Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why do the mandatory pit stop and use of both compounds


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:29

rules still exist?

 

If the races are boring and people slam the least suited tyres, let each devise his own strategy through the weekend. The winner will have no option but to give praise to Pirelli. And eventually different strategies will lead to track battles as it does not become a race of 24 guys trying to best nurse tyres to the same strategy.

 

Win/win.

 

Worse case scenario, nothing changes.



Advertisement

#2 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:31

Why don't you complete your



#3 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:47

Durh... 



#4 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:08

I'd be happier with 6 sets, 3 of each of 2 types, so same as now, but let them choose what todo.

be more interesting



#5 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,969 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:05

It's a hangover from Bridgestone's time as a single supplier. The intention in 2007 was to bring in some unpredictability that was lost when the tyre war ended. I don't think it even worked back then.

I think it's been kept because it means Pirelli don't need to take more tyres than are absolutely needed to a race meeting, so there's a bit of cost saving involved. Frankly I'd rather the teams just declare beforehand which two compounds they'd like at each circuit before hand, and Pirelli would bring those. Then "Prime" and "Option" would mean something again. The Prime would be the team's first/conservative choice, while the option would be there in case the prime was a poor choice, or to enable the team to roll the dice during the weekend, or even in the race. But don't force them to use both during the race.

 

Lastly, keep the coloured markings so we can see who's running what.



#6 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:20

It was implemented so that Bridgestone wouldn't have to fly the same sets of hard tires around the world, thus not able to guarantee every set was the same age. It was part of the 'green' thing that tires shouldn't go to waste.

 

Just have the GoodYear rules with all compounds available the whole weekend (soft - medium - hard, drop supersoft), perhaps 3 sets each from Q onwards. You can then devise a tactic around them. With 2 compounds and the rule to use them both AND start on the Q3 set, strategy is not as tense as it could be.



#7 InfectedPumpkin

InfectedPumpkin
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:26

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!



#8 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:34

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.
Bring back two tire suppliers.
Bring back grooved tires.
 
ASAP!
 
Problem solved!

Who pays for all of that - tyre manufacturers do not seem interested. Most teams could not afford the extra cost of refuelling.
Not sure what difference grooved tyres would make

#9 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,819 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:49

It was implemented so that Bridgestone wouldn't have to fly the same sets of hard tires around the world, thus not able to guarantee every set was the same age. It was part of the 'green' thing that tires shouldn't go to waste.

 

Just have the GoodYear rules with all compounds available the whole weekend (soft - medium - hard, drop supersoft), perhaps 3 sets each from Q onwards. You can then devise a tactic around them. With 2 compounds and the rule to use them both AND start on the Q3 set, strategy is not as tense as it could be.

 

that would still mean producing shipping and then discarding 50% more tyres than they do today to what end?



#10 Ian G

Ian G
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:53

 

 

 

 

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!

 

I think re-fueling will make a comeback in some form in the years ahead but probaly a jolt to the KERS, or whatever it will be called next season,rather than good old petrol,the days of the Multinational Oil Co.'s running F-1 are nearly over so anything is possible in the years ahead.


Edited by Ian G, 19 November 2013 - 10:54.


#11 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:21

that would still mean producing shipping and then discarding 50% more tyres than they do today to what end?

To bring tactics etc. When they pay millions for motorhomes and drag them around the globe, why not spend some of it that actually makes racing better.



#12 Chris Bloom

Chris Bloom
  • Member

  • 778 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:45

I'd rather see no pit stops and drivers having one set of tyres for the whole race distance. I don't think tyres that last 20 minutes really fit in the environmentally conscious image F1 seems intent on pursuing. We also might also see some battles on the track and drivers not pitting a lap earlier than their rivals to make a pass. 



#13 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:25

Bring back grooved tires.


Please don't. And I don't see what grooved tyres has to do with it, anyway.

#14 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:37

I'd rather see no pit stops and drivers having one set of tyres for the whole race distance. I don't think tyres that last 20 minutes really fit in the environmentally conscious image F1 seems intent on pursuing. We also might also see some battles on the track and drivers not pitting a lap earlier than their rivals to make a pass. 

None of the fans really care about a green F1. If they were so green, they would watch the Prius Cup or something. It just doesn't mix. Green is only good when you can gain a strategical advantage.



#15 DrivenF1

DrivenF1
  • Member

  • 1,050 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 November 2013 - 13:43

I have thought for a while that we should introduce two mandatory stops.

 

We could bring three different tyres each weekend - one super-quick qualifying tyre, a medium range fast tyre and a very durable tyre.  We let the teams decide what tyres to use across the three stints although you have to start on the tyre you set your fastest lap on.

 

Problem solved, Pirelli no longer need to contrive tyres to make two stops. We effectively get the refuelling effect (two stops), without the refuelling and we have more variety in strategy. If someone has a bad piece of luck at the start of the race, they can jump on to the very durable tyre and try their luck.

 

I honestly think this is the way forward, so what if introducing an extra stop is artificial - everyone agrees that one stop races tend to be the most boring ones. Thoughts?



#16 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 13:48

The best way to save money and spice up the action is to only have two tyre options - Slicks and Intermediates. No prime/option. Just a single compound that can be made to last the full race distance. No need for wets as the FIA don't seem to allow racing in conditions that would require them. Then relax the tech regs so the designers have more options available to them to be more creative and not just strive to copy the team with the most successful car. The costs will move from the track to the factory but it would be possible to provide a level of control here.



#17 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 November 2013 - 13:50

Here is what I think:

 

Tyre manufacturer develops tyres for the following year no later than July.  After the last race before the summer break, the teams have a 1 day test session with 2 sets of each compound.  They can compare these to the current tyres they just ran, and use this information in finalising next year's car design. 

 

The teams have a schedule for which they have to declare which tyres they want for specific events.  Eg.  Feb 14th for Australia and Malaysia.  March 1 for Bahrain and China, etc.  Each team can choose 7 sets of tyres for each event.  So if Force India is easy on their tyres, they can choose to bring 4SS, 2S and 1M (race day precaution in case they guessed wrong).  Mercedes is much harder on the tyres so they bring 1SS (for Qualifying), 3S and 3M.  It's Monaco, so every team chooses 6SS and 1S (just to be safe on race day)  Each team is responsible for choosing the compound that they think will work best with their car on the specific track.  The schedule will allow Pirelli to only build the required number of tyres, so there is no waste. 



#18 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 November 2013 - 14:28

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!

 

 

That makes no sense at all.



#19 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 14:34

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!

And people wonder why F1 is in the state it is...



Advertisement

#20 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 14:49

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!

 

weren't all these things changed to make F1 more entertaining in the first place.

And Grooves tyres sucked, two suppliers is pretty good idea. Refueling, who cares ;]



#21 jimbox01

jimbox01
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 November 2013 - 15:51

In my view, as far as possible tyres should enhance the performance of the cars, not control or detract from it.

Pit stops should be allowed but not made mandatory, and they should be used as part of the strategy to win the race, not simply to spice it up.

Teams should be permitted to choose which compounds to take to the race, and not all be forced to use the same tyres.

 

Fair enough, limit the number of tyres available for the weekend, but tyres, tyre strategy and pit stop strategy should be an integral part of the teams' overall plan for winning the race, not just some half arsed gimmick to 'improve the show'.

 

Clearly if there's an underlying problem which prevents drivers from racing each other then it needs to be fixed, but why not provide a bit more flexibility within the regulation and allow teams to come up with their own solutions.  Manipulating the racing for the sole purpose of entertainment, whether it's through tyre compounds, DRS, or any other means, might help boost audiences in the short term, but as soon as there's a less than nail biting race (or season), everyone's up in arms wanting to know what's wrong and how to fix it.

 

If F1 is just about putting on an entertaining show for TV, then hire some actors, a decent director and put on a proper show, but it it's about racing, then let the teams and drivers race.



#22 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,548 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 16:20

Here is what I think:

 

Tyre manufacturer develops tyres for the following year no later than July.  After the last race before the summer break, the teams have a 1 day test session with 2 sets of each compound.  They can compare these to the current tyres they just ran, and use this information in finalising next year's car design. 

 

The teams have a schedule for which they have to declare which tyres they want for specific events.  Eg.  Feb 14th for Australia and Malaysia.  March 1 for Bahrain and China, etc.  Each team can choose 7 sets of tyres for each event.  So if Force India is easy on their tyres, they can choose to bring 4SS, 2S and 1M (race day precaution in case they guessed wrong).  Mercedes is much harder on the tyres so they bring 1SS (for Qualifying), 3S and 3M.  It's Monaco, so every team chooses 6SS and 1S (just to be safe on race day)  Each team is responsible for choosing the compound that they think will work best with their car on the specific track.  The schedule will allow Pirelli to only build the required number of tyres, so there is no waste. 

 

I don't like the idea of teams choosing tyres ahead of the race. It leaves too large a possibility for teams to luck out and pick the wrong tyres, and suffer the entire weekend.



#23 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 November 2013 - 17:02

Bring back refueling! Pit stops were a lot more interesting than 2 sec. now.

Bring back two tire suppliers.

Bring back grooved tires.

 

ASAP!

 

Problem solved!

Two suppliers would make races more interesting, but there is still the possibility to lead development into a direction that favors their chosen team.

Grooved tyres bring nothing to the spor and are ugly.

Refuelling I don't like the limiting effect it has on strategy flexibility and and that who cruises along and pits last wins.

 

Removal of mandatory pitstop and use of both compounds would induce more interesting strategies in my opinion, at least if the tyres are soft enough.



#24 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 19 November 2013 - 17:22

I don't like the idea of teams choosing tyres ahead of the race. It leaves too large a possibility for teams to luck out and pick the wrong tyres, and suffer the entire weekend.

Instead you have Pirelli (or another tyre supplier) choosing tyres ahead of time which favor certain teams.  Whether Pirelli would intentionally choose to provide a benefit or hindrance to a specific team is irrelevant.*  The tyres that they bring will benefit some teams and hinder others.  Allowing teams to choose what they think will work best with their car at a given track removes the opportunity for impropriety by a supplier.  The supplier can recommend tyres, but it should be up to the teams.  We trust teams to bring the correct wings.  We trust the teams to bring the correct dampers.  We trust them to bring the right brake ducts.  Why shouldn't we trust them to select tyres that they think are right for their package.  I bet every team has made a mistake in what parts they put on a car and suffered performance because of it.  Why not trust the teams in this case as well. 

 

*Remember when the teams wanted Pirelli to change the tyre construction.  Pirelli said they would be happy to do so, but they knew that the changes would benefit the Red Bull.  It wasn't that Pirelli necessarily wanted to benefit Red Bull, but with all the data about how the various teams used the tyres, they were able to predict what the outcome would be of the changes.    



#25 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,178 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 November 2013 - 17:40

I don't like the idea of teams choosing tyres ahead of the race. It leaves too large a possibility for teams to luck out and pick the wrong tyres, and suffer the entire weekend.

 

I don't think it'd be that much of a problem. For a start, there could be a rule that a team has to take at least 4 tyres (a set) of 2 different compounds. So if one compound's extremely more competitive than the others they'd at least have the chance to use it once, or the compound closest to it. Then you'd increase the allocation of tyres per team, so they have a bit more of playing room. Okay it'd be slightly more expensive but what's the cost of a few more tyres, this is F1 not a trip to the local karting track with your mates.

 

Choice of tyres won't be super different from team to team anyway. I really like this idea and would love to see it in reality, basically completely opening up tyre strategies to the will of the teams rather than controlling it obsessively, but I don't think we'd see many different strategies anyway, the optimal strategy tends to be the optimal for everyone no matter what you do. That being said, the current rules were supposedly all about making people use alternate strategies and we're not getting them anyway, so why not open it up instead of these contrived nonsense rules.

 

But ideally for all of this to work you'd want tyres with considerably different characteristics than the ones we have now. Otherwise people will just go for the hardest tyre every time as the others melt. Fair play to Pirelli for doing what they were told and trying to spice up the races at the cost of PR, but it doesn't really work very well as there's drawbacks to the spectacle with this kind of racing anyway. Ideally what I'd want is:

 

- a HARD tyre that will typically last a full race in benign conditions (low wear track/temps) if you nurture it a bit. Probably will still force you into a pitstop in most other races no matter what you do.

- a MEDIUM tyre that will typically last 80% of a race in benign conditions if you nurture it, maybe 50% if you push everything every lap, and is a bit quicker than the hard

- a SOFT tyre that will last 50% of a race if you nurture it in benign conditions, 30% if you push everything, and is a bit quicker than the medium. Will absolutely melt if you use it in a race in harsh conditions.

 

And maybe add a 4th compound in between them somewhere. Plus rain and intermediates, of course. The problem at the moment is that, with a compound that lasts 50% if you nurture it, for example, it'll only last 5% if you push... So in most cases you have no other option but to nurture at all times...

 

If that's the price to pay for trying to control the compound choices so restrictively every race, it'd be far better to open up things instead and design tyres differently, more for performance and less for degradation on purpose. You won't always be able to manufacture the "desired" amount of pitstops for a race, true, but for the loss of entertainment control you gain a sense of the cars being at the limit in the races. There should naturally be a healthy amount of entertainment anyway.



#26 Lone

Lone
  • Member

  • 1,122 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 17:49

rules still exist?
 
If the races are boring and people slam the least suited tyres, let each devise his own strategy through the weekend. The winner will have no option but to give praise to Pirelli. And eventually different strategies will lead to track battles as it does not become a race of 24 guys trying to best nurse tyres to the same strategy.
 
Win/win.
 
Worse case scenario, nothing changes.


I like it!

#27 InfectedPumpkin

InfectedPumpkin
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 18:27

weren't all these things changed to make F1 more entertaining in the first place.

 

 

Yeah, F1 is sooooo entertaining today, woo  :clap:

Compare this year to lets say 2008 or 2007.

 

Profit!



#28 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,548 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 19:12

Instead you have Pirelli (or another tyre supplier) choosing tyres ahead of time which favor certain teams.  Whether Pirelli would intentionally choose to provide a benefit or hindrance to a specific team is irrelevant.*  The tyres that they bring will benefit some teams and hinder others.  Allowing teams to choose what they think will work best with their car at a given track removes the opportunity for impropriety by a supplier.  The supplier can recommend tyres, but it should be up to the teams.  We trust teams to bring the correct wings.  We trust the teams to bring the correct dampers.  We trust them to bring the right brake ducts.  Why shouldn't we trust them to select tyres that they think are right for their package.  I bet every team has made a mistake in what parts they put on a car and suffered performance because of it.  Why not trust the teams in this case as well. 

 

*Remember when the teams wanted Pirelli to change the tyre construction.  Pirelli said they would be happy to do so, but they knew that the changes would benefit the Red Bull.  It wasn't that Pirelli necessarily wanted to benefit Red Bull, but with all the data about how the various teams used the tyres, they were able to predict what the outcome would be of the changes.    

 

The performance difference the tyres could bring is simply bigger than any other part that may change from race to race. Crucially, if the front wing doesn't work correctly, the team can change it for another they brought without a problem. If you go through practice and discover the softs will disintegrate after five laps, if you've brought a load of them and your opponent has all hards, that's your weekend over. You can't not use those tyres, as there isn't a large enough allocation to run all the sessions without them.

 

Sure, the tyres happen to suit some cars better than others now, but if we had proper tyre testing instead of the FIA and the teams screwing Pirelli around, the teams would have full knowledge of the tyres while designing their cars and there would be no need for mid-season tyre changes.

 


But ideally for all of this to work you'd want tyres with considerably different characteristics than the ones we have now. Otherwise people will just go for the hardest tyre every time as the others melt. Fair play to Pirelli for doing what they were told and trying to spice up the races at the cost of PR, but it doesn't really work very well as there's drawbacks to the spectacle with this kind of racing anyway. Ideally what I'd want is:

 

- a HARD tyre that will typically last a full race in benign conditions (low wear track/temps) if you nurture it a bit. Probably will still force you into a pitstop in most other races no matter what you do.

- a MEDIUM tyre that will typically last 80% of a race in benign conditions if you nurture it, maybe 50% if you push everything every lap, and is a bit quicker than the hard

- a SOFT tyre that will last 50% of a race if you nurture it in benign conditions, 30% if you push everything, and is a bit quicker than the medium. Will absolutely melt if you use it in a race in harsh conditions.

 

And maybe add a 4th compound in between them somewhere. Plus rain and intermediates, of course. The problem at the moment is that, with a compound that lasts 50% if you nurture it, for example, it'll only last 5% if you push... So in most cases you have no other option but to nurture at all times...

 

If that's the price to pay for trying to control the compound choices so restrictively every race, it'd be far better to open up things instead and design tyres differently, more for performance and less for degradation on purpose. You won't always be able to manufacture the "desired" amount of pitstops for a race, true, but for the loss of entertainment control you gain a sense of the cars being at the limit in the races. There should naturally be a healthy amount of entertainment anyway.

 

You're not going to be able to have tyres that will give that performance from every race. Bridgestone's philosophy was to have four compounds, so there would be two tyres that would deliver a similar level of performance from track to track. I don't think think they managed to get it to work like that either, but in the end their tyres became so hard they often wouldn't wear much anyway.

 

The difference between the tyres are just too big. The soft tyre could last five laps in one race then twenty in the next, and as I said above it's quite possible to have a teams weekend over - no matter what their car and drivers do - because they don't have enough of the right type of tyre. It was bad enough with the tyre war.

 

But it's never going to happen anyway. There's no appetite for such a change.


Edited by Fastcake, 19 November 2013 - 19:13.


#29 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 19 November 2013 - 19:43

Because the F1's rulebook is a horrible clusterf*** with outdated rules and regulations all over the place. 



#30 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 19 November 2013 - 20:18

Because the F1's rulebook is a horrible clusterf*** with outdated rules and regulations all over the place. 

 

 

You said it.

 

Engines, gearboxes...ok maybe...it keeps costs down for the smaller teams.

Tyres?

 

No, the tyres are a disposable performance aid, just give (or sell) the teams 15 sets per car per meeting, of whatever compound (soft/med/hard) and let them go for it. It's called RACING.



#31 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,235 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 00:06

Just scrap the mandatory pit stop and let all the drivers start the race on whichever set of tyres they want. I like the current rules with two compounds, and I don't see a reason to use more tyres; the drivers are already being given eleven sets during a weekend.



#32 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 00:33

im more favouring 2 compounds simply because every so often you get a perfect storm and a tyre is just terrible (upto unsafe, for example) for the track in those conditions, if you got 2 compounds then atleast 1 type isnt terrible normaly



#33 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:14

Just scrap the mandatory pit stop and let all the drivers start the race on whichever set of tyres they want. I like the current rules with two compounds, and I don't see a reason to use more tyres; the drivers are already being given eleven sets during a weekend.

 

That's JV's solution.  No refueling, no artificial stops for different tire compounds, and no electronics and less downforce.  Let the teams come up with the best strategy for their car to get to the end of the race in first place.  Real racing.


Edited by halifaxf1fan, 20 November 2013 - 02:26.


#34 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:23

Just scrap the mandatory pit stop and let all the drivers start the race on whichever set of tyres they want. I like the current rules with two compounds, and I don't see a reason to use more tyres; the drivers are already being given eleven sets during a weekend.

And with those eleven sets, they hardly run on track due to engine and gearbox mileage. Yay...

And these sets include the rain tires? Thus with 5 sets for FP and 6 for Q and race (and with a puncture you lose the whole set...).



#35 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,969 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:53

I'd like to see the teams allowed to mix sets. You could still give them a limited number of sets but allow them to mix and match as needed. Back in the Goodyear days it was not uncommon to run a different compound on one side (or even one wheel) to get the best out of your car. Berger in Mexico springs to mind, running the hardest Pirelli's on his Benetton's left wheels and going non-stop, beating all the Goodyear runners who had to stop at least once.



#36 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 20 November 2013 - 14:24

The performance difference the tyres could bring is simply bigger than any other part that may change from race to race. Crucially, if the front wing doesn't work correctly, the team can change it for another they brought without a problem. If you go through practice and discover the softs will disintegrate after five laps, if you've brought a load of them and your opponent has all hards, that's your weekend over. You can't not use those tyres, as there isn't a large enough allocation to run all the sessions without them.

 

Sure, the tyres happen to suit some cars better than others now, but if we had proper tyre testing instead of the FIA and the teams screwing Pirelli around, the teams would have full knowledge of the tyres while designing their cars and there would be no need for mid-season tyre changes.

 

I agree that the performance difference in tyres is bigger than other parts, which is exactly why it should be up to the teams.  If the teams wants to be aggressive they can be.  If they want to be conservative the can be.  If they want to be moderate they can be.  If Pirelli brings harder tyres, it benefits those cars that are hard on their tyres, and if they bring softer tyres, it benefits those that are easier on their tyres.  So why is it OK if Pirelli chooses tyres that are bad for a team, but not OK if the team chooses tyres that are bad for the team?  Remember that when Pirelli choose, some teams benefit and other teams suffer, but the teams have no say in which side of the line they fall.  At least when the team chooses and they suffer it is of their own doing.