Start, Melbourne, 2007

Have ten years of mandatory tyre changes improved F1?

Debates and PollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Ten years ago Lewis Hamilton had just made his first F1 start and Fernando Alonso still had the number one on his car.

And as the 2017 F1 season began small but significant change in the regulations had been made. It has remained on the rule books and arguably helped shape the next decade of racing.

For the first time drivers were required by the rules to use two different tyre compounds during a race, effectively forcing them to make at least one pit stop.

This change came hand-in-hand with the end of competition between tyre suppliers. With the ‘tyre war’ over, it was felt a rule forcing drivers to switch compounds was necessary in order to ensure tyres remained a talking point.

As refuelling was still allowed in 2007, the full implications of the new rule weren’t immediately obvious. That changed at the end of 2009 when refuelling was banned. The need to use both sets of tyres now became a crucial part of race strategies.

The rule remained in place through six years of Pirelli’s ‘high-degradation’ tyres which added another imperative to make more pit stops – sometimes as many as four per race. But 2017 has seen a return to more long-lasting rubber and Pirelli suspect we may again see drivers running virtually non-stop in some races this year.

Several other championships have mandatory tyre change rules including IndyCar, which provided the inspiration for F1 to begin with. But has the rule worked for F1 – and has it earned a place as a fixture in the sport’s regulations?

For

Forcing drivers to come into the pits guarantees a point of interest which might not otherwise happen. At some low-degradation tracks, such as Monaco, it’s unlikely drivers would need to pit at all unless the rules made them.

It also requires teams to solve the challenge of making their car run competitively on two different types of tyre. As we saw in Melbourne last weekend, Mercedes were not as comfortable on the ultra-softs, which helped Ferrari get ahead.

Against

The rule inevitably leads to contrived outcomes where drivers run a single lap on one set of tyres to fulfil the rule while running the rest of the race on the same set. The only reason this hasn’t happened more often over the past ten years has been because refuelling or high-degradation tyres have compelled drivers to pit more often.

Arguably, forcing drivers to make at least one pit stop removes some potential variety from dry races as it makes it impossible for them to complete the race without coming into the pits.

I say

The current tyre rules are massively over-complicated, taking up more than three pages in the Sporting Regulations. It seems to me this complexity brings with it little, if any, benefit.

Removing the limitations on which tyres drivers have to use in the race would make F1’s rules easier to understand. It would also end the contrivance of drivers running single-lap stints merely to satisfy the regulations.

It could also improve the racing by introducing an element of uncertainty about whether a driver was going to pit at all. Drivers near the rear of the field would have an incentive to pit and use the ‘undercut’, those ahead would have an incentive to stay out and make their tyres last until the end of the race.

Formula One’s current tyre rules are so complex that ending mandatory pit stops would mean changing other regulations too. The rules forcing drivers who qualify in the top ten to start on the tyres they used in Q2 would also have to go. But this is just another contrivance which F1 would be better off without.



You say

Do you think the ‘mandatory tyre change’ regulations have benefited F1 over the last ten years? Or is this another artificial rule F1 doesn’t really need?

Do you agree the mandatory tyre change rule has improved F1 races?

  • Strongly agree (12%)
  • Slightly agree (29%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (14%)
  • Slightly disagree (21%)
  • Strongly disagree (22%)
  • No opinion (3%)

Total Voters: 297

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

63 comments on “Have ten years of mandatory tyre changes improved F1?”

  1. Overall, forcing a driver to stop at least once is a good thing I believe. As said in the article, sometimes it’s the only moment in a race worth waiting for. A race in Monaco might be very boring, because nothing happens on track, but a change of position could become possible through pitstops (especially when the crew isn’t ready for it’s driver).
    But, the current rules could be improved, and be made way more simple. The current rules are unnecessarily difficult. Why not having a simple system where Pirelli bring 3 dry compounds, and the teams can choose whatever they like, but have to use at least two different compounds during the race. Why this complex system of determining a soft compound and a hard compound beforehand, and choosing all sets weeks before the race.
    Also, I’m not not big of a fan of drivers having to start on the same tyres used in Q2. This rule is unnecessary and has limited the choices for the drivers instead of giving more options for strategies.

    1. Having the top 10 drivers the start on used tyres gives a small advantage to the less competitive. Letting the teams decide beforehand is just about logistics for Pirelli. I don’t know if the tyres are shipped on a rim, or fitted to the rims on the race weekend, but having for instance the need to get 6-8 sets of each type on each track, for every car would mean Pirelli would have to tripple their production and shipments. Keep in mind, these tires have a limited preservation time, and are shipped 6-8 weeks before the race, so moving large quantities of unused stock around the world has a cost involved…

      1. The tyres are fitted to the rims supplied by teams at the circuit.

      2. When the advantage is to a less competitive team that’s one thing, but when a team is at the top of the midfield pack, having the driver who squeaked into Q3 ended up being at a disadvantage in the race to his team-mate who didn’t make the cut is … unsatisfactory.

        By the way @keithcollantine – you mean to link to the 2007 F1 Season, not 2017, surely?

  2. Here we go again….

    1. yes, kind of boring to talk about tires again but this is the perfect time to talk about this.

      If this was not a rule (and also the one saying you have to start on the same tires you did the qually on) then Lewis would have most likely won in Australia, a week ago. If he didn’t have to pit, he could have used the soft tire from get-go and Vettel would have never got past with the amount of wake turbulence the cars now have. I’m pretty sure such a race would have probably ranked even lower that it did (second lowest rating on F1fanatic since 2008).

  3. Voted “Strongly agree”. Not because I like the mandatory tire changes, but because at comtemporary F1 we have no other choice. Imagine F1 races nowadays without them and the DRS(another contrived but necessary thing). All drivers would circulate in procession from start to finish. A most boring spectacle. The limitations on car designs, and lack of tire competition would just mean everyone goes from start to finish because track position is king and even if you’re a bit slower you can defend easily. the whole F1 formula requires a complete overhaul, and then we can begin to think about getting rid of these “contrived” rules. But at the moment those “contrived” rules are what keeps F1 going at all. If not for them, no one at all would watch this boring as watching paint dry spectacle. I most certainly wouldn’t.

    1. You voted “Strongly agree”?

      1. @chemakal Indeed I have. I wrote the above post to explain why

    2. @montreal95 I often wonder if this argument is actually true

      The limitations on car designs, and lack of tire competition would just mean everyone goes from start to finish because track position is king and even if you’re a bit slower you can defend easily

      It could be argued that with no fuel or tyre stops formula one designers would be forced to channel a good deal of their efforts into developing a car which can overtake. There would essentially be two design approaches (1) Design a car which can always qualify first and second and then spend the whole race holding off the competition and (2) Design a car which can deal with turbulence better and can overtake. Given that not all teams are going to be able to do (1) then hopefully the designers would be put to work on dealing with (2) and given the strength and depth of F1 talent surely we would start to see some better solutions (perhaps allied with a freeing up of regulations). (Of course this could all be wrong and the pessimistic view is that the teams all focus on (1) and then, in effect, qualifying becomes the race and the race becomes a procession as suggested!)

      1. @jerseyf1 That’s a possibility, certainly, and I’d like to take your optimistic point of view, however I feel the pessimistic view is the most probable outcome. I doubt there will be a freeing up of the regulations without a budget cap in place. These machines are so complex that it’s impossible to design specifically for overtaking. It’s said that the Ferrari can follow other cars more closely than the Merc. But that’s surely a by-product of its whole design philosophy and not an objective.

        In short, I really hope I’m wrong and you’re right, but…

  4. Jonesracing82
    2nd April 2017, 12:30

    the “top 10 tyre rule” has ruined it IMO as they all start on the same compound & finish on the other compound as well.
    given these tyres this year seem to be able to go a long way i’d do away with the compulsory stop rule & let teams run any compound any time they want to add more variety to each race.
    as it is now the prospect of a driver being in front but on old/worn out tyres trying to hold off someone on fresh rubber is impossible.

  5. It has improved races only because the pecking order takes place naturally in qualifying and then in races. From a rational point of view there would be no overtaking at all except lapping cars.

    Gimmicks have to be found to shuffle the pack. Amongst them one can find refuelling, tyre change and others. So far the best gimmick I can think of is the alternate path that cars have to use in rallycross.
    Tyre change is not that bad after all.

    1. @spoutnik The joker lap isn’t a gimmick at all, that’s just part of the beauty of rallycross. It would be a gimmick if you’d let’s say only had a couple of drivers do it because their car is better.

      1. knoxploration
        2nd April 2017, 20:34

        It’s a gimmick, it’s just not an *unsporting* gimmick like those we favor in F1.

    2. The Joker lap is a fantastic idea. A one time shortcut would add huge strategic value. Do you use it at the start of the race? Slower cars may to get in front of the leaders therefore backing up the pack. Do you use it after a pit stop when your rubber is optimal? Or do you use it in the last few laps when you are close to the car in front? Race engineers will be frantic trying to calculate where in the order they come out. This gimmick would really throw petrol on the fire.

  6. Hmmm… what effect would ditching the mandatory stop have while keeping the “top-10 starts with q2-tyres”-rule?

    1. Probably the top 10 would need to stop at least once, whilst the rest (if on harder tyres) could avoid stopping altogether. This would mean that the qualifying top 10 would need to pass the others to win. Well, this way would practically guarantee some on-track passing. A win-win scenario???

  7. Do you think the ‘mandatory tyre change’ regulations have benefited F1 over the last ten years? Or is this another artificial rule F1 doesn’t really need?

    I strongly agree a mandatory tyre change improved many races, however I do not think there should be a difference between prime and option tyre. The Blancpain sprint for example also has mandatory tyre changes, and driver changes. It allows for a little strategy play which I enjoy almost in the same level as I enjoy a good overtake. Clever strategies like Rossi winning in Indy, or Perez in Monza couple of years back, or Vettel in Malaysia, etc, are part of the game. Grand Prix racing should contain all those elements, if it was just flat out racing to the end I think we’d see less overtaking as in the most average Q-session the fastest car will always be up front.

  8. Hell no, mandatory tyre changes have been a terrible thing for the sport.
    Until 2009 the rule didn’t really affect the number of stops, so its effect was small. Also, because the difference between the option and the prime tyre was usually very limited, the rule did little to improve racing. Actually I preferred the situation where drivers had to choose their tyre compound before qualifying more, as one compound may be better in qualifying, while the other compound is faster in the race, which I think creates good battles.
    Since 2010 the situation has been different. When tyre degradation is low, the rule forces drivers to pit even if they don’t want to, which is something I don’t like. In those races, every driver is stuck at the same strategy. Things weren’t as bad in the Pirelli era, because in multiple-stop races the effect of the rule is rather limited, even though I don’t like the fact that drivers have to run a (sometimes clearly) slower compound in the race.
    Given degradation will be lower this year, I really think the mandatory tyre changes have to go.

  9. Slightly agree. While I would prefer refuelling instead or as well I think forced tyre changes are the best way of keeping an element of strategy to races.

    Also pit stops are an important part of F1 – not only do they add another dimension to the racing and look impressive but they also show how important the whole team is to the race.

  10. I kinda like the mandatory tyre change because it means driver have to pit atleast once, but as soon they bring back refueling they might drop the rule again.
    The tyre rule I like the least is the mandatory q2 quali=race start tyre. I would love to see that go asap because it would bring a small amount of uncertainty back.

  11. I voted Strongly Disagree.

    I have never liked mandatory pit stops & have always felt that teams/drivers should be able to do what they want with the tyre compounds available just as was the case prior to 1994 & the introduction of refueling.

    If a driver wants to run the hardest/slower compound & try & run the whole race without stopping they should have the option to do that. And if a driver wants to run the softest/fastest compound & stop once or more switching to another compound during the race they should have the option to do that.

    People often say this sort of thing would kill strategy/racing but I disagree. Different cars & different drivers use the tyres differently & suit different compounds etc…. Vettel’s Ferrari might well be able to run a race non-stop on the hardest compound but Hamilton’s Mercedes may use the tyres more & find it better to run a softer compound & make a stop. This is the sort of thing we saw regularly prior to 1994 & it created interesting races where the outcome was uncertain until the end & where you never knew what strategies would be used until the drivers did them.

    You look at races like the 1990 French Gp where the leaders all made a stop while the 2 Leyton House cars that had failed to qualify for the previous race opted to stay out & that created something nobody had seen coming & also created some real tension, Excitement & good racing towards the end of the race. If you have a team like Force India or Sauber who have a car/driver that can do that while the leaders all have to pit that would create the sort of unpredictable results, mixed orders & good races that people seem to complain we don’t see anymore.
    If everybody is pretty much forced into the same thing be it via the mandatory stop or high deg tyres that force 2-3 stops your never going to get the sort of variables that people want, If you open things up & give teams/drivers total freedom over strategy its then you will see variables & that will lead to more interesting races/racing.

    1. I sooooooooooooooooooo agree with you !!
      Take out the artificial stuff, and let team / driver / strategy / circumstances decide.

      1. Oh and i almost forget.

        Remove the color coding from the tires, let the teams guess where their competitors are running on.

        1. That’s actually a great idea.

          1. Oi always thought this too. And since now all the teams run all kinds of algorithms and with analysis of 50 engineers, we always have an optimal strategy for a circuit / tire combo. With broader choices, the more variety! I remember in the 80s and 90s when Senna used 3 different compounds on the same stint! (Medium on rear, soft on front left tire and super soft on front right tire). It was amazing to see drivers exploring the possibilities and also taking advantage of different driving styles. I think that since we had these mandatory rules for quite a while, there’s an entire generation of fans that never had the chance to whatch races these open, because since 1993 we have these kind of rules (refuelling or mandatory tires). It would be nice for these fans to see how much better this was. It was really cool to see an underdog get a surprise podium due to different strategies! Now is so much harder due to optimal strategies!

  12. Victor (@victorandrei1999)
    2nd April 2017, 13:11

    I think that all 3 compounds should be mandatory over a race distance. It will create more pit stops so more chances for overtaking and in the meantime, the drivers will not feel that they can not push like.they did in the last couple of years.

  13. Strongly Agree.

    If you have all the cars in pace order from qualifying and the start of the race, won’t they just be circulating in the same order? Pit-Stops add a variable factor which may change the order around. With the current tyres we would just see every driver not pitting and running until the end. We would have missed some great races and for me strategy is the best part of Formula One, watching it all unfolding and playing out which creates a climax. For me, one change is for everyone to be free to choose their starting tyre, so there are more different strategies at the front of the field too.

  14. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    2nd April 2017, 13:14

    It’s another gimmick for me. A pit stop should be because it is needed, not mandatory. I liked the late 90s setup where by running softer tyres you were naturally committing to a 2/3 stopper because they were only good for 20 laps but (buy were proportionally faster and didn’t just go off the cliff), where the harder compound was good for a one stopper but still could never last an entire race. Refuelling obviously had a huge impact back then on strategy which I don’t particularly miss but tyres that naturally created a 1 stop vs 2 stop scenario with the freedom to do what you want at any time (including qualifying) would be ideal for me.

  15. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    2nd April 2017, 13:17

    * ’20 laps (but’

  16. Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
    2nd April 2017, 13:45

    Slightly agree.In 2012 for instance,we had great races,with tyres playing a determining role.But,what i would love to see,would be:3 compound,ideally ssoft(red),soft(yellow),medium(white) for the whole season,for every race and then no mantatory pit stops!!!We would have great variety in strategies,some drivers going for 0 pit stops(only mediums) while others might risk and run only the fastest compound.In my upothetic scenario,the ”Q2 rule” wouldnt exist.In my eyes,this would have been super exciting & super difficult to master from the teams!

    1. The same compounds for the entire season would indeed be cool (if possible). Then the different track characteristics would be much clearer to the spectators (abrasiveness of the track, number of high-speed corners), as this immediately translates into the tyre choices. The only problem is that probably every driver would choose the softest compound at Monaco and the hardest at Barcelona or Suzuka, but for the average track it would be fine. It would be cool to see, for example, a Grosjean doing multiple stints on supersofts, while other drivers would be nursing the harder compounds to reduce the number of stops.

      1. Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
        2nd April 2017, 15:27

        Or imagine a car like Williams 2014-2015(impossible to overtake) running with slower tyres and a train of cars behind them!It would be ike the Formula E ending yesterday!Or we could see more ”sprint races”,with fast cars pitting at the last 15 laps & then chasing down the others(like Silverstone 2013).

  17. Strong supporter of (mandatory) pit stops as they are an exciting part of F1 (it’s the only time during a race we can see it’s a team sport).

    Quite ambivalent about mandatory compound changes.

  18. IMO the only variable that can spice up the tactical aspect is refuelling. Either by changing the grid or by having cars with different strategies at the start.

    Mandate a pitstop for tyres doesn’t do anything for me.

  19. I don’t know where I stand on the mandatory tire change rule. When the Pirelli tires could not last the entire race distance, tire changes were necessary, so we didn’t need a rule. In fact, the rule was restrictive because it reduced the amount of strategies a driver could use.

    But when the tires are durable enough to last the whole race distance, the rule is necessary, in my opinion.

    Of all the tire regulations I think are the most unnecessary, it is the top 10 tire rule: that the top 10 starters must start on their Q2 tires. If you look at any Grand Prix with a wet qualifying but a dry start, almost all drivers have started on the softest tire. They do this because the softest tire gives them the best start. This rule, again, restricts strategy. Look at the 2012 British Grand Prix. Most drivers chose to start on the softest tire, but Alonso, the polesitter, chose to start on the hardest.

  20. I don’t know. I said slightly agree, but frankly only because it has been another element to possibly add a little variety to things but with so many other changes throughout the last decade it’s hard to know really.

    For me this is a question that should be addressed once they get to a proper balance of mechanical grip to aero grip and get rid of DRS. When they can actually race closely there won’t be the need for other contrivances. The one constant over more than just the last decade is too much clean air dependence.

    Let’s see what the product looks like over some more races and as Brawn starts to have an influence over the next few years.

  21. One of these days I’ll write a long rant on this subject. For the moment, however, I shall satisfy myself by saying that tyres are rubber bands that should play no part in deciding which driver or car wins the race. They should be rock hard, wooden if necessary, and easily capable of lasting a race or even a season. The competition is between drivers and cars, not lackey band makers.

  22. I don’t like the mandatory stops or compound rule.
    The tyre supplier(s) should bring whatever compounds they think are best suited to a circuit, the teams should then be free to use whichever of those tyres they think will give them the best race performance. If that means some use a single set of harder tyres while others use two, or more sets of softer tyres we’d get plenty of variety in strategy, without it being contrived.
    The only really interesting pit stops are when you’ve got two teams trying to get their car out first, but without refuelling, even they have lost much of the excitement they had in the past.

    For me, these mandatory changes were introduced as yet another solution to try to overcome the inherently boring nature of high downforce racing because the teams are so heavily invested in aero, and they don’t want to deal with their addiction, and the FIA is too weak to force them to give it up. So instead of doing what’s necessary, they’ve tried to change everything else, and we’ve ended up with a load of gimmicks, such as mandatory stops, compound changes and DRS, to name a few.

  23. I’m against mandatory tyre changes. Allowing freedom creates another strategic avenue for teams to go down – forcing teams to change tyres just creates the illusion of strategy.

    The best example of this, for me, is Hungary 2014. A damp track at the start removed the need to use both dry compounds (even though the bulk of the race took place on a dry track). Fernando Alonso switched to soft tyres when the track dried and because of there being no requirement to pit, he took the chance on doing the remainder of the race on these soft tyres, helping to create one of the most nail-biting finishes in recent years. We had 3 cars fighting for the win, which would not have happened if the rules forced him to pit.

  24. It’s difficult to define “improving F1” as lots of people want F1 to be different things…

    Keith said “With the ‘tyre war’ over, it was felt a rule forcing drivers to switch compounds was necessary in order to ensure tyres remained a talking point.” Therefore on the basis that everyone talking about tyres is a good thing for F1, the rules have worked. It’s been a massive success. Pirelli have definitely been talked about more than Sauber, for example!

    For me, the problem is what they set out to achieve. Tyres are like referees in other sports – when they are good, you don’t need to talk about them.

    1. I should add, as @jackysteeg said above, tyres can create variances in strategy but you have to allow teams to do whatever they want to allow that to happen.

      By forcing everyone to stop once, you’ll get most teams running the exact same strategy.

  25. f1 and tyres:
    when their is one tyre company, people will complain that the tyres either wear too quick, or not enough.
    when there is 2 tyre companies competing, people complain that one company favours one team, (which they tends to happen in realitiy, like in Bridgstone with Ferrari early 2000s).

    I can imagine there won’t ever be 2 tyres manufacturers in F1 at one time, not after that dodgy political storm by Ross Brawn in 2003, when he alone won the f1 championship for bridgstone-shod Ferrari before the 15th race of the season when Michelin-shod Williams had the speed advantage. Brawn had Michelin’s tyre design changed because his team Ferrari team was in danger of losing the championship, even though Michelin’s design had been used for about 2 seasons legally. this was Ross Brawn’s Dirtiest moment in F1 and he got away with it because he was at Ferrari. after that political storm for which Brawn somehow was given immunity, it is no surprise f1 wont have more than one tyre manufacturer.

  26. Personally I would love to see optional refueling and no mandatory tyre changes. I think that will help with strategy choices.

    Another idea would be to give the teams a number of tyres for the year. So a finite amount of tires of different compounds. That way they have to think about when to use certain compounds and could lead to interesting strategy choices.

  27. Mandatory pit stop? No. Mandatory no pitstops, like 05, no. Make the best tyre you can, naturally you are going to have some pit stops unless the cars can’t overtake which then makes them value track position more.

  28. How about being able to mix compounds at the front and rear, like in MotoGP ??

    THAT would certainly mix things up !!

    1. I think that happened in the 2012 GP2 race in Monaco. The leader chose to change just the rear tires.

  29. Overall I think we need tyre rivalry and refueling but I know cost will be too high for teams.

  30. racerdude7730
    2nd April 2017, 19:17

    personally i think every team should be able to pick any tire they want for the race weekend but still be forced to do at least one change during the race. They could have 3 compounds of their choice each race. If they happen to go crazy a pick a tire that dont last as long as it needs to then that is their problem to deal with. I think this would be hard on Pirelli but the teams would have to give them a heads up on what compounds they would like to run for the weekend. To me it would be cool to watch someone try and do a 3 or even 4 stop on super soft tires and someone try and run the race on a one stopper on hard tires. They would have to make the softer compounds much softer because right now i think most races on the softest compounds could be run on one stop if you want to.

  31. rules are sooooo complex. you have to use two types of tires in a race, which is incredibly difficult for the fans to understand…..what?!

    1. racerdude7730
      2nd April 2017, 20:26

      They must be talking about the fans who say f1 should be less complicated because no one understands it. Even tho i was say at least 75% of us tech geeks love that the cars are so complex. If they had it their way the cars would all be the same with no room for imagination. I know the racing isnt always great but its never been easy to pass people. So lets not dumb down the sport we love just to make some people happy. Id rather have all the tech and less passing if it so be.

  32. Color me stunned when F1 accepted this idea that came straight from the American Indycars series ten years ago. But now, something once so simple consumes 3 pages in the official rules book may need a serious re-think. Now that we have low gradation tires again, I don’t think it adds anything to races now(other than an opportunity to pass-possibly). I would like to see the number of available compounds reduced down to four or less.

  33. Fake Racing.
    Never liked this rule, or midfield drivers being rewarded for being slow with fresh tyres to start on.
    The non-stop option produced quite a few giant-killing results, debut wins and near misses down the years.

  34. Rob (@sundiesel)
    3rd April 2017, 0:25

    My opinion is that tyres should only be governed only by their size, leaving the structure, compound and the manufacturer a free choice of the team.
    Engines, Chassis and just about all other aspects of F1 are developed independently, why shouldn’t tyres be so too?
    If a tyre can go the distance, then it should be allowed to do so.

  35. 2012 was the best season in terms of racing during that time, and was the season with ultra-high degradation tyres. If you look after Silverstone 2013 (Pirelli´s massive failure), the quality of racing has decreased and we had mostly boring races.

  36. Restart the Tire War, encourage manufacturers to return to F1. As for the question, I slightly disagree. If a team wants to try a no-stop strategy, let it.

  37. F1 should remove the color stripes from the tyres and ban the mandatory change, turning the tyre strategy blind for the spectators motivating an uncertainty to the race.
    That would bring a new light over second level teams (Haas, Force India, Williams, etc.) that could enter a podium dispute with different strategy, bringing more fights in to the track.
    Pirelli would beneficiate from that too because the discussion about the tyres would be completely different e more intense, specialy in the final e decesive stages of the race.

  38. Michal (@michal2009b)
    3rd April 2017, 18:44

    Slightly agree. Mandatory tyre rule forces the teams to make a pit-stop, adding a strategic element to one-stop races, which otherwise have run to the end with very little action. It’s not like with no need to pit drivers would suddenly start overtaking each other. Australian Grand Prix would have been very very boring without this rule. Maybe the need to use both types of rubber is doing more harm but I’d to keep a mandatory pit-stop rule.

  39. Johnny Five
    4th April 2017, 0:18

    I’d like to be in the disagree camp. I love the idea (mentioned many times in this discussion) that one driver takes the tortoise approach and tries to make the hard tyre last all race, while another driver opts for the hare strategy and tries a 3 or 4 -stopper on ultra softs. I’m old enough to remember there were races like that in the olden days (!) and they were damn exciting.

    BUT, you all seem to be ignoring the “other elephant in the room”. To make the hare strategy succeed the hare will need to overtake the tortoise at least three times, and there has been pages written on this site alone about how overtaking is practically impossible – even with a differentiation in tyre performance. So I cannot see how anyone could make the hare vs tortoise scenario work for them – it’s too stacked in the tortoise’s favour.

    Still if I wasn’t a dreamer, would I still be here?

      1. Johnny Five
        4th April 2017, 18:42

        Thank you :)

  40. To me, F1 always was about “tailor-made”.
    The more parts you standardize, the more parts / moves you prescribe, the less tailor-made, the less stunt.
    Standard is the enemy of stunt.
    People prefer to watch, attend and cherish stunts.

    I am dreaming of the next tyre war (but: marbles to be prevented, as narrowing the corridor of possible racing lines = sports killer).
    For those teams who cannot find a supplier (or just suppliers unwilling for exclusively engineered rubber), F1-Group / FIA may support + pay one.

    Par-Fermé rules are too tight: If you are running a 500-people business for producing and racing the most sophisticated machines in ever changing conditions, it’s just odd that you are not being allowed to adjust your masterpiece to current conditions; or in case it just does not work well with a given standard tyre.
    Especially back markers profit from more freedom for creativity vs. application of means.
    I think this is a matter of principle.

    Just watched this GREAT one: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK_H9i3fDtxoVwRhJp0fLSTfly0_zqmuF
    about Gordon Murray and the invention of tactical pit stops.

    Also, it needs simple rules.
    Current tyre rules are not simple.
    You need rules that can be explained to newbies in a jiffy.
    Otherwise they clock it that it’s make-up gimmick-stuff; which does not suit to meaningful occupations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.