Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2018

Pirelli: High degradation tyres “probably not right” for F1

2018 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1 should reconsider whether using tyres which degrade quickly is producing good races, Pirelli’s sporting director Mario Isola believes.

The sport’s official tyre supplier has been given a target of producing tyres which lose performance quickly in an effort to increase variety between strategies and encourage overtaking. However Isola pointed out teams are instead leaning towards one-stop tyre strategies and extremely high levels of tyre management to eke out their rubber.

Drivers complained about the performance of the hyper-soft tyres following Friday practice for the Mexican Grand Prix, describing them as being “like driving on wets” after three laps. But drivers had supported the move towards high-degradation rubber as set down in the ‘target letter’ issued to Pirelli by F1, according to Isola.

“Negative comments are never nice,” he said on Friday. “I accept negative comments or criticism because if they are made in a good way they are useful to improve.

“I think the big step was in 2015 when we had the first target letter. The target letter now is appended to the new tender so it means that the document was successful. And the target letter was agreed not only with FIA and FOM but also with the teams and the drivers. So don’t forget that also the drivers were involved in the target letter.

“Ideally for the future we would like to have another target letter with new numbers, new conditions, new targets agreed with the drivers also. Because they drive the car, they have to tell us what they want. Then it’s a compromise between everybody. But it’s important to have them onboard.”

Pirelli softened its range of compounds this year and introduced a new, softer hyper-soft compound. But this has largely failed to increase the amount of variety between race strategies.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

In Mexico, despite tyres graining and losing performance rapidly, several drivers ran one-stop strategies on the softest compounds available while being urged throughout the race to manage their pace. Charles Leclerc was told 50 times to back off to save his tyres and given a lap time target at least five seconds slower than he was capable of.

Kevin Magnussen, Haas, Circuit of the Americas, 2018
Magnussen called Mexican GP tyres “a disgrace”
During the race Nico Hulkenberg described F1 as the “world championships in driving slow” and Kevin Magnussen called the tyres “a disgrace for Formula 1”.

Isola suspects the problem is with the brief. “We did what the sport asked us in terms of going softer to generate more grip in terms of delta lap time between compounds but also, and especially, in terms of degradation,” he said before the race. “Now the hyper-soft is degrading [in Mexico] and drivers are not happy.

“So is it really useful to have high degradation tyres or not? It’s a question. We should sit around the table, discuss that and understand which is the best way to go. Because what we are seeing now is that if we go softer and softer they manage more the pace. So probably it is not the right direction.”

He is confident a solution can be found. “It is not a problem, we just have to consider that and to change a little bit the direction and to find a different way to achieve the same targets. That’s all. I’m happy and it’s absolutely correct to involve the drivers in the decision.”

The FIA has set further targets for high tyre degradation in the tender issued to prospective suppliers for the 2020 to 2023 seasons. Michelin cited the targets as one of the reasons why it chose not to respond to the tender.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

Posted on Categories 2018 F1 season, F1 news

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 62 comments on “Pirelli: High degradation tyres “probably not right” for F1”

    1. Good move. Asking for revised degrading tyre policy after major rival supplier withdrawal had been confirmed.

    2. Must be hard being married to F1.
      You spend big bucks to provide the tyres to the wishes of lady F1 (FIA, FOM, teams, drivers) and all you get is flak.
      You are lured in as a beer company and all you can tell potential customers is ‘don’t drink’.

      1. Pirelli are liars, yes their tires may be performing to the standards of degradation asked for by the tire tender, but the tire tender never called for tires that overheat and lose a lot of grip in the middle of a qually lap. Nor does the tire tender demand tires that blister up if you push them hard for a lap or two. The pirelli tires are complete garbage and it has nothing to do with the tire tender.

        Also, Heineken is required by law to spend a certain amount of money promoting safety and anti drunk driving. The use that require no to pay for their involvement in F1. They are basically using a loop hole .

        1. Heineken is required by law to spend a certain amount of money promoting safety and anti drunk driving

          Which law? @megatron.
          Maybe you refer to the voluntary code of conduct.
          I hope that ignoring Heineken’s advice did not cause you to flunk your law exam ;)

        2. Maybe Keith can correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Pirelli were asked specifically to produce tires with increased thermal degradation. I seem to remember the two main directives were for them to increase performance and to increase thermal deg (to ensure at least 2 pit stops and more options for varied strategies up & down the pit lane). I can’t stand these tires, but they’re the exact tires F1 asked Pirelli to make.

          1. Pirelli were never asked to use “thermal” degradation, that was a choice that they themselves made. They added a chemical into their rubber that plasticizes at a certain temperature lowering grip drastically, they did this as a built-in fuse to protect their weak tires that were falling apart at high speeds.

            1. The article I read just now (Racecar Engineering, ’13) has comments from Paul Hembrey talking about working according to the FIA’s and team’s wishes to increase thermal degradation. In ’15 when revisiting the tires, thermal degradation was still on the wish list (the teams had largely figured that there was nothing for it but to drive slower, and surprisingly, many were one stopping), though some circuits didn’t even allow for any thermal deg (Russia… the tires didn’t lose performance until the entire surface wore away). It was around this time I learned about the composites Pirelli use that break down the chemical bonds responsible for generating grip (that’s why cooling them doesn’t bring them back… once they get too hot, they’re shot). The next directive was to make the tires stronger to better cope with the increased performance that was coming. Thermal degradation was still on the wish list (Pirelli were still getting complaints about one stop races as well, mind you). You saying it was their choice doesn’t magically make it so.

        3. @megatron Agreed. The teams may have signed off on the tires, but not for them to degrade and behave in the manner that they do. According to poster gt-racer the only ones who like these tires are Pirelli and BE (who was the one who originally mandated Pirelli to make tires the overwhelming story in F1).

        4. It has everything to do with the tender, they build tyres to the requirements they are told too and the problems you mention are the side effects of those requirements.

        5. @megatron

          Thank god one other person understands why Pirelli’s tires are complete garbage. The way they go about getting us multiple pit stops is ridiclous. Commentators even mention “did he use up too much of his tyres in sectors 1 and 2? Will he have anything left for sector 3?”

          What a joke.

      2. @coldfly – priceless! :-)

        And you draw in drivers with the allure of “pinnacle of motorsport” and coach them in tyre-saving and fuel-saving*.

        * Pedant disclaimer: yeah, yeah, racing is winning at the slowest speed, the comment is just meant humorously

        1. Not to mention that if overtaking was not so hard in F1 as to be hardly possible unless you have several seconds of speed to spare over the driver you are trying to pass, it wouldn’t even be possible to “go it slow to the finish” because they would lose out on track @coldfly, @phylyp, @robbie, @megatron.

          When track position is the thing that matters instead of the speed you can go at, clearly all teams opt to do that, giving us stale racing and drivers coaxing tyres meant to last only a few laps up to a bit over half distance (depending on compound) for 15+ up to 56 laps.

          Or maybe we just need someone to have a try at that to ruffle up some feathers?

          I know that the route Pirelli chose (or the one they were able to do?) is far from ideal, making tyre temperatures key and making it awkward how you manage the tyres. But since they brought up the question here – IS it good to have this target at all? Or should tyres just last and get worse with wear once they wear off?

    3. Dont tell me that with all those simulations that teams run to determine their strategy, they wouldn’t be able to play with the variables a bit and see what produces good racing.

      Let the computer do a million races with degrading tyres, then try something else and see what happens. I think the fact that track position is so valuable these days, pushes teams to the 1 stop side.

      The perfect technical regulations would be that if two cars meet each other in the race, and have similar/same pace, a driver should be able to overtake using superior skill, or bigger balls. Or by making mistakes more common, (decreasing grip, increasing power, getting rid of driver aids, making cars tougher to drive, etc), allowing drivers to gain positions through exploiting mistakes of others.

      Nowadays, if a car meets another in a race, it needs at least a two-second pace advantage (through downforce or new tyres) to be able to get past. That means you could put Hamilton in a Williams or Mclaren and he would be fighting to get into the points. And Kubica would be fighting for race wins in a Merc or Ferrari.

      I think the cheapest and easiest short-term option would be to get rid of Friday and Saturday practice. Dont rubber in the tracks. Just do a qualifying session (maybe qualifying race), and the Grand Prix. This would give small teams a better chance of scoring podiums or wins if they get the setup and strategy perfect. It would bring some unpredictability to the races. And save everyone money.

      1. @vjanik I’m afraid that teams, despite what they might say, are not really interested in good racing. They’re interested in getting the best result possible. You’re right with the importance of track position, but that’s caused by how much dirty air affects F1 cars, and that’s what they should be aiming toward: cars that are less affected by dirty air.

        Get rid of free practices and you’ll end up with a much bigger difference between the top teams (which can invest lots of money in simulators) and the F1.5 teams.

      2. I think the fact that track position is so valuable these days, pushes teams to the 1 stop side.

        If teams were allowed to run on the same tyres from start to finish then one has to suspect most teams would do exactly that. Why would you go in for a tyre change if doing so meant loosing points?

        I think the cheapest and easiest short-term option would be to get rid of Friday and Saturday practice. Don’t rubber in the tracks. Just do a qualifying session (maybe qualifying race), and the Grand Prix. This would give small teams a better chance of scoring podiums or wins if they get the setup and strategy perfect.

        I suspect the wealthier teams would soon master this, and that we’d end up with more or less where we are now. Like it or not, I think the current format does give the teams on a tight budget the best chance they have of competing with the wealthy teams.

      3. You’d run into the incredibly hard (and risky) need to overtake cars. Meaning that just being faster doesn’t get you anywhere @vjanik. It is exactly BECAUSE the teams are able to simulate what is how fast that they choose the route they know offers a) best guarantee of keeping track position and b) is under their own (teams) control to run according to their own simulations.

    4. It’s not the tyres. If they could overtake each other they’d pit for new tyres instead of cruising around knowing the guy behind on better rubber can’t possibly go through.

      Going back and forth on the durability of the tyres is meaningless if the root issue isn’t sorted out. They could bring the hardest ever Bridgestone and the races would be just as boring.

      1. Following a car as we know is a big issue (another that seems to evade common sense solutions), but drivers are intentionally driving slow regardless of overtaking. That is the tyres.

        1. @john-h of course they do, why would they speed up and risk degrading their tyres more if they cannot improve their position anyway? Think about how LeClerc wanted to catch Hulkenberg in the last race, but they repeatedly told him to back off and save tyres. If he had a chance, they’d have gone for it. But he could’ve reached Hulkenberg and he’d have stayed behind, the delta you need to overtake is way too big. And once you get there you don’t have tyres anymore, and you start to drop behind anyway. So why waste it?

          Holding station isn’t because of the tyres, it’s because of the lack of competition and the difficulty to overtake. It’d be more dynamic if they could pass each other. People would think twice about having to run slowly on used tyres.

          1. Not just a matter of increased degredation, if you push the tires they will blister and fall apart and possibly delaminate. Blistering is not a normal part of degradation.

      2. The tyres also suffer when they try to follow each other, so it is a big part of the problem.

      3. agree @fer-no65.
        (broken record spinning) sort out the ‘follow through turns’ and ‘reduce pit stop times’ and people will love these aggressive sticky tyres and strategic variety.

        1. Somehow I suspect that with the level of simulation teams can do, they would still opt to go for a strategy they can better control – i.e. cut out on risks posed by pitstops and the need to overtake out on track if they can avoid having to go fast @coldfly, @fer-no65.

      4. @fer-no65 Spot on! That’s what I’ve pointed out as well.

      5. Agreed.

        The issue is how do you massively reduce aero in a series that is fundamentally an engineering competition including aero.

        Make low aero a rule. Directly. Not indirectly (design limit volumes, lines, heights, etc). Rather make low aero directly a rule. Same as the minimum mass rule is direct. You weigh the car, if it weighs too much, you fail tech. Simple. Direct.

        For aero, do exactly the same. Weigh the car at some rules cited airspeed(s). If you weight too much in this case (downforce), you fail tech.

        All you need is a tractor trailer based portable windtunnel for this purpose. It does not need to be lab instrumented or complex. It only needs scales and a moving floor. Not trivial, but also not impractical.

        1. correction: Mass tech rule is if you weigh too little you fail. Aero is if you weigh too much at sped you fail. I accidentally typed the mass one wrong above.

      6. Vincent Pinsent
        6th November 2018, 23:10

        I totally agree. it’s not a tire problem, it’s an aero problem that manifests itself as a tire problem.
        I just spent a while watching stadium super truck racing in Aus. You know the format; damn great V8 utes with 4WD and super soft suspension to deal with the metre-high metal jumps.
        Very different from F1 apart from one aspect. These utes have absolutely no aero in front or behind and so when Ute1 makes a big hole in the air, Ute2 is able to make a pass virtually anywhere.
        Lesson? Too much aero dependancy in F1.
        Twenty years or so ago I remember watching TVR racing from the UK. These things were three or four litre sports cars without any vestige of aero. They were quick and enormousely entertaining as the lead car made holes inthe air for competitors to slide on past.
        No aero and more power than control requires extreme skill and commitment, but it equals racing entertainemt as well.

    5. Why is this so hard?

      Firstly, get rid of mandatory stops.

      Secondly, have one slow tyre that can do a whole race, one that can do 40 laps a bit faster, tailing off gradually, one that can do 20 laps a bit faster still tailing of gradually (no cliff edges please).

      We had this in the 1990s. The mandatory stop is the big one to me, forcing people into at least one stop automatically takes away variation. It really isn’t rocket science.

      1. you miss one (important) thing, @john-h.
        As long as drivers cannot follow through the turns (and hence not overtake without more artificial help) nobody will go for a 1-2 pit stop strategy.
        (here comes my broken record again) make sure cars can follow in the curvy bits, and reduce lost time during a pit stop, and automatically tyre saving will be a think of the past.

        1. (@coldfly)

          make sure cars can follow in the curvy bits

          The reduced aero next yr may help that?

          1. @johnrkh Hopefully. To an extent at least.

            1. Not convinced that 2019 aero regs will actually reduce downforce.
              When the front wings were narrowed, A Newey commented that it would be challenging to find ways to reduce tyre squirt. Seems they figured that one out (out-wash wings).
              Now the mantra is “no out-wash” but back to the full width wings to push the air upwards. Oh yes, and after disturbing the air-flow to the rear wing with the Halo, let’s raise the wing into clear air.
              It may take a few million iterations on the simulator, but the CFD guys will find a way to get back the missing downforce, and more. Of that I am sure.
              Once upon a time we had refueling and no tire changes. Not that this wasn’t without problems, but one thing that completely disappeared were the marbles. Drivers could drive a variety of different lines into and through corners from the start to the end of the races. High degradation tyres with the attendant marbles pretty much guarantee a single racing line once we get past half way. No one talks about that aspect, but it influences strategy and passing, or not.

          2. @johnrkh,@jerejj,@coldfly, Reduced downforce may help following in the curvy bits, but not if the tyres still melt on the following car which will still have turbulence effect it’s already reduced downforce, in effect it will have double reduced downforce, driver skill would allow an attacking driver to control the loss of grip when directly behind and dart to the left or right out of the turbulence to attempt a pass or force the leading driver into an error, but only if his tyres don’t melt in the process.

            1. We’re talking about increased downforce due to less disturbed air for the following car! @hohum

              I even jokingly (but a lot more seriously than most of my posts) suggested that DRS should be replaced with a Downforce Recovery System (aka DRS).
              The following car should be able to recover its downforce in the curvy bits by adjusting front and rear wings (steeper).

            2. @coldfly, maybe we should just agree to disagree on this subject, but I am curious, are you suggesting driver controlled front and rear wings ( I’ll 2nd.that), if so are you also saying that only the following car should be able to deploy ? might work, certainly better than current massive fixed aerofoils with all the extras, and I’ll wager much cheaper to design and build so FIA will continue to ban it.

            3. @hohum, yes & yes.
              Both wings and only for the following cars. The technical guys should sort out what to allow, as long as a following car has more grip when following and can stay close without ruining its tyres.
              Then on the straight there is no help other than the natural wake.

      2. You know, that is pretty much what we have with regards to the tyres though. Just the teams figured out through their simulations that the easier, and less risky (because better plannable and easier to calculate and simulate) path is to just build you car and train your driver to make those tyres that last 40% of the race go the distance @john-h.

        Unless you actually find a way to make it easier to pass and “profitable” for a team to do so, they will rather try and avoid that unless unexpected circumstances (a spin, accident, technical glitch, weather, SC at a bad moment) force them to put in more effort.

        Just look how easy it still is for the top 3 teams to start right at the back (or drop back towards the end of the field in the race) and still reach the top 5 within a dozen to 20 laps. They could overtake, but why would they choose that risk?

    6. Yes and no. Tyres that degrade too quickly or too unpredictably are bad. But tyre management should be an active part of F1. It should reward drivers who are able to go longer on a set. F1 shouldn’t be about Rambo style driving, there needs to be finesse too. Tyres need to make the difference there. Not too many pitstops, but also not too few.

      1. @hahostolze – agreed, that’s a smart distinction. Reward the driver who drives strategically, with a bit of nursing at the appropriate time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

        1. No, it is a sprint….
          If you want a marathon, see WEC

          1. Exactly. It is a sprint and we need to see these drivers actually taxed at doing their task…actually wrung out by the end of the races…from close battles on the track. Pacing around looking after ridiculous tires is not going to grow the audience.

            1. But drivers who are capable of going as quickly whilst demanding less of their tyres ought to be rewarded, because they are fulfilling a more complete set of skills.

      2. (@hahostolze)

        But drivers who are capable of going as quickly whilst demanding less of their tyres ought to be rewarded, because they are fulfilling a more complete set of skills.

        Well to a point, much of the time it’s down to car set up.

    7. This constant back-and-forth that F1 goes into on every issue is becoming tiring (pun not intended). First you had tyres that lasted a whole race (“this is boring!”), then you had tyres that degraded a lot (“they are not driving to the limit!”), then you went a step backwards to tyres that did not degrade so much (“strategies are so predictable!”) then you have one race where tyres degrade unpredictably (“they are driving too slow!”).

      As much as F1 is in a crisis state, I also feel a lot that the crisis was created by the fans, media and people inside the sport, by themselves thinking that everything is a problem. The one instance that always comes to my mind is the first race of 2010, in Bahrain: it was a dreary race, but nothing extraordinarily bad, and yet people went berserk thinking that F1 was in a terrible state (only for 2010 to end up being one of the best seasons in recent memory).

      It’s true that F1 does need direction, it does need to devise an interesting formula that maintains some semblance of sporting integrity while improving the spectacle. Yes, this will be hard. But everyone just needs to calm a bit every now and then and realize that not all events will be great, that we can have 3 bad races in a row, and this has always happened, at least as far as I can remember. And despite some of the current problems, F1 is giving a similar or better spectacle than in the good ol’ V10-Bridgestone-refuelling era. Those were the days! F1 was so great even Minardi got to win races from the back regularly!

      1. I agree about the cycle. But this isn’t the first time this year Isola has argued that the concept of using high degradation tyres is failing because the teams have become so good at managing them. In much the same way they conquered refuelling within a couple of seasons in the nineties.

        1. @keithcollantine – I am curious Keith. How would you like to see the tyre rules written in the future for formula 1?

          1. @ming-mong I don’t like any of the restrictions on tyre use, particularly the arbitrary Q3 tyre rule which just punishes the top qualifiers from the midfield, or any number of mandatory pit stops.

            But I don’t think the root of the problem is the tyres. I think the tyres are being used to address the fact that the cars can’t follow each other closely enough most of the time to produce exciting races.

            Address this aerodynamic problem (which Liberty are doing, though it’s unlikely to be a quick fix) and there won’t be a perceived need to ‘improve’ the races using high-degradation tyres. Or, for that matter, DRS, reverse grids or any other gimmick they come up with.

            1. What is your explanation for these tires that can not be pushed for even 1 full qually lap without overheating and losing massive grip? You are incorrect, THE TIRES ARE A BIG PROBLEM.

              The tires can last all day long when they are pushed only 70-80%, but push them anywhere near their limit for a full lap or slightly longer and they begin to overheat and blister(RAI in monza, HAM in Sochi).

        2. @keithcollantine Exactly!
          And if they decided to have sprinklers at the tracks, the engineers would soon determine the rate of drying and optimal time to switch to dry tires based on ambient temperature, humidity, pressure, etc.
          The “problem” is really the excellent engineers employed by all the teams, and the rules need to take that into account and not remain static for too long.

      2. I don’t get the obsession with 2010. Sure the championship was close and all but much of the racing itself was diabolical.

    8. Isn’t the problem thermal degradation? It obliges drivers to stay below a limit (which depending on other factors may be well below the performance limit of the car and tyre) in order to avoid cooking the tyres. Building in different degradation through wear, with softer tyres wearing more rapidly, is another matter. And of course they do already wear differently and have different durations. But it’s the thermal degradation that is the frustrating factor.
      And since we’re on tyres again I’m going to repeat my suggestion that, assuming mandatory pit-stops remain, instead of obliging the use of two different tyres in a race they should oblige the use of one tyre twice, and require all drivers to use the tyre they set their best qually lap on at some point in the race (not necessarily the start). That would encourage more variety in strategy and probably more pit stops.

    9. Is not simple.
      Have four compounds that are the same for every circuit (plus wets and intermediates)
      They wear out opposed to degrade (overheat) softs the last a little time – hards forever with at least 0.5 sec between compounds. They all need to be tough so they can be driven off the wheels!
      Teams get to test them on Friday and choose 2 compounds for the race (they don’t have to use both) on Saturday morning they get handed some quali tyres for 3rd practice to set up car. They then get 3 sets for quali one for each session (tyres get better as they are used – so drivers will lap all session improving times…..)
      Then they get a window to reset the car for the race on Sunday morning – then go race👍

    10. I wholeheartedly agree with Isola.

    11. I like high degredation tyres. I dnt like the fact that they are soo temp dependant. Degradation should be caused by the number of kms used. Soft tyre should degrade 1 mm per km. Medium should degrade 1mm per 1.5km hard should degrade 1mm per 2km. For example.or soft should degrade 2mm per km medium 1.5mm per km hard degrade 1mm per km. Im sure some will get my point.

      1. Where did you come up with this? 2mm per km haha yeah rightio…

    12. The only reason tires are an issue in F1 is because everyone feels there’s a need to give slower car/driver combinations a shot at getting to the front. It’s an artificial lever with which to attempt to mix up the results. It’s no different than dictating that cars that qualify in front are allotted less fuel for the race as a means of spicing up the action. That may even lead to better racing. That way you could have a single tire type (it’s no longer a choice) for each race that’s guaranteed to only last anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the full race distance. It would be just as artificial but at least no one could whine about tires.

    13. It would seem that part of the reason (and I am sure there are lots of reasons) that Michelin has bowed out of the potential supply contract, is that if they need to provide degrading tyres (hence the discussion here) and risk being perceived as a crappy tyre supplier, it will hurt their reputation and business. I doubt that Pirelli has gained much positive press for the product they are currently supplying.
      Will be interesting to see where Hankook gets to in terms of the supply contract. They may well be in a position to benefit from the F1 exposure regardless of the quality that they are forced to provide. Either that or we will be right back here again next year.
      All about Road Relevance ….. Tyres that last 200 km, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    14. High-degradation tyres were very good in 2011-12 but not so much after that. However going for rock-solid tyres won’t produce “flat-out races” because they still have to save fuel, engines and manage everything.

    15. Here’s where F1 have a chance to balance performance – follow Honda’s model with high degradation engines to match the Pirelli tyres.

    16. “Pirelli softened its range of compounds this year and introduced a new, softer hyper-soft compound. But this has largely failed to increase the amount of variety between race strategies”.

      Of course it has failed, because the top 10 cars on the grid are all forced to start on the same tyres, hence ruining any chance of strategic diversity!

    17. Coanda that was an example….. My point was that the tyres should not be soo temperature dependant.

    18. Ok here’s my idea, what if they made the best version of soft, medium and hard tyres that allowed drivers to race on the limit, however they require teams to chose in advance as they do now, only ONE tyre compound for each track on each race weekend, and each compound had a minimum required number of stops, soft – 3 stops, medium – 2 stops, hard – 1 stop. These are huge data driven organizations so after half a season the big teams will all converge on the same strategy but the midfield and smaller teams will likely try alternative strategies, or even a redbull late in the season with 3rd place already in the bag by the summer might be inclined to try a more aggressive/conservative strategy for the rest of the year, imagine max verstappen on a one stop strategy defending hard against a ferrari charging back to the front on a two stop.

    Comments are closed.