Drivers can go ‘non-stop’ on new tyres- Hembery

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Drivers will be capable of running entire race distances on a single set of tyres at some grands prix in 2017, Pirelli’s motorsport director Paul Hembery has predicted.

Formula One’s rules require drivers to change tyres at least once during a race. For 2017 the sport’s official tyre supplier has been asked to produce more durable tyres and it now suspects drivers could make their single mandatory stop on the first or last lap of the race.

Hembery told F1 Fanatic this scenario was definitely possible now. Prior to Pirelli’s return to the sport, Sebastian Vettel used such a strategy in the 2010 Italian Grand Prix, running 52 laps on soft tyres before switching to hards for the final lap. He finished fourth.

Hembery: “You’re essentially looking at one-stop races”
One-stop strategies are likely to be the norm at most races, Hembery believes. “There’ll be maybe some more extreme things if you had really high temperatures here [Circuit de Catalunya], maybe Silverstone, but you’re essentially looking at one-stop races.”

Hembery does not believe dropped the mandatory pit stop rule, which was introduced ten years ago, would create more strategic opportunities for teams. “They’ll just go non-stop,” he said.

Pirelli is starting the first year of its latest three-year deal as Formula One’s official tyre supplier in 2017. However the owner of the sport has changed since the last deal was signed, and Hembery says his company is eager to learn what Liberty Media intends to do with it.

“Like everybody we’d like to understand what their plans for the sport are,” he said. “They’ve bought the sport with certain objectives. We remain interested to see how those plans come out.”

“There’s a big change coming when the sport has to renew its agreements with the teams. New technical regulations, all those put together with their plans will be what we look at when we come to decide if we still feel that Formula One is the right fit for Pirelli.”

Formula One enters its 11th year with a single tyre supplier this year but Hembery does not believe there is an appetite among teams for the return of a ‘tyre war’.

“That’s something the teams have consistently said they don’t want,” he said. “It looks like they’re having enough challenges with the engine wars at the moment.”

“You just add variables. And sometimes those variables lead to technical advantage and technical advantage means the driver counts even less.”

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

99 comments on “Drivers can go ‘non-stop’ on new tyres- Hembery”

  1. pastaman (@)
    5th March 2017, 13:02

    Please no tire war, unless the teams make their own tires.

    1. @pastaman Who not?

      A tyre war creates an interesting variable & at least guarantee’s that the tyres been created are the absolute best possible rather than whatever the sold supplier can cobble together. It also gives teams options, If they don’t like one supplier they can switch to another & use tyres that they & there drivers actually want to use rather than been forced to use tyres they don’t have much faith in as has been the case at times the past few years.

      I say bring a tyre war!

      1. If it was two tire suppliers then it would be ferrari against mercedes. Or mercedes against red bull. The tire suppliers only care about winning and as such they create the tires to suit just the best team who they have contracted with. Everybody else just gets the leftovers. The two top teams get the newest compounds a lot earlier, they get to choose the best tires from the pile and they have the best tire engineers working for them to maximise the tires. The situation at the top would hardly change at all. Merc would still be winning, red bull or ferrari would be second and third and the rest just further away. Just like the horrible hybrid engines have increased the performance gaps between the teams the tires would only increase the gaps further.

        1. So bring on a tyre war without team contracts. Allow the teams to test, use, mix and match tyres from different suppliers. Just make sure that tyres from the same supplier are made to the same specification, as to avoid, say “Pirelli Premium” for Ferrari and “Pirelli Economy” for HAAS. No newest compounds for select teams. Leave the number of tyre sets per team per event as it is, but allow the teams to choose different suppliers for every event.

        2. “ferrari against mercedes. Or mercedes against red bull” – Still better than mercedes against no one!

      2. RogerA, as socksolid notes, in reality the smaller teams are usually screwed over in a tyre war as most tyre manufacturers will pick one large team to act as their champion and will prioritise them over others – rather than levelling the playing field, it usually entrenches an even bigger advantage for the largest teams.

        We saw exactly that happen with Michelin and Bridgestone, leading to rather bitter public accusations that some teams were effectively being hindered by their tyre supplier biasing their support towards a rival (for example, Newey made it clear that he felt that Michelin’s bias towards Renault actively hurt them in 2006).

        Some tyre manufacturers were even worse in the past and would even intentionally withhold information from their smaller customers, giving the larger teams an even bigger advantage. I recall that the former chief mechanic at Tyrrell mentioned that, even though his team were paying the same rate as the largest teams and Goodyear was the only company which would supply tyres to the teams, Goodyear actively withheld information from the team – when asking for information on the vertical stiffness of the tyre carcass, he was told “You’re not one of our top four (Benetton, Williams, Ferrari and McLaren), so we won’t give you that information”.

        1. I hear you and I know all those arguments from the past, but I’m just not sure that would necessarily happen again under new management and under conditions of much more limited testing and with a much more eye-opening reality F1 is facing in terms of diminished audience and the need for change.

          When this kind of one-sidedness existed before there was still a huge push by both F1 and the FIA for MS/Ferrari to dominate and smash all the records so they had extreme treatment from Bridgi as there had never happened before and may never happen again. And that forced Michelin to have to do somewhat the same in order to compete against the elephant in the room.

          I certainly don’t think nowadays the lesser teams would get the dregs of tires, if there was two makers. I think they would get at worse the same tires that would be working so well for the top teams, and even if not ‘customized’ to the level the top teams would have it, they’d still be awfully good tires.

        2. Not really, all that needs to happen is for a designated person to come along and say those tyres for Merc, those for Sauber, those for RBR, etc… Or randomised numbered lots, it’s actually really simple to stop team favouritism in tyre battles and worked for a good few years too…

  2. nelson piquet
    5th March 2017, 13:05

    sounds great

    1. nelson piquet
      5th March 2017, 13:06

      it would be smart to pit after the first lap, build a gap and finish the race in front

      1. Or even pit after the first lap, then take advantage of the first safety car…

        Or, do a Haas in Australia following any red flag

        1. From this year, teams cannot change tyres under red flag. Mercs also took advantage of red flag last season both in Australia and Belgium GP.

      2. Micheal (@shakengandulf)
        5th March 2017, 13:20

        Very interesting.. im guessing we’ll see earlier pitstops then usual.

      3. The earlier you pit the more likely it is you end up in traffic when you come back on track.

        1. Micheal (@shakengandulf)
          5th March 2017, 16:17

          Not necessarily..

        2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
          5th March 2017, 16:32

          The later you pit the more likely a safety car will ruin your race

          1. @fullcourse-caution You do realize that a safety car for a car that hasn’t pitted benefits them right?

          2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
            5th March 2017, 17:36

            @mashiat not if the car you are racing has already pitted

          3. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
            5th March 2017, 17:48

            Look at crashgate for instance. Alonso pitted early and everyone who hadn’t pitted lost out when the safety car came

          4. @fullcoursecaution Not a great example as they had the silly pitlane closed rules in place in 2008.

          5. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
            5th March 2017, 22:21

            True @jerseyf1 hadn’t thought about that. Still reckon stopping early is preferable to stopping late in terms of nullifying potential SC disadvantage, but I’m not so sure now. Would be interested to hear what other people reckon

          6. @fullcoursecaution Since the car that has already pitted will be running to the safety car delta, they will be travelling relatively slower than the car that is pitting, meaning that the car that hasn’t pitted will gain time. It’s the reason why many drivers pit during the VSC.

          7. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
            6th March 2017, 8:03

            @mashiat under VSC that would be the case but under SC the pack would close up, so you would only get an advantage of you were lucky enough to be near the pit entry when the SC is called

          8. @fullcoursecaution Like @jerseyf1 said, pre 2010 was not a very valid example, due to refuelling etc. But in the 2012 Australian GP, both Webber and Vettel benefitted by not pitting under the safety car while Hamilton and Alonso did.

    2. Sounds boring. No more interesting tyre strategies as we saw last year. Plus the more difficult passing is a procession in the making, with only some DRS passing. We’re going back to the Trulli-train-days (which – for me at least – was terrible to watch)

      1. It will be 2010 all over again with those ridiculous tire strategies. Pitting in the first or last lap has nothing to do with strategy; it just shows that the two-compound rule has to go away as soon as possible.

      2. Removing tyre strategies puts more emphasis on driver skill and car reliability. It will at last hopefully do away with the undercuts and give drivers the opportunity to race harder and longer rather than having to manage tyre with a silly short life…

        1. Tyre management is part of every racing formula, that in itself is a great driving skill.

  3. Processsion’ galore?

    1. James Coulee
      5th March 2017, 13:28

      I find I prefer the risk of a procession than to leave most overtakes to be done on the safety of the pitlane and not on track, though..

      1. Me too, the fact that the driver will not be able to stand around 2sec behind the opponent on track to try to undercut him when he goes to the pits it’s as detrimental to real overtaking as the DRS, I’d rather risk having processional races than this. And I think that we might have less overtakes, but the ones we will see will be much more rewarding (unless they made DRS effectiveness higher than previous years….then we will see more boring push to pass manoeuvres)

        1. Let’s see after 5 processional races in the first 5 races if you still have that oppinion.

          1. Watching F1 seasons from 1991 again. I am near the end of the 1993 season now, and it’s much more rewarding viewing than watching 160 overtakes a race where 25% of them are deserved. Good racing does not mean many unrewarding/undeserved overtakes – good racing can be a battle that lasts the whole race. I don’t remember a single DRS overtake from last year, yet Verstappen keeping Kimi behind for a whole stint at Barcelona sticks in my mind. Why? Because it was good racing.

            If everything is extraordinary, nothing is.

        2. To get overtaking you require a “faster” car to be behind a “slower” car. One way to create this scenario was through the use of tyre strategy – e.g. a slower car gaining track position through the undercut. What happens with a non-stop race is that it removes a opportunity to try and mix up the running order.

          Now unless someone has a problem the cars should line up at the start from fastest to slowest. In a non-stop race unless a “slower” car jumps a competitor at the start there is no reason NOT to expect a processional race. Tyre strategy at least allowed a slightly slower competitor to try get track position in some instances – thereby forcing the “faster” car to overtake. We will now require problems in qualifying (cars out of position), bad starts or rain to give us interesting races.

  4. Very good. 2010 was one of the best year I remember (I watch F1 from 1999), though I remember the first race of that season – Bahrain GP – being total borefest. Everybody back then went to knee-jerk conclusions, that ban on refuelling and durable tyres made F1 so much boring. But we had really amazing races and 5-way fight for the drivers’ title.

    Drivers will be able to push now. That means, they will take more risks, therefore will be more susceptible to making mistakes and crashing the car. Also, they will not fear anymore of following another car and trying endless times to overtake it. Trying to overtake will be much more entertaining to watch, no more cheese tyres, which just made everything artificial.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      5th March 2017, 14:14

      2010 was a great season, but the only races people remember from it are the worst ones: Bahrain and Abu Dhabi

      1. You might have liked the season because the outcome wasn’t always predictable before the weekend (and/or your idol was fighting for the WDC), but the races were mostly horrible.

      2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
        5th March 2017, 17:51

        Was that the year of the pointless extended ‘endurance’ layout?

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          5th March 2017, 18:03


  5. Drop the mandatory stop, If teams decide to go the whole race non-stop then let them!

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      5th March 2017, 14:15

      But how can a slower car then pass a faster car without the undercut? It works great when cars are close in performance. It’ll be havoc in the pits on the 1st lap – many drivers will lose spots since they’ll have traffic and some will be serviced on lap 2. Why qualify P2 when by lap 3 you are P6 even with a great start…

      What about drivers like Pérez? His ability to do long stints is one of his main skills… Now that’s less relevant.

      1. @freelittlebirds
        I don’t think many people will be pitting on the first lap, simply because they’ll be qualifying on the fastest tyre, so they’ll want to run that as long as possible in the race. The penultimate lap on the other hand could get interesting.

        What about drivers like Pérez? His ability to do long stints is one of his main skills… Now that’s less relevant.

        He’ll have to adjust his style, just like others had to adjust their style to the high deg tyres.

        1. @george It may be a good strategy for the midfield teams to pit at the end of the first lap, as Force India did on a regular basis in 2010. At the beginning of the race drivers in the midfield lose a lot of time due to congestion, so the extreme “undercut” could be quite effective. I believe it was a common strategy in other racing series (DTM for example) too.

        2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          5th March 2017, 15:13

          @George Good point:-) I’m not sure which one is worse though – I would not like to see a mandatory stop on the last lap of the race simply to “play by the rules”. I wonder how quali will be affected with higher deg tyres.

          Would a mid-field driver be better off doing one lap on the slower tyres, pitting (getting somewhat clear of traffic) and then going the full stint with the fastest tyre?

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            5th March 2017, 15:14

            @f1infigures Sorry, I just repeated what you said. Should have read your post I guess before replying:-)

          2. @freelittlebirds No problem, mate. :)

      2. Perez only has that advantage when he qualified in P11. Then you have a free choice of compound so they gamble. Now and then this gamble worked out well and people only remember the ones where the gamble did pay out.

        Apart from gambling, it’s not really a viable strategy though. Otherwise you would see teams do the same (pich the harder compound to start on) even when they got into Q3.

    2. If we go for no mandatory stops the it will take away the ability of any team going for an ‘overtake’ using the undercut from an early pit stop. If you want to pass someone, you will have to do it on the track. Could make life interesting!

  6. I don’t understand why people want this. Historically, one-stop races tend to be just awful. I mean is it just me who would rather degrading tires with a good few stops other than just one big boring procession? That’s not to say processions can’t be exciting, but still.

    1. @smartez I agree. Remember everyone the best season in F1 which was 2012, and that season was only exciting because of the degradation tyres.

    2. Micheal (@shakengandulf)
      5th March 2017, 16:09

      Thing is.. i don’t want to see overtaking happen in the pitlane.. i want it out on the track.

      Having stronger tyres means that a chasing driver can now sit behind longer without destroying his tyres.
      Guess I’m not a fan of the weak stuff and prefer the more durable.

      1. If you want overtaking on the track then f1 needs to become a spec series. This is the problem all along and why things like degrading tyres, pit stops, refueling, drs help f1 from becoming the biggest borefest in Motorsport.

    3. @smartez @lolzerbob I’m not against degradation and numerous pit stops, in fact I welcomed the prospect when Pirelli first arrived. I’m against the tyres that lose performance when following another car, limiting drivers to one or two laps per stint when they can attack the car in front, otherwise their tyres (and their race strategy) are wrecked. Those recent Pirelli tyres discouraged racing. If there’s a way they could make the compounds softer to allow multiple pit stops, while still allowing drivers to push when following, but not melt the tyres when racing then I’ll certainly be up for that, it’s a question of if that is possible.

    4. @smartez Disagree, In the days before refueling when no-stop & 1-stop races were the norm the racing was way better than it’s been at any point since because all of the racing was done on the track & we saw more overtaking because drivers knew they had to get it done on the track.

      1. What era are you talking about? A lot of the vintage eras would not stand up to fan expectations these days, like one car 2 seconds ahead of the rest in pole position. Highlight reels show great overtaking, but watch a while racr. Also in past eras tyres were not ad advanced, and there was degredation, and no tyre warming blankets.

        1. I do watch those older races in full fairly regularly. i just got through watching the 1991 season & i’d say the racing that year hold up very well.

          some races featured no stops or just 1 stop & the racing was fine. drivers were pushing hard throughout, they were pushing hard to try & overtake because it was the only way to do it in those races & that created extra excitement, extra drama, better/harder racing & more overtaking. was far better than anything seen since 1994.

  7. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    5th March 2017, 14:08

    One of the biggest strategic factors in F1 is deciding when to pit and what tires to put the driver on. If all tires can last the length of the race, then you obviously want to choose the fastest tire, so that choice is now a nonfactor.

    It even applied to intra-team races like the times Mercedes would put Nico on slicks and Lewis on medium and then defend that the medium was the quickest of the two (Lauda was in the restroom rolling on the floor). Everyone else was saying “what on earth are they talking about?” :)

    1. @freelittlebirds Well, the medium did turn out to be the faster tyre.

    2. @freelittlebirds, In a non stop race the main strategy is ” how do I pass that car ahead of me”, I prefer that strategy.

  8. It would be nice to see a lot less marbles than the racing line, along with less tyre management, tyres dying when following another car… All that stuff.

    1. @splittimes
      That’s true, I’ll miss the strategies though. As mentioned above, if all the tyres can do the full race distance they’ll just choose the fastest one. Hopefully there will be some races where the tyre wear is higher than expected so we can get the both of both worlds.

      I’m mostly looking forward to see the drivers pushing again, the last few years it’s like they’ve been driving on eggshells.

      1. @George I’m predicting fresh calls for the return of refueling very shortly.

        1. @splittimes
          Well we’ll have to see how the racing is, if they are able to do a full distance on any tyre then either the two-tyre rule needs to be scrapped or they need to bring in a reason like refueling to encourage mid-race stops. If everyone ends up pitting once at the end of every race it’s going to quickly turn into a farce.

    2. @splittimes @george Yeah, but refuelling was detrimental to on-track overtaking. The only thing that really needs fixing is the ‘following another car closely’ problem.

      1. No it wasn’t, a slower car could pass a faster car if it was lighter in fuel gir instance. Not every car being the same weight at every point of a race helps overtaking, especially in a non spec racing series

  9. It is touch and go. Becuase more stops does not go hand in hand with durable tyres. The only way is to artificially make a cliff layer in the tyre. It would be like push push push for twenty laps the all of a sudden, the cliff. All the teams would do is just pit stops before the cliff happens. that would be very predictible pitstops. So i will take this formula instead.

  10. In Mexico last year we saw Perez trapped behind Massa for a lot of laps. But I don’t think that was a bad thing. The design of the track made passing extremely difficult, but we got to see Perez attacking for lap after lap, even though he didn’t make it past I’d sooner watch that than a pitstop overtake, chewing gum tyres enabling a pass, or worst of all a DRS pass.

    They keep trying to tinker with the rules to get passes, force passing with the tyres, or mess about with the qualifying format to contrive races with passing. The problem lays with the circuits, they need to identify which circuits allow and even encourage passing, the take their characteristics onboard for changes to the circuits that don’t.

    We’ve got a few circuits like Malaysia, Bahrain, and COTA that have sequences of corners perfect for passing and battles even when it’s cars from the same teams. Stop playing with the rules to fake passing and make the circuits better race circuits.

      1. Micheal (@shakengandulf)
        5th March 2017, 16:14

        +2 I don’t want to see a aggressive driver chewing his tyre up after two laps behind someone.
        Im all for these new tyres.

  11. mark jackson
    5th March 2017, 14:59

    Last year teams were allowed to choose 2 compounds and given 1 mandatory compound to run during the race, does anyone know if this rule apply for this year?

    1. It is but not for the 1st few races as Pirelli don’t have enough tyres ready for every compound.

  12. Make them use the same set of tyres from qualy to the race. It will even create an advantage for those who qualify further down the grid. And it will make teams do less laps, and therefore more pressure on the drivers

    There you go, problem solved.

    Next one please

    1. And of course, scrap the mandatory tyre rule

    2. @johnmilk Isn’t that what they’ve been doing for the past 7 or so seasons?

      1. @mashiat no

        One set of tyres for each driver, they have to do qualy with that set only regarding the stage they reach, q1, q2 or q3. And they all have to start the race on that set

        Imagine having the tyres in parc freme since the moment qualy starts.

        It even helps saving costs and creates a hurdle for the teams that qualify at the top of the grid giving the race a new tactical element. It will stop this nonsense of having pit stops at the first or last lap. As long as there isn’t a mandatory tyre rule.

        Imagine Perez fitting an harder tyre in qualy but doesn’t need to stop during the race, while drivers that have a softer tyre and qualify higher will

        1. The top 10 drivers must start the race on the tires they set their fastest Q2 time with.

          It used to be they had to start with the tires they set their fastest Q3 time on, but the FIA + Pirelli decided to hand out a free set of “softest on offer” tires during Q3 to get the teams to go out and run laps, instead of sitting in the garage until the last minute, and doing a bonzai warmup + fast lap.

          Since the tires aren’t supposed to degrade as much this year, perhaps they should undo that change, and make the cars start the race on their Q3 tires again.

  13. Firstly, I am of the opinion that we have had good tires and we have had gadget tires, and we have had processions with both…even with DRS in play. So I conclude from that, that aero dependence, clean air dependence, remains the most harmful thing to close racing.

    I think it will be interesting to see going forward if Pirelli will want to stay in F1 much longer as a sole supplier if these new stable and real tires that the cars should have been on all along, mean that after the first few races and the commentators have explained all they can about the current tires, they will barely get a mention. They won’t be the differentiators that they have been in recent years. And that may mean that Pirelli will no longer feel a marketing impact from being in F1.

    A tire competition (I’ve really been disliking the term tire war for many years now, as it is no more a competition than any other aspect of F1 between engine makers, drivers, engineers, teams etc) ensures that even if the tires are rock stable and not a deciding factor in terms of variable they throw at the teams and therefore the races, they still talk all the time about who is on what tires. Hence…marketing impact.

    I think the main biggest problem is clean air dependence. If they can improve that mechanical to aero grip ratio as Brawn has been hinting at, then we will have close racing and Pirelli will be happy to stay in an enthralling series. If aero remains dominant and processions ensue and the tires are not gadgety to try to shake things up, tires will not be a focus and Pirelli will get little mention. They may end up like Michelin in the past who wanted a tire competition in F1 so their tires would constantly get mentioned, if not about tire uniqueness, at least about what driver is on what make of tire.

    1. That’s a great comment, didn’t really think about it like that. With degradable tyres, Pirelli got massive media and fan attention for over half a decade. Can’t really see a better return for a single-tyre supplier in any racing series. Then again, they do get paid by the teams for the rubbers.

    2. The biggest issue in the Pirelli era is that you couldn’t fight lap after lap in dirty air– After a few laps of slip/sliding behind another car, your tires were shot.

      If the Pirellis can take some abuse this year, then drivers like Hamilton can hang onto the ragged edge of performance until an opening presents itself.

      I suspect most passing this season will be due to either a huge imbalance in performance (aero and/or engine), or down to mistakes made by the leading car.

  14. Johnny stick
    5th March 2017, 15:22

    Now if they just get rid of the fuel flow restrictions and just stick with a total fuel quantity limt.

    1. I’d rather them keep the fuel flow and fuel weight limitations and the maximum of 4 engines without penalty per season, and leave the engine specification to the manufacturer. So if someone wants to make a 3 litre V8 hybrid system while another wants a 2 litre horizontal 6 hybrid system and another makes a 1.6 litre V6 hybrid, so be it. I think the only requirement should be the manufacturer has to supply the same engine to their customer teams as their own team.

    2. ExcitedAbout17
      5th March 2017, 21:52

      fully agree, however I understood that to be a cost control restriction.

  15. What if each team had to have it’s own individual tyre supplier froma different manufacturer. Each has to have a ‘sprint’ or ‘endurance’ tyre, and as we used to have in the late 90’s each team nominates it’s compund for the weekend and that’s that. No compulsary stop and each manufacturer is free to choose it’s own philosophy for each compound.

    1. That wouldn’t work. That would just serve to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots

  16. Robert McKay
    5th March 2017, 17:37

    If F1 wanted a tyre war the most interesting way to do it would be to centrally contract the tyre companies to the sport, not individual teams. The teams could then try compounds from both tyre manufacturers in practice. They’d still be limited to a set number of compunds for the weekend, but not limited to tyres from just one manufacturer.
    That way if one tyre company is much further ahead of the other then you’re not skewing the field wildly because only some teams have the good tyres (as we had at times in tyre wars in the mid 2000s). But you’d still have the competitive nature and individual teams might find different tyres that suited their car better – more variability.

    Neeeeeeever gonna happen though.

  17. Not good news.

    People have very short memories. The Bridgestone late era races were extremely boring due to there being no strategy element whatsoever (other than which lap they’d eventually pit.. once).

    Sounds like we’re heading that way.

    And to anyone suggesting a tyre war – also short memories. I could really do without drivers/teams giving up on Friday afternoons telling us “well, unfortunately, this is more of a Bridgestone track”.

    Not good.

  18. That wouldn’t work as teams build there cars to suit whatever tyre supplier they have decided to use & that process begins well before the start of the season which is why in the old days of a tyre war teams liked to get tyre contracts sorted out as early in the design process as possible.

    Tyres from different suppliers have totally different characteristics & to get the best out of your suppliers tyres you have to design your car, Especially your suspension layouts & springs/dampers etc.. to maximize the way it uses the tyres & different suppliers tyres will require different things.

    Even if teams had a choice to switch during the year I doubt they would, They would design the cars to suit 1 supplier & then stick with it as that is the only way they would get maximum performance out of car & tyre.

  19. Some people need to make their minds up. Do you want tyres that can be pushed hard or the cheese tyres that we love to hate?

    The drivers will be on the bandwagon soon moaning at how boring it is in 2017, you just watch this space…..

    1. +1.

      Seem obvious that people want cheese tyres that can be pushed hard all the time. We want both! ;-)

      1. I suppose we all want what we can’t get. The old tyres could be pushed to the limit, trouble is we would have about 6 stops per race….

  20. If the tyres are more durable, then maybe it means some of the drivers will want to go faster. Surely you want to push the tyres so they are almost completely worn out by the time it comes to do your mandatory pit stop.
    I think this is another element we will have to wait and see how it pans out at Melbourne.

  21. From the top of my head i´d say make 2 pitstops mandatory but make changing tires optional…
    That should make some variation possible…

  22. You want good racing, without hackery or stupid weird rules?

    Get. Rid. Of. Downforce.

    MotoGP has minimal downforce on modern tech. Great racing. Formula Ford at your local track; same thing. Aussie V8s, very low downforce, great racing. And on and on. This is NOT COMPLICATED. Other racing series are just fine. Only the high downforce series have problems.

    Front tire wear following a car: fault: downforce. Lost grip cornering behind car, ruining overtake setups: fault: downforce. Massive expense to be remotely competitive: fault: downforce.

    Solution: post tech already has scales. Put the scales in a simple windtunnel in a tractor trailer, and weigh the cars at rest and at a couple reference wind speeds. They cannot “weigh” more than some downforce limit.

    1. Then we would have certain people and drivers complaining how slow the cars are, i think the only way to bring some excitement and variables is to have a tyre war.

  23. They need to just make them use each compound of tyre. Then 2 stops… Voila.

  24. So very much a return to the 2010 season, except with DRS.
    Surely the tyres will still degrade at a rate that depends on the tyre type and how you drive, just the overall deg rates will be much lower than the last 6 years with no obvious cliff to worry about.

Comments are closed.