F1: 2017 Pirelli Tyres in Action

[Chris]

Red Bull have also now been testing with the new rubber at Mugello. I have to say, regardless of whether or not these new tyres make for better racing, they look fantastic!

Images courtesy of Autosport.com

 

[AlleyViper]

That rear looks out of 1990.

 

[Deleted member 130869]

Please please please please let there be a regulation against amount of aero devices and wing cuts! Love the tires.

 

[hurricaneman]

If they look like this, they will be much more sexy!

 

[samcar304]

Car looks aweosme just Not a fan of the Rear wing shape... I like my rear wings Boxy

 

[RoMaN14]

Judging from the posts so far I'm going to get hated a bit, but I'm going to say that aero restrictions would be terrible. Of course, if you think F1 is a show first and then a sport it sounds reasonable, but I refuse to think like that.

F1 is (somehow) still the top of Motorsport, and it is all about going to the limit and being as fast as possible. So what is needed is maximum downforce, and maximum performance everywhere. And also to encourage new ideas, rather than banning anything more intelligent than average.

Let me be clear here, I do not support Mercedes, and I certainly don't like it when they win every race, but if they have the better car and are not cheating that's exactly what they should be doing. Rules shouldn't slow down the best ones.

I do admit that it wouldn't be ideal for TV ratings, but at some point one has to decide what is more important. I always say: If you want equal cars, go watch something with equal cars; leave the pinnacle alone.

 

[P*Funk]

But the problem with no rules restricting things you end up with meritocracy via budget. If F1 simply paid everyone's bills or limited every team's maximum expenditures to well below the absurd heights it reaches these days then it really would be about the best of the best in design and performance. Instead its the best of the best of those who can afford it with half the field basically struggling to hang on to the standard of the last year or even the year before.

F1 made better sense when the pinnacle of engineering was about breaking new ground with ideas and where those new ideas didn't cost a fortune but mostly were about simply having the talent or knowledge to engineer them. Now its a zero sum game where budget is the decider in performance mostly and where the restrictions are as important to the series to keep the product of this dynamic from running completely away with itself.

The other thing is that the pinnacle of performance is always arbitrary because its limited for safety purposes these days. What they could do with no rules at all would be mind boggling, but we've reached a point where if you go much faster than they did in the early to mid 2000s you have to start thinking about when will it become too dangerous even for the diehard danger fanatics?

 

[RoMaN14]

2 good points. I absolutely agree that we should have safety regulations (as we do) and also budget restrictions (as long as they aren't extreme). But arbitrary cuts on downforce just for the sake of TV ratings is absurd on many levels.

 

[fortyfivekev]

2 good points. I absolutely agree that we should have safety regulations (as we do) and also budget restrictions (as long as they aren't extreme). But arbitrary cuts on downforce just for the sake of TV ratings is absurd on many levels.

The reason to cut downforce is for better racing. If that makes more people watch the races on TV then great but that is not the reason people want to do it. Cars with more mechanical grip and less aero (especially from front wings) race better. That's just the way it is.

As far as budgets go, I was a kid when the poorer teams could race at the front and that's quite a while ago now. You cannot have budget restrictions with factory teams as they can always find some way of cross subsidising their race teams.

 

[TomcatMF]

One idea I have is to regulate the wings more. Limit the number of elements and size of the front wing. Maybe set a maximum surface area limit. Then they could also put more emphasis on mechanical grip by perhaps bringing active handling technology in. After all most of the high end cars, and even sport cars, have it now.
To add to the challenge the overall bhp should be higher too. The cars still need to be hard to drive, and that would add to the challenge as throttle control would be critical going through the corners.

 

[RoMaN14]

The reason to cut downforce is for better racing. If that makes more people watch the races on TV then great but that is not the reason people want to do it. Cars with more mechanical grip and less aero (especially from front wings) race better. That's just the way it is.

Yeah, and while you're at it, make a regulation saying that whoever wins 3 races in a row has to drive with 90% throttle in the next race. You want more racing, might as well go all the way.

 

[P*Funk]

Yeah, and while you're at it, make a regulation saying that whoever wins 3 races in a row has to drive with 90% throttle in the next race. You want more racing, might as well go all the way.

Regulating design to prevent single file boredom is not the same as a BOP.

Besides, the reverse is you give people DRS to artificially overcome the problem. Its like giving them 110% throttle for a few seconds too.

 

[RoMaN14]

Yeah, it is also wrong. If I were in charge I would allow everyone to use DRS, but that's never going to happen.

But anyway, my point is that slightly more boredom is better than F1 not being a sport at all.