53 replies to this topic

[kraduk]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/119511

 

So  maybe 12+ different tyre choices. Fair enough, more granularity in choices is a good thing generally if you want to tailor things, how ever outside Pirelli and the teams whats the point on knowing what the exact or even approximate compound is. Wouldn't it be simpler for the general public to just know if the car is running options or primes, ditch the super soft/hard,  names and keep things simple?

[Retrofly]

Isn't that what they are saying, to the public it will always be hard/soft but the actual compounds will change from race to race?

[alfa1]

Wouldn't it be simpler for the general public to just know if the car is running options or primes, ditch the super soft/hard,  names and keep things simple?

 

 

The naming system is an different topic, but for this particular news item it sounds like the public dont actually need to know anything at all, and could completely forget that back at the tyre factory they have used a slightly different chemistry... because once they get to the race track its still going to be just the system we have now.

[RealRacing]

"If we were able to choose from a wider range then we'd have more certainty to deliver the two-to-three-stop races."

 

If the whole premise, which seems to be "creating" more stops via bad tyres, is wrong, then whatever they do afterwards doesn't really matter. Give the choice of 3 fixed dry compounds for every race, a soft, medium and hard, which allow pushing for a determined window of laps and allow teams to choose freely from these without mandatory use of different compounds. Let them use enough tyres, opening the possibility of having fresh tyres all the time. Fixed.

[maximilian]

Formula E has ONE tire choice, and the racing is a LOT better.

[kraduk]

"If we were able to choose from a wider range then we'd have more certainty to deliver the two-to-three-stop races."

 

If the whole premise, which seems to be "creating" more stops via bad tyres, is wrong, then whatever they do afterwards doesn't really matter. Give the choice of 3 fixed dry compounds for every race, a soft, medium and hard, which allow pushing for a determined window of laps and allow teams to choose freely from these without mandatory use of different compounds. Let them use enough tyres, opening the possibility of having fresh tyres all the time. Fixed.

 

Its a nice idea, but choice is never really choice, as there is usually only one optimum strategy to take. However it would give more possibility for teams to get it wrong in dynamic situations

[johnmhinds]

How much more is Pirelli going to be charging for tyres then?

 

Because all this sounds like is stupid complexity to push the prices up to get themselves more profits.

 

The whole idea of having soft and hard tyres is a bizarre concept to begin with.

Why would anyone think it is a good idea to make a good and a bad tyre option, and then force the teams to use both.

Edited by johnmhinds, 15 June 2015 - 14:35.

[Stephane]

Who decided 2-3 stops was the better for the show sport ?

[johnmhinds]

Who decided 2-3 stops was the better for the show sport ?

 

The Pirelli marketing guys.

[ANF]

The whole idea of having soft and hard tyres is a bizarre concept to begin with.

Why would anyone think it is a good idea to make a good and a bad tyre option, and then force the teams to use both.

Or, as often seems to be the case, force the teams to use both of two bad tyre options.

[TheRacingElf]

Maybe they could concentrate on manufacturing good tyres first instead of making more compounds of the same chewing-gum show tyres

[Beamer]

Just provide 1 tyre that can last approx 80% of the race at maximum when preserving tyres and just about 50% when pushed to the limit. That way a pitstop has to made anyway and drivers can still push to the max or preserve when needed.

[Imateria]

It doesn't matter what Pirelli do, people are just going to bitch and moan like spoilt little girls anyway.

[Atreiu]

It doesn't matter what Pirelli do, people are just going to bitch and moan like spoilt little girls anyway.

 

Because they never get it right. Actually, the more they try the worse it is, case in point, 2013.

 

Pirelli should never be or feel entitled to creating excitement. Instead they should just be suppliers who use F1 as a marketing platform to promote their brand and technical expertise.

 

---

 

edit: Whenever people complain about overtaking and boring races Pirelli should simply say "our job is to provide the best tyres. We can take no responsability for turbulence, fuel flow regulations, unreliability penalties, frozen engine development, locked in team dominance, etc".

Edited by Atreiu, 15 June 2015 - 18:38.

[Abranet]

To be fair the multi stop scenario came about after that chaotic Canadian race when the tyres lasted no more than 3 corners and it was the most exciting race we had in years.

[vowcartaGP]

Meh. Just give each driver 2/3 sets of each of the 4 dry compounds for the entire weekend and leave the rest to the teams. Perhaps give everyone a fresh set of super-softs after qualifying.

Start the race on any tyre you like, screw parc ferme after qualifying.

[PlatenGlass]

To be fair the multi stop scenario came about after that chaotic Canadian race when the tyres lasted no more than 3 corners and it was the most exciting race we had in years.

The reason the 2010 Canadian GP was exciting was that the teams were underprepared for the race (did it rain in practice or something?) They didn't know how long the tyres were going to last so there was quite a bit of guesswork and that's why it was more chaotic and exciting. It was nothing to do with the fact that the tyres didn't last for a long time, and that was the mistake the powers that be made. Just having tyres that predictably don't last very long doesn't add to the excitement. Having tyres that mean that drivers can only attack for a few laps without wearing their tyres out takes away excitement.

If they'd held a second GP at Montreal the very next day, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as exciting, because they would have had the knowledge they needed about the tyres.

[Massa]

IMHO, F1 need Michelin tyres, like at Le mans. You can go flat out, there is degradation, but even after a stop, a SC, you can go flat out again without killing the tyres. Perhaps the temp windows of the Pirelli tyres is too narrow.

[RealRacing]

Its a nice idea, but choice is never really choice, as there is usually only one optimum strategy to take. However it would give more possibility for teams to get it wrong in dynamic situations

Disagree. The reason there is usually only one optimum strategy is because they are forced to use both compounds, limiting the use of both car and driver strengths to try different things. In any case, producing tyres with the objective of increasing the number of stops is similar to the proposal of re-introducing refueling for improving racing: stops don't improve racing, they artificially shuffle the field decreasing the likelihood of on-track racing.

[Risil]

Isn't that what they are saying, to the public it will always be hard/soft but the actual compounds will change from race to race?

 

Unless they're also keeping it secret from the teams, I guess journalists/the public will find out anyway. If it has a material effect on the racing, we'll find out.

[Risil]

The reason the 2010 Canadian GP was exciting was that the teams were underprepared for the race (did it rain in practice or something?) They didn't know how long the tyres were going to last so there was quite a bit of guesswork and that's why it was more chaotic and exciting. It was nothing to do with the fact that the tyres didn't last for a long time, and that was the mistake the powers that be made. Just having tyres that predictably don't last very long doesn't add to the excitement. Having tyres that mean that drivers can only attack for a few laps without wearing their tyres out takes away excitement.

If they'd held a second GP at Montreal the very next day, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as exciting, because they would have had the knowledge they needed about the tyres.

 

Not necessarily. The main problem was that the track had been resurfaced during the year off in 2009, and provided much less grip than before. Leading to drivers not being able to get the Bridgestones up to the proper temperature, leading to graining. There was rain which stopped the track from rubbering in, but it wasn't lack of practice sessions per se that led to the problem.

Edited by Risil, 15 June 2015 - 18:43.

[Clatter]

Who decided 2-3 stops was the better for the show sport ?

The people who issued the tender to supply.

[Clatter]

Because they never get it right. Actually, the more they try the worse it is, case in point, 2013.

 

Pirelli should never be or feel entitled to creating excitement. Instead they should just be suppliers who use F1 as a marketing platform to promote their brand and technical expertise.

 

---

 

edit: Whenever people complain about overtaking and boring races Pirelli should simply say "our job is to provide the best tyres. We can take no responsability for turbulence, fuel flow regulations, unreliability penalties, frozen engine development, locked in team dominance, etc".

Which is basically what they are, however they have also been given instructions on what to supply by the governing body. 

[lustigson]

The Pirelli marketing guys.

 

No. This:

 

The people who issued the tender to supply.

 

[Tapz63]

"We could be very aggressive if you know someone is going to be doing a fixed number of laps every time."

Why would Pirelli would want to be "aggressive" even with refueling? I so hope Michelin get the contract.

[tomjol]

I'm always surprised by how willing people are to apportion blame when they clearly lack the knowledge to do so. It is not Pirelli who decided there should be 2-3 stops per race, they're just doing as they have been asked.

 

On topic, this idea of having four mediums, four softs etc seems stupid. Either hide the compound stuff completely behind "option and prime" or (preferably) rank them all from 1 to 16 on "hardness" and give the hardcore fans that information.

Edited by tomjol, 15 June 2015 - 19:37.

[Atreiu]

"Pirelli are only doing what was asked".

 

That is not an excuse but more a testament to poor judgement.

[TheManAlive]

Who dictated 2 -3 stops? Well, indirectly it was the fans. We have made its a sport in itself to constantly do f1 down. Anyone reading this forum for the first time would wander why on earth any of us watch this sport as we seem to constantly criticise every possible aspect of it and on contradictory ways (too many pit stops, too few, too much overtaking, too little etc etc). Even the commentators on TV (or rather the pundits in the pre and after shows) spend more time talking about the issues with the 'show' (where is the cringe emoticon when you need it) than the actual racing. I watched a lot of Le Mans over the weekend and it was a real pleasure to hear the commentators saying what a great race and sport it was.

 

Take fuel saving as an example (pretty dominant factor in Le Mans but not seen as an issue?!). We complain that this is ruining racing, is fake etc etc. The reality is that it has ALWAYS been the case. Before refueling in the 90s it happened, even during the refueling era it happened. The big difference was we didn't have the radio comms so we didn't know why a driver was going slowly and the guy behind catching up. Not knowing this created excitement and tension as the chase was on. Nowadays, though, we know exactly what is happening because we hear it all and we are now annoyed by it.

 

We are helping the sports downfall. Take the comments about wanting more 'characters' back in F1. We all want Hunts and Laudas BUT we then pour over and dissect every word uttered by a driver (Hamilton for eg) and tear them apart if they say something even remotely controversial.

 

And my final rant (sorry, got a bit off topic but will bring it back) is the belief that we are all stupid and do not understand the sport we follow. So 12 compounds would be too hard for our simple little minds. Really. It hacks me off that F1 worries that the idiots watching (ie all of us) are too thick to get our head around simple things. Of course a newbie to F1 would not get it, but I dont get the offside rule in football or any of the rules in cricket. If I wanted to watch the sport I'd look the rules up online or ask a friend to explain it to me. Its not rocket science and there is no need for a degree to follow our sport.

 

If I had my way, I'd ban the quest for the 'show', trying to tell us what we want to see. There will be great races, there will be boring races, there will be huge gaps, there will be tiny gaps, there will be tactical races, there will be balls to the wall races, see the enjoyment in all of them and dont act as if only the last race counts and if it wasn't perfect then everything must be change.

[P123]

It would be better to get rid of the rule enforcing them to run two different compounds per race, and instead allow them a free choice of the two or maybe three compounds. And give them quali tyres too.

[tomjol]

Who dictated 2 -3 stops? Well, indirectly it was the fans. We have made its a sport in itself to constantly do f1 down. Anyone reading this forum for the first time would wander why on earth any of us watch this sport as we seem to constantly criticise every possible aspect of it and on contradictory ways (too many pit stops, too few, too much overtaking, too little etc etc). Even the commentators on TV (or rather the pundits in the pre and after shows) spend more time talking about the issues with the 'show' (where is the cringe emoticon when you need it) than the actual racing. I watched a lot of Le Mans over the weekend and it was a real pleasure to hear the commentators saying what a great race and sport it was.

 

Take fuel saving as an example (pretty dominant factor in Le Mans but not seen as an issue?!). We complain that this is ruining racing, is fake etc etc. The reality is that it has ALWAYS been the case. Before refueling in the 90s it happened, even during the refueling era it happened. The big difference was we didn't have the radio comms so we didn't know why a driver was going slowly and the guy behind catching up. Not knowing this created excitement and tension as the chase was on. Nowadays, though, we know exactly what is happening because we hear it all and we are now annoyed by it.

 

We are helping the sports downfall. Take the comments about wanting more 'characters' back in F1. We all want Hunts and Laudas BUT we then pour over and dissect every word uttered by a driver (Hamilton for eg) and tear them apart if they say something even remotely controversial.

 

And my final rant (sorry, got a bit off topic but will bring it back) is the belief that we are all stupid and do not understand the sport we follow. So 12 compounds would be too hard for our simple little minds. Really. It hacks me off that F1 worries that the idiots watching (ie all of us) are too thick to get our head around simple things. Of course a newbie to F1 would not get it, but I dont get the offside rule in football or any of the rules in cricket. If I wanted to watch the sport I'd look the rules up online or ask a friend to explain it to me. Its not rocket science and there is no need for a degree to follow our sport.

 

If I had my way, I'd ban the quest for the 'show', trying to tell us what we want to see. There will be great races, there will be boring races, there will be huge gaps, there will be tiny gaps, there will be tactical races, there will be balls to the wall races, see the enjoyment in all of them and dont act as if only the last race counts and if it wasn't perfect then everything must be change.

 

[FerrariV12]

If I had my way, I'd ban the quest for the 'show', trying to tell us what we want to see. There will be great races, there will be boring races, there will be huge gaps, there will be tiny gaps, there will be tactical races, there will be balls to the wall races, see the enjoyment in all of them and dont act as if only the last race counts and if it wasn't perfect then everything must be change.

 

This. I can't put into words how much I agree with every word of this paragraph.

[f1RacingForever]

Pirelli need to stop trying to "improve the show" and just provide tires which will suit most teams. Tires with a wider operating range, more grip and good durability. Its not a complicated formula. The compounds now are too hard. Watching the cars tip toe around Barcelona was a big facepalm moment.

[ClubmanGT]

How about getting rid of hard/softs and just having a durable tyre that doesn't give you two laps of full tilt running before exploding?

 

Seriously there was a world of racing before the whole hard/soft thing and it swept across all the categories and now when someone who doesn't follow motorsports asks me why, I don't really know what to tell them.

 

Here are the tyre compounds they should make: Dry, Intermediate, Monsoon. The end. 

 

E: And have the monsoon tyre be big enough to get the plank off the ground so the cars don't aquaplane when it starts seriously raining. 

Edited by ClubmanGT, 16 June 2015 - 03:19.

[f1RacingForever]

How about getting rid of hard/softs and just having a durable tyre that doesn't give you two laps of full tilt running before exploding?

 

Seriously there was a world of racing before the whole hard/soft thing and it swept across all the categories and now when someone who doesn't follow motorsports asks me why, I don't really know what to tell them.

 

Here are the tyre compounds they should make: Dry, Intermediate, Monsoon. The end. 

 

E: And have the monsoon tyre be big enough to get the plank off the ground so the cars don't aquaplane when it starts seriously raining. 

Its because being on the faster compound increases overtaking opportunities. This is better from a fans perspective. I agree that wet tires are inadequate though.

[ClubmanGT]

Its because being on the faster compound increases overtaking opportunities. This is better from a fans perspective. I agree that wet tires are inadequate though.

 

How's that working out for us? 

[KingTiger]

The worrying thing is that F1 has become a laughing stock due to these terrible tires, yet Pirelli are not budging and continue discussing how they want to give the teams useless tires that barely last a few laps. 

[rpn453]

Who dictated 2 -3 stops? Well, indirectly it was the fans. We have made its a sport in itself to constantly do f1 down. Anyone reading this forum for the first time would wander why on earth any of us watch this sport as we seem to constantly criticise every possible aspect of it and on contradictory ways (too many pit stops, too few, too much overtaking, too little etc etc). Even the commentators on TV (or rather the pundits in the pre and after shows) spend more time talking about the issues with the 'show' (where is the cringe emoticon when you need it) than the actual racing. I watched a lot of Le Mans over the weekend and it was a real pleasure to hear the commentators saying what a great race and sport it was.

 

Take fuel saving as an example (pretty dominant factor in Le Mans but not seen as an issue?!). We complain that this is ruining racing, is fake etc etc. The reality is that it has ALWAYS been the case. Before refueling in the 90s it happened, even during the refueling era it happened. The big difference was we didn't have the radio comms so we didn't know why a driver was going slowly and the guy behind catching up. Not knowing this created excitement and tension as the chase was on. Nowadays, though, we know exactly what is happening because we hear it all and we are now annoyed by it.

 

We are helping the sports downfall. Take the comments about wanting more 'characters' back in F1. We all want Hunts and Laudas BUT we then pour over and dissect every word uttered by a driver (Hamilton for eg) and tear them apart if they say something even remotely controversial.

 

And my final rant (sorry, got a bit off topic but will bring it back) is the belief that we are all stupid and do not understand the sport we follow. So 12 compounds would be too hard for our simple little minds. Really. It hacks me off that F1 worries that the idiots watching (ie all of us) are too thick to get our head around simple things. Of course a newbie to F1 would not get it, but I dont get the offside rule in football or any of the rules in cricket. If I wanted to watch the sport I'd look the rules up online or ask a friend to explain it to me. Its not rocket science and there is no need for a degree to follow our sport.

 

If I had my way, I'd ban the quest for the 'show', trying to tell us what we want to see. There will be great races, there will be boring races, there will be huge gaps, there will be tiny gaps, there will be tactical races, there will be balls to the wall races, see the enjoyment in all of them and dont act as if only the last race counts and if it wasn't perfect then everything must be change.

Good post.  The one thing I'll question is the point about fuel saving.  Has F1 ever had artificial fuel limits before?  I don't mind seeing teams conserve fuel for the sake of strategy.  But I'm not enjoying watching them conserve fuel simply because they're required to by the rules.

 

I'd be interested in allowing a greater tire selection for every race weekend, where the teams can order whatever compounds they want for each weekend.  Put the decisions in the hands of the teams and watch the strategies play out.  Make them all look the same for practice and then mark the sidewalls for the race so fans can see what was chosen without giving away information ahead of time.

Edited by rpn453, 16 June 2015 - 12:17.

[Brackets]

IMHO, F1 need Michelin tyres, like at Le mans. You can go flat out, there is degradation, but even after a stop, a SC, you can go flat out again without killing the tyres. Perhaps the temp windows of the Pirelli tyres is too narrow.

You mean Michelin would ~again~ show up with an illegal tire!?

[BRG]

How about getting rid of hard/softs and just having a durable tyre that doesn't give you two laps of full tilt running before exploding?

 

Seriously there was a world of racing before the whole hard/soft thing and it swept across all the categories and now when someone who doesn't follow motorsports asks me why, I don't really know what to tell them.

 

Here are the tyre compounds they should make: Dry, Intermediate, Monsoon. The end. 

 

E: And have the monsoon tyre be big enough to get the plank off the ground so the cars don't aquaplane when it starts seriously raining. 

Yes, yes, yes.  We don't need all this tyre nonsense.  Or pitstops.  It is a MOTOR race.  It doesn't matter who makes the tyres, they should be the same for everyone and last the whole race.  I am not interested in tyre wars, or pitstop strategy. It should be driver A in car A vs driver B in car B in a straight fight on the track, not 'oh B got past on the undercut but A managed his tyre better and blah blah blah'.

 

I couldn't care less if they are using Pirellis, Michelins, Dunlops, Avons, Hankooks or Engleberts.  They are black and round and they are boring.

[DILLIGAF]

Just provide 1 tyre that can last approx 80% of the race at maximum when preserving tyres and just about 50% when pushed to the limit. That way a pitstop has to made anyway and drivers can still push to the max or preserve when needed.

Edited by DILLIGAF, 16 June 2015 - 10:43.

[Disgrace]

It's very concerning that Pirelli have clearly learnt diddly squat. Nobody wants to care about your stupid tyres. It's like they want a tyre war but with themselves.

[ardbeg]

IMHO, F1 need Michelin tyres, like at Le mans. You can go flat out, there is degradation, but even after a stop, a SC, you can go flat out again without killing the tyres. Perhaps the temp windows of the Pirelli tyres is too narrow.

It definitely feel like the temp window is too narrow. The drivers job is more to balance the tyre temp within it's limits than to balance the car within the track limits. Give them tires that can stand abuse.

[kraduk]

"Pirelli are only doing what was asked".

 

That is not an excuse but more a testament to poor judgement.

 

 

Lets be specific "Pirelli are only doing what they were contracted to do"

[PlatenGlass]

Not necessarily. The main problem was that the track had been resurfaced during the year off in 2009, and provided much less grip than before. Leading to drivers not being able to get the Bridgestones up to the proper temperature, leading to graining. There was rain which stopped the track from rubbering in, but it wasn't lack of practice sessions per se that led to the problem.

OK, but while there may have been problems with the tyres even if they had more knowledge about the circuit conditions, it would have eliminated the unpredictability. It wasn't the multiple stops that led to the excitement, but the different strategies that resulted from a lack of knowledge of the circuit conditions. Designing rubbish tyres into the system was never going to replicate this race.

[phoenix101]

Part of racing has always been about choosing the grippiest compound without being too aggressive and overworking the tires. The risk-reward has always been part of the show and part of the uncertainty in motorsport.

 

Over the years, the rules have change to restrict the number of compounds, and the control tire era has literally put everyone one the same tires and same strategy for the most part. Increasing the number of compounds is smart, especially if they narrow the performance gap between the tires. You want the midpack teams to apply pressure on the front runners by gambling on tire selection.

 

Varying tire strategies create unpredictable results without any contrived bs. The midpack teams want to gamble, and inject a bit of chaos to prevent the dominance of the most heavily funded teams.

[Kalmake]

Good post.  The one thing I'll question is the point about fuel saving.  Has F1 ever had artificial fuel limits before?  I don't mind seeing teams conserve fuel for the sake of strategy.  But I'm not enjoying watching them conserve fuel simply because they're required to by the rules.

1988 turbos were limited to 150l ~= 130kg of toluene mix.

 

NAs were limited to 215l. I don't know if that was critical on any track.

[f1RacingForever]

How's that working out for us?

We has seen quicker cars on options overtaking slower cars on primes. It's a better solution than having one compound imo. The racing would be even worse.

[Disgrace]

Who dictated 2 -3 stops? Well, indirectly it was the fans. We have made its a sport in itself to constantly do f1 down. Anyone reading this forum for the first time would wander why on earth any of us watch this sport as we seem to constantly criticise every possible aspect of it and on contradictory ways (too many pit stops, too few, too much overtaking, too little etc etc). Even the commentators on TV (or rather the pundits in the pre and after shows) spend more time talking about the issues with the 'show' (where is the cringe emoticon when you need it) than the actual racing. I watched a lot of Le Mans over the weekend and it was a real pleasure to hear the commentators saying what a great race and sport it was.

 

Take fuel saving as an example (pretty dominant factor in Le Mans but not seen as an issue?!). We complain that this is ruining racing, is fake etc etc. The reality is that it has ALWAYS been the case. Before refueling in the 90s it happened, even during the refueling era it happened. The big difference was we didn't have the radio comms so we didn't know why a driver was going slowly and the guy behind catching up. Not knowing this created excitement and tension as the chase was on. Nowadays, though, we know exactly what is happening because we hear it all and we are now annoyed by it.

 

We are helping the sports downfall. Take the comments about wanting more 'characters' back in F1. We all want Hunts and Laudas BUT we then pour over and dissect every word uttered by a driver (Hamilton for eg) and tear them apart if they say something even remotely controversial.

 

And my final rant (sorry, got a bit off topic but will bring it back) is the belief that we are all stupid and do not understand the sport we follow. So 12 compounds would be too hard for our simple little minds. Really. It hacks me off that F1 worries that the idiots watching (ie all of us) are too thick to get our head around simple things. Of course a newbie to F1 would not get it, but I dont get the offside rule in football or any of the rules in cricket. If I wanted to watch the sport I'd look the rules up online or ask a friend to explain it to me. Its not rocket science and there is no need for a degree to follow our sport.

 

If I had my way, I'd ban the quest for the 'show', trying to tell us what we want to see. There will be great races, there will be boring races, there will be huge gaps, there will be tiny gaps, there will be tactical races, there will be balls to the wall races, see the enjoyment in all of them and dont act as if only the last race counts and if it wasn't perfect then everything must be change.

 

This all sounds very intuitive, but what is the transition mechanism between the fans and the sport? It's payment with cold hard cash to witness the sport live at the track or though television. Both of these are in decline which subsequently means there seems to be a contradiction between what the fans want, if this is what they want, and their actual behaviour.

[ClubmanGT]

We has seen quicker cars on options overtaking slower cars on primes. It's a better solution than having one compound imo. The racing would be even worse.

 

Not if the tyres allow the cars to push and race. And there is often clearly a preferred strategy and when the bulk of the field is on it then it is neutralised and it just seems stupid.

[f1RacingForever]

Not if the tyres allow the cars to push and race. And there is often clearly a preferred strategy and when the bulk of the field is on it then it is neutralised and it just seems stupid.

With one compound there would be even less strategic possibilities. Gone would be all the overtaking opportunities being on the softer compound brings. Strategy becomes limited to the number of stops alone. I fail to see how that would bring better racing. I think the durability of the tires is fine. i'd like to see softer compounds and not to be overlooked, tires with a wide operating temperature range. These tires are junk in this regard. Only a few degrees can make a massive difference to lap time. In a way, with teams being limited with setup, it becomes a bit of a lottery of whether the conditions coincides well with the way your car works its tires its its ability to turn them on.

Sorry for ranting. I know this is not really relevant to what you were saying but if you can't tell, I'm not Pirelli's biggest fan.