Imola was supposed to be the first trial of a reduction in the nr. of tires the team have available on a race weekend, dropping down 2 sets.
Because of this, teams would have had to run Q1 on hards, Q2 on mediums and Q3 on softs.
In principle, I'm not against the tire reduction. But I don't get why they went for this Qualifying set-up. On paper, it sounds like it will be more predictable which cars will not make the cut to the next session.
I think I would rather have liked there to be a bit of gambling/risk-taking introduced among the teams, adding some unpredictability: The teams would have the same tires available for qualifying, but it's up to them which of the three compounds to use in which segment. Sill being allowed to only run that first chosen compound in the qualifying segment and not anymore in the subsequent segments.
So you could get (top) teams running harder compounds in Q1, thinking they will be able to get through on them and having a softer compound available for the later segments, while the slower teams would put on the softs.hoping to get through.
I think it could add more excitement and some surprise knock-outs because drivers not nailing their lap or the tire to be slower than expected and then not having the option to put on a softer tire to still easily make it through like they often do now. Look for example at Aston Martin in Miami last weekend. They gambled on a harder tire in Q1 and lost Stroll.
Wondering how you guys are feeling about this.
PS. thread is not intended to discuss the reduction of tires provided to the teams, but the rules around how that reduction is handled/implemented.
Edited by JL14, 17 May 2023 - 12:57.
