use as carpet slippers on ice. And so teams will run them for the short amount of time before they destroy themselves – five or six laps.
    How does this improve the racing or elevate the profile of Bridgestone as suppliers of high quality tyres for performance vehicles? It doesn’t; it just make it look as though they have made a mistake.
    If this gap between grades continues next year, it will be even sillier as cars will not be able to refuel. So the compulsion to use the ‘naff’ tyres will be divorced entirely from strategy and we could see cars pitting in the closing laps of a race with low tyre wear just to change onto the Option tyre in order to satisfy the rules.

  5. It’s a tough call. On the one hand it does introduce a bit of excitement in the race but it does seem a bit forced.

  6. complete joke.

    Teams should be able to select the piece of standard, legal equipment
    for the job at any given time. Which is optimal for which team may differ.

    Anyway, anyone know what graining really is? Close up photos?

    1. “Tyre graining happens when the side-forces on the tyre cause the surface rubber to roll up and present a non-uniform contact patch with the road, which affects the grip level.”

  7. I am undecided on this one. Part of me thinks that it is artificial and should be got rid of, but then I also quite enjoy it but think the difference shouldn’t be so great that a tyre only lasts a few laps.

    If F1 still went to Indy surely they would have to modify the rule as cars could be forced to come in the very next lap after changing to softs after what happened in 2005.

  8. What they need to do is to design tyres to just last the distance they will be used for, but for their perforamnce to degrade within that period.

    They need to offer tyres that will last a quarter race distance and a third race distance so there is a choice for strategy.

  9. How will this work next season with refuelling banned? Surely the teams will all run the harder tyres for the first stint(s) and resort to the softer compound for the final stint(s). Otherwise the weight of the fuel will surely hamper the effectiveness of the softer compound?

    If all the teams run the same strategy then it’ll defeat the objective of having two tyre compounds.

  10. If it goes on like this, we may end up having F1 Handicap races.

  11. It is quite exciting when the cars are on the starting grid and the tire-warmers are still on and nobody knows what the front runners are running. Any difference in choices between the front runners meant a new twist from what we’d know from qualifying results alone. I like that moment when the warmers come off and the cameras zoom in on the various choices.

    1. I think that would still happen without this rule – remember last year the McLaren was harder on it’s tyres than the Ferrari so they might naturally opt for a different compound (without it begin forced on them).

    2. But that’s just the point–if it’s a natural choice of what suits the car best, there’s no drama to the tyre reveal. The drama comes from the fact that the teams have to make compromises, and that there’s a strategy to it.

  12. i think that the 2 tire idea is very odd. it’s not logical. it is just wasting rubber and not does not fit with the saving idea they try push with engine and gearbox. in general I think, they should go from start to finish with no tire change at all. or if they do change… then at least they should be allowed to use the same type of rubber. i’d like to see more sport (racing) and less pit-stops.

  13. It is a bit gimmicky but at the end of the day its the same for everybody and for sure it beats reverse grids hands down.

    So I’m not against the rule per se, but they definitely need to sharpen up the compound allocation – tyres falling apart after five laps is a joke.

    1. I agree – the super-soft is like a old qualifying tyre, no good for racing.

  14. Fewer pit stops, and at the limit case, no pit stops at all will convert processional races (hello, Valancia) into even more boring spectacles than we would have thought possible. Pit stops do add a uncertainty and the more uncertainty in a race, the better. Though ideally the uncertainty would be on-track, there’s only so many ways to squeeze it on to the track.

  15. I think it’s a bit naff and feel that they should let more than one company supply tyres to the teams. I’m sure in the past they’ve had something like 4 or 5 tyre companies represented on the same grid.

  16. i think its a great idea. it makes teams have to think about their strategies and it adds drama.

  17. I think the widened tyre gap was a good idea but there should just be a hard and a soft tyre, none of this ‘in betweeny’ medium and super-soft nonsense. Without the M’s and the SS’s, the tyre costs would be reduced a little bit.

    But then again, why bother having more than one type of tyre if you want to further reduce costs. Next year when refuelling is banned it should be optional pit stops and just one type of tyre brought to each race weekend

  18. The first 2 races of the season have shown BEYOND ANY DOUBT that overtaking is the essence of motor racing and makes the show.
    As long as “natural” overtaking works, you don’t need to artificially make some cars slower so other may overtake them just by having better tyres.

    1. So what are you saying?

      Virtually all the overtaking in the first few races were tyre related.

  19. In my opinion one supplier is good – cost cutting.
    I have other idea. Not 7 sets of 2 different compounds for every driver and 14 sets of tires but 3 sets of tires from all compounds. In this situation we have 12 sets of tires per driver. And full spectrum of possible strategics for racing weekend.

    1. Toperz, I like your thinking… and you’ve saved a load more money as well, bonus!

  20. i dont think this is a question of exciting or artificial. because i think its both. yes it is artificial, but its also exciting and makes the race and pit strategy more interesting

  21. I said, for better show, maybe we can pick up our number and then whoever picks up number 15 can put on wet tyres, or whatever, and it is a better show and its funny. Like this is not funny.

    I am an Alonso fan, but have to admit his argument is wrong. The fundamental difference is that picking numbers is random, while imposing a handicap to everybody is consistent. The soft (or problematic) tyres are the same for all, yet everybody is free to devise a strategy. This creates grounds for variance and surprises which is exciting. It’s like the rain – not optimal, same for everybody, a handicap, etc, etc, but generating excelent racing. :-)

  22. I do enjoy the strategy aspects of having to run two sets of tyres, but as already mentioned several times before, the performance to wear differential is just ridiculous.

    In the end, to me at least, I don’t think it would take away anything from the sport if only one compound was used. Trying to explain this sport to anyone that doesn’t follow is hard enough, without having to justify the why’s and whatnots.

    I think there has to be a better solution, but I can only go with the teams making the choice of 2 compounds themselves as that makes it a fairer competition (imo). If teams get to pick their own compounds (one soft and one hard) they can make sure they maximise their choice decisions and it adds to their strategy planning – and just like any strategy, they won’t always get it right.

  23. I think there are a few separate problems with the tyre situation.

    Firstly, as others have pointed out, the gap between the two is a yawning chasm. The supersoft just won’t last any more than a handful of laps. That compromises the effectiveness of making thwe two teams run them because all it means is everyone will fling on the supersoft for as little time as possible and be shot of them. You’ll get more overtaking, yes, but its meaningless overtaking because its not a true battle between cars – one is basically becoming undriveable very quickly.

    But if the gap between the compounds is less (but a little more than last season) then it becomes more of a balancing act and there’s more scope for strategy in using them whilst also giving the pace differential that gives a bit more overtaking.

    Secondly, it seems like the prime tyre is less than prime. I think the teams could maybe live with a rotten option tyre if they felt the prime was fine, but with the prime tyre not really working all that great either its more a case of gritting your teeth all weekend.

    I think both problems would be addressed by Bridgestone reevaluating their entire compound range and graduating it a bit more than just supersoft, soft, medium and hard, maybe having 6 compounds in total to give a bit more fine control over getting the correct prime and still having a bit of a gap to the option.

    Anyway, the idea was a gimmick in the first place. Its got a place in F1, I suppose, but this season I think we almost have too many variables at the moment, what with KERS vs. non-KERS, DD diffuser versus non-DD diffuser etc.

    Anyway, I hear there could be rain on raceday, which might suit the teams as then using both compounds may not be necessary.

  24. If Alonso is to be believed, then to me it seems that Bridgestone are going to be allowed to have a whole year of races under exactly the same conditions that got Michelin drummed out of F1 for raising the Safety Issue over – ie tyres disentegrating and making the cars undrivable.
    I’m sorry, but to me that is not racing. Its a disgrace, its manipulation and its only in Bridgestone’s interest, not the teams
    If we are going to continue having the tyre choice forced onto the teams, then Bridgestone should be making them capable of lasting the race distance, or pay a stiff Penalty if they don’t as this is road-relevant as well.
    Mind you, only using Super-Soft tyres for Qualifying would be an interesting change…..

    1. How is this in Bridgestone’s interest? Every race weekend they get drivers whining about how crapy their tyres are. Wouldn’t they much rather have drivers proclaim that the tyres were great?

      I’m only amazed that Bridgestone went along with this farce. They should have told Mosley/Whiting to got f themselves when they proposed this. But then Bridgestone fell for the old trick of picking between two wrongs (either change all tyre compounds to make a 5 tenths difference between types or bring very different compounds). Amazing how often that trick works in F1.

  25. ukk:
    The fundamental difference is that picking numbers is random, while imposing a handicap to everybody is consistent

    No, it’s not that consistent, if at all. Because different cars may have (and DO have) different preferences as to what tyres fit them best on a given track.
    If they were free to chose, one team might have run on different tyres than another throughout the whole weekend – which, if you remember a couple of years ago, was quite common.
    Now, forcing one team to use the compound that doesn’t suit their car (=makes them run slower), whereas another team will use exactly the compound they would choose themselves, is not fair.

    This IS a random distribution of handicap. :|

    1. Damon, you’re right that if the Control tyre concept is dropped and teams are free to choose then we’ll have a very different strategic approach, but this is nothing to do with the tyre performance gap :-)

      It is true that different cars have different tyre preference, but once we have a control tyre in place the performance gap doesn’t play a role. Even if we have a single tyre (== no performance gap) then depending on the compound the “tyre savvy” chasis will run better when a softer compound is in place (or a hotter weather, as for McLaren in 2008) and the “tyre (h)eater” chassis will run better on a harder compound (like the F2008). Then the randomness will become from Bridgestone and the track, but will be strategically irrepairable within a weekend :-)

  26. what do you think of this?

    soft – 10 laps
    medium – 20 laps
    hard – 30 laps

    teams have freedom to choose any compound
    total number of tires is roughly the same

    at some point, all 3 compounds will end up being used, but how is left to the teams.

  27. I’m only amazed that Bridgestone went along with this farce. They should have told Mosley/Whiting to got f themselves when they proposed this

    I think its Bridgestones idea, not Max’s…

    Certainly the two compound idea was. And I think it was also their idea to increase the gap between the two.

    1. It’s pretty common knowledge that Bridgestone was ordered by FIA to create a bigger gap between the compounds on offer during a race. According to Charlie Whiting, the FIA determined that it had to be at least 5 tenths.

      Bridgestone was put with their back against the wall. You could think to blame them for opting to keep the compounds and bringing “non successive” compounds rather than redesigning all their components to somehow manufacture a 5 tenths gap (how to do that anyway?).

      Then I say, they should simply have rejected this daft idea altogether. Both options were ludicrous.

  28. I do watch F1 for entertainment. The tyre issue is not much of a gimmick – no more than banning refueling, traction control, ABS brakes. I like it especially now when there are no more tyre wars to spice things up.

  29. Why should teams be forced to use two very different tyres.

    Ferrari had a history of making suspension systems that was very kind to the tyres. They could use the super-softs with its superior performance for a longer period. A very big advantage.

    If Ferrari in 2007/2008 were allowed to choose their tyre compound i think they would have won all races.

    1. Why should teams be forced to use tyres from only one manufacturer? Why should teams not be allowed to use traction control?

      The reason: It’s all part of the spectacle. Overtaking and driver skill is what the public wants. Sometimes less than ideal car setups put more emphasis on the skill of the driver. Strategy more important too.

  30. Wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t keep choosing a compound that is basically a Qualifying tyre only.

    Which makes wonder, are the only compound hardness’ super soft, soft, medium, and hard? If so Bridgestone should add a Medium-Soft and Medium Hard in addition to medium

  31. I agree completely with Mikkowl. I think it’s easy to forget sometimes how much of what we think of as F1 today comes from completely arbitrary rules.

    I also disagree that passes that happen because of the tyre performance difference are meaningless. Artificial, yes; but meaningless, no. In fact, the urgency for overtaking is increased because if you’re running on the stronger tyres, you need to get by as quickly as possible to open up a gap over the course of your stint to offset the upcoming stint in which you will be at a disadvantage. In a sense, the drivers are now in the position of the Red Queen–you now have to to overtake just to maintain your position. Passes aren’t meaningless; instead, it places a premium on overtaking (as well as defending), and those drivers who have the ability to overtake quickly and efficiently (or defend relentlessly) now have greater opportunity to use it.

    You could even argue that this is more fair, because all other things being equal, two drivers of equal pace but on different strategies will each have an opportunity to overtake on one stint and to defend on another. It’s a bit like a home-and-away football series–the winner of the position is going to be decided on the aggregate of their overtaking and defending abilities.

  32. So the drivers who can manage their tyres have an advantage? I can’t see anything wrong with that. I agree with the idea that they choose one compound and use it for the whole of the race – and have a stricter limit on the number of sets they have for a weekend. That would certainly differentiate who the smooth, technical drivers are.

  33. I also disagree that passes that happen because of the tyre performance difference are meaningless. Artificial, yes; but meaningless, no.

    I understand you’re argument.

    But I think it becomes increasingly meaningless the bigger the performance difference in the tyres. If someone is a second, 2 seconds a lap slower than you on the soft and you’re on the hard, yeah, you’ve still got to work to pass them.

    But when you’re getting to the 5, 6 second gap that we were seeing in Melbourne, it gets silly.

    Anyway, remember we were a bit lucky in Melbourne to get a decent race because the Ferraris running the softs had rather blown the field apart with their slow pace and only the intervention of the SC made things close up again. The top 2 were over half a minute ahead of the rest only a few laps in. That sort of thing doesn’t particularly make for good racing.

    1. All good points, but my impression was that the 5-6 second gap appeared only when miscalculations were made and drivers were left out on the softs for too long. The super softs were lasting for about 8 or 9 laps in Melbourne, which seems reasonable to me. I think the problem is that the performance falls off so quickly the teams get caught off guard at the end of the stint. I would think that this would go away over time as the teams get more experience with the softs.

      For example, looking at Vettel’s lap data, his 9th lap of his soft stint at the end was only 1s slower than his fastest lap that stint, which came on the 6th. But his 10th lap was 9/10s slower than the 9th. The 11th lap was when he and Kubica wrecked, but still, the lap time differential at the beginning of that lap was less than 2 seconds. At the start, Massa was 4.4s slower on lap 10 than his fastest, but had he pitted two laps earlier, the differential on lap 8 was only 1.5s.

      If the drivers were able to only get 5 or 6 laps in before hitting a 5 second gap, then I’d say it’s too extreme. But so far, I think the balance Bridgestone has struck appears to be healthy. I suppose China’s abrasive surface may throw a wrench into things, but even so, I seem to recall Massa saying after practice that the softs were lasting for about 10 laps, which again, seems close to the ideal to me. I guess I wouldn’t mind if they lasted a few laps longer, but I wouldn’t want it to be very much more.

    2. Robert, just saw your comment a ways up. I certainly wouldn’t complain if Bridgestone regraduated the lineup to 5 or 6 compounds! Might be a bit expensive for them, though, and I still think that the yawning gap will be mitigated somewhat when the teams get a handle on just how quickly the softs fall off.

  34. Sometimes less than ideal car setups put more emphasis on the skill of the driver.

    Read my previous post first. The problem is that those weird rules cause having “less than ideal setups” in some teams to a greater extent than in others.

    They introduce more and more factors that make it harder to figure whether a driver’s good/bad performance is due to his skills or a lucky or an unlucky correlation of those factors.

    Now imagine that FIA ruled that all teams should use the same front wing. Sounds like making things even, sounds fair, right? For now…
    Now, and if the front wing that everybody had to use from now on was McLaren’s wing?
    The McLaren’s would be fastest by a long shot – whereas the other teams would struggle with a wing that doesn’t work the way it works on a McLaren, obviously.
    You’d have Hamilton winning races, and everybody could say: “Hey, they’ve all got the same wing. So it’s down to the driver’s skill. Lewis is the best!”

    But that would obviously be not the truth.
    The 2-compound rule works in a similar fashion.
    It is just another factor that makes the overal result more car-oriented, BUT this time with a random distribution “good cards” among the teams.

    @ ukk
    You’re right, and that’s why teams should have the right to choose a tyre compound that suits their cars best.

  35. random distribution of “good cards” among the teams*

  36. Damon, if you turn it around you can also see it as that the teams and drivers should be more flexible and aware of that they must learn to adapt to different tyre compounds. Both in engineering, setups and driving techniques.

    As it also is, there are two different types of tyres no matter what, so ones car can be dialed in to work better with one than the other, and even varying cars and teams will probably profit from one compound more than the other, regardless of which one that is.

  37. Personally, I like the idea of pitstops as I think the racing is more exciting to watch when the cars run lighter, as opposed to running with full race fuel from the start. This was not the question however but I’m getting there. With pit stops one is in a position to change tires as well. This is a good thing as tires that would need to last a whole race would necessarily be quite hard and in turn , more than likely be difficult to get up to temperature and not be able to exploit the characteristics most of us watch F1 for which ,in my oppinion, is the phenomenal cornering speed and capabilities of the cars. However, I think having teams being required to use both compounds in a race, is an unnecessary bit of regulation, especially when the gap between the compounds is so great.
    If I’m not mistaken, Goodyear supplied Qualifying tires and 2 additional compounds for the teams to choose from ,for use in the race. So what I think would be good for F1 would be; No qualifying tire per se, but two compounds reasonably different in hardness and allow the teams to choose which and when to use them. That would allow the teams to choose when to go to the harder or softer compound as best would suit their strategy for the race. Most would probably gualify on the softer of the two, but from then on racing and tactics, rather than ill conceived rules, would prevail.
    And neither Bernie nor Max’s opinion should be consulted.
    One last thing. It’s my opinion that if the cost of hosting an F1 race is to continue to be as extortionate as it is at present, then the the race organizer should determine when the race should start and not Bernie. If he can’t get Europeans to get up in the wee hours as the rest of the world has to in order to watch a race, to bad for him and the european audience. What makes you guys different from the rest of us, other than geography. Don’t tell me F-1 is happy about losing the American and Canadian audience. Just ask Mercedes, Bmw, Toyota, Ferrari and even Renault. Not to mention any of the non automotive sponsors.

    That’s it for now. Barry

  38. i don’t like the idea of multiple types of tires. however since the system is running, and i understand why it is, why is bridgestone bringing forth such a wide range of rubber? they are supposed to be the rubber experts. and clearly after reading what Alonso said the super softs are definetly not supposed to run in shanghai…

    i think this is a screw up on Bridgestone’s side rather than the FIA’s rules…. but again i stress that i would prefer one type of rubber like the old days.

  39. you can also see it as that the teams and drivers should be more flexible and aware of that they must learn to adapt to different tyre compounds

    You can tell them to be flexible by forcing drivers to drive with closed eyes or with a chicken onboard as well ;)

    – Lewis, just squeeze the chicken with your thighs. No, it won’t fly away, chickens don’t fly… well especially if you suqeeze them too tightly. But you don’t wanna get minus points for a late chicken, do you?! You gotta be flexible, Lewis!

  40. I wouldn’t agree with “drivers being forced to run uncompetitive tyres” – They all have to use them so it’s fair. Whoever uses them best will reign greater than those who don’t, it’s another variable and Alonso’s outburst is just another case of him “throwing a fernando” (tantrum). I love the guy – he gives F1 drivers character but he’s just annoyed he’s not winning and well, fair enough.

  41. So they kicked Michelen out because the tyre war was creating too much of an issue and now they let Bridgestone go and mess about by bringing in stupid tyres selections so that the tyres are talked about more than the cars! What a joke!!

  42. Artificial.

    This is the result of the single tyre supplier.

    Bridgestone aren’t happy with just getting to be the sole supplier and they want something else to get people talking about the tyres otherwise the only time we’d talk about them would be when they failed.

    1. They’re failing right now – to provide a decent service to F1.

  43. Kimi Raikkonen might have got number 15 last race :)…

  44. I’m happy with the 2 grade difference. It’s up to the drivers and strategists to get the most out of the tyres.

    They do, however, need to get the right tyres for each race and ones that go off after only a few laps are a bit farcical.

  45. Mussolini's Pet Cat
    18th April 2009, 1:03

    It’s the same for them all, so what’s the problem.. Stop bleating on and let the racing begin!

  46. “Lewis, just squeeze the chicken with your thighs. No, it won’t fly away, chickens don’t fly… well especially if you suqeeze them too tightly. But you don’t wanna get minus points for a late chicken, do you?! You gotta be flexible, Lewis!”

    Damon nails it! rotflmao

  47. For me, I agree with Alonso. Bridgestone should not put in tires that is not suitable for the track. Imagine, would you like to play basketball on leather shoes or high heels? I like the option tires that were set-up last year.

Comments are closed.