Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Silverstone, 2020

F1 may scrap plan to bring softer tyres this weekend following punctures

2020 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Formula 1’s plans to bring softer tyre compounds for next weekend’s second race at Silverstone may be reversed following the punctures which occured during yesterday’s British Grand Prix.

Lewis Hamilton, Valtteri Bottas and Carlos Sainz Jnr all suffered left-front tyre failures during the final four laps.

The FIA and Pirelli are investigating the causes of the failures. F1 race director Michael Masi said his initial impression was that the track itself was not to blame. “But let’s wait and see,” he added. “I would hate to speculate at the moment.”

Pirelli brought its hardest tyre selection, the C1, C2 and C3 compounds, for last weekends race. All three drivers who suffered punctures were using the hardest available rubber, C1, at the time.

Pirelli had nominated a softer mix of C2, C3 and C4 rubber for this weekend’s 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. But Masi is open to changing that if needed.

“The FIA and Pirelli are working together to understand what the cause was and we will go from there. Regarding next weekend’s event, if we need to we’ll make amendments.

However Pirelli’s head of motorsport Mario Isola doubts changing the tyre allocation will address the problem regardless of whether wear or debris caused the failures.

“Depending on which is the cause of the issue, we have to react appropriately,” he said. “But the reaction can be different.

“If we are talking about the wear, for example, it doesn’t matter if we go with the same compounds we used today or the softer compounds.

“Each tyre has a maximum number of laps [which] depends on each car. Each car is different: it depends on the set-up, the level of energy, the driving style, the conditions. So that’s why we cannot say that the limit is the same for everybody.

“But if the issue is the wear we don’t fix it with changing to the same compound choice we had today or moving into a softer one.

“If the issue was due to [debris] punctures, then obviously there is very little we can do, it is a matter of not having debris on track. If there are other issues that we have to understand and which are the issues in order to react in the proper way.

“But until we discover which was the issue it’s difficult to give feedback on what we can do.”

Pirelli hopes to conclude the investigation tomorrow.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

76 comments on “F1 may scrap plan to bring softer tyres this weekend following punctures”

  1. Teams might need to do a two stop.

    1. Accidentally Albon did actually race with a 2 stop and it certainly.was faster way around.

      1. Problem is that they are all too afraid having to overtake on track.
        Yesterday only Verstappen had a free pitstop (>20s gap), and of course Ham before his last lap.

      2. I didn’t see that speed personally speaking. Arguably if he had stopped during the first safety car then it might have been quicker but I’ve seen nothing to suggest it was a slam dunk quicker strategy unless you were in clear air as traffic would ruin it.
        Also it’s very hard to go for a 2 stop if your rivals insist on a one stop as giving up track position for quick tyres doesn’t guarantee the opportunity to pass as we’ve seen in the past, plus Verstappen in particular isn’t the easiest driver to pass given how hard he defends.

        1. After 2nd stop he was around 15 secs or so behind Kimi and towards the end of race he came up till P8(granted he gained 2 places by default of tyre failures)

      3. As Verstappen was in the pit window and not too far off, and as RB is used to be good at tyre management Mercs not really had the option to pit. Danny Ricc almost done Spa previous year on a set of hards, pitting in the first laps after an incident. I’d say that was he longest distance effort I have seen on one compound, and almost worked. That was quite amazing although his pace dropped off at the last laps and he got swallowed by the field.
        At last GP I think high G and delta G loads of Silverstone contributed to these punctures as all of these three were separating of sidewalls and tread, they not complained about grip or tread by itself too much.

        And yes for safety most of the teams could have done 2 stops, but the long SC periods tempted them, and in the end none of them gave up its position. At F2 it looks like there is much higher grip or laptime difference between compounds, so there a strategy gamble might have worked more likely. Althugh at this season of F2 I feel that they yet not understand the tyres that much so there are lucky guys and unlucky guys depending on the strategy chosen for the actual race, because one seemed to work better, and that grip difference did it for them.

        I think at this GP pace was quite managed as Mercs did around 1:29’s for most of the time, and even Williams did 1:30’s as a best lap (even Latifi this time). Everyone was in between except 2-3 drivers who had an early DNF or some difficulty.
        There were midfield or lower entrants doing their best laps at the end on those old tyres. What it is if not managed?

        And of course the last few rounds had been unprecedented, and quite dramatic.

        1. … Everyone was in between … except the obvious attempts to grab the fastest lap at the end

    2. Yeah, you’d think that was the obvious way forward, right.

  2. The only fun part of the race started when Lewis got a puncture. Then it was a thrilling finish.

    There is no regulation against pitting 3-4 times.

  3. Isn’t it known at most tracks that if you push the tyres too long they will go bang? It seems to be more of the case at Silverstone than others, but for me that’s for the teams to manage (unless the tyres are not structurally sound).

    I’d prefer the softer tyres but even without them, we might see a better race next week. A good combination of teams scared to run long with perhaps a few teams willing to gamble on making it to the end on one stop.

    1. The extraordinary factor yesterday was that all-but-one drivers swapped to the hard tyre around lap 8.
      Without a safety car they would have waited until lap 20-25, and managed fuel instead of tyres :P

      F1 should find ways to make it less punative (lost time) for drivers to pit during the race.

      1. @coldfly They did the opposite by lowering pit lane speed limit. Can’t see of any other mean to change that.
        – Drive 3 times through the pits during the race (not safe)
        – If you pit, you can drive around lap B when you rejoin, lap B being that much shorter than standard lap (not many track have different layouts and tricky at the meeting points, quite complicated)
        – Pit under S/C doesn’t count towards the mandatory tyre change (could work as it allows for emergency pits during S/C and prevent the huge incentive and gain to pit under S/C which is sometimes a bit unfair). The only feasible alternative for me.

        1. I applaud you for the creative ideas.

        2. I like the third.
          Or, bring back softer compounds, because time loss of pitstop(s) at 2stop strategy vs 1 stop strategy is proportionally higher than 3stop vs 2stop. At today’s quite strategy based F1 1stop strategy is quite ultimate. So basically they should reduce the viability of quite a lot 1 stop strategy to stir the races up more, and to reduce time loss. Indy has more pitstops per race.
          Luck can not be eliminated from anywhere yet, but eliminating too much randomness is not that entertaining, and rare events can really dominate the outcome if too much improbable factors eliminated. So probably the slightly random and the good old fashioned long run to equal out things would be more funny.
          I have no problem with hard sets being this durable, but softs are quite rarely used at races nowadays. Probably softs should be a bit faster, but not at cost of too much durability (maybe those would be expensive, but considering F1 power unit costs … :) ). is Also I don’t really like dumping a lot of tyres at overseas races, because they are fitted on the rims and cannot be removed safely as I remember, it feels so much against the environment.

      2. @coldfly Making pit stops less punative is clearly needed in some form to encourage strategy variation. However if even at Silverstone where overtaking is “easy” (small delta needed), shorter pitlane and brutal tear wear (so more pit stops will be at their most beneficial) and teams still try to do 1 pit stop shows the extent the issue. Even when tyres are selected too soft by accident (eg Mexico 2018), there are other complaints about cars not at the limit.

        Not sure how this is solved before 2022 without some ‘gimmick’ however. Just the nature of aero development I suppose.

    2. I think the issue is not that the tyres failed but in the manner they failed with no performance degradation. The expectation was if the tyre runs out of tread it will drop off a performance cliff face but that’s not what happened, the tyres sidewalls just let go which is dangerous. This is similar to when we had the tyre delaminations a few years ago that resulted in the minimum pressure regulations. I do wonder if the wear was so critical that when they eased off due to the vibrations it actually decreased the pressure enough to destabilise a already weakened tyre structure. I’m sure Pirelli will blame debris or the track and hope for a free pass.

      1. But it’s quite simple. Instead of pushing them 10% above their limit – stick to 10% below

        Or suffer the consequences

        I’ve always been perplexed with why the manufacturers get it in the neck, unless it’s a blatant bad batch – when they make recommendations that are frequently ignored

        1. @banbrorace I don’t think any of the teams pushed them beyond the limit though as Pirelli said the hard compound would be fine for 40 laps. Take away the slow laps behind the SC & I don’t think any of the drivers who suffered failures had done more than 33 laps at speed & some of those would have been during management phases so the tyres wouldn’t have been stressed for all of those laps. I see no reason why anyone would have felt they were running them too long, Especially since they were still offering good performance.

          And as @slowmo said it’s not normal for a tyre to fail due to wear without warning. In no other category that i’ve ever watched over the past 31 years has a tyre reached the end of it’s life & failed without first losing huge amounts of performance.

          If you can’t trust Pirelli’s own recommendations & have no significant performance loss warning that you are reaching the end of a tyre’s life & that it’s about to fail then that’s on Pirelli & they deserve to be called out for it & asked to improve.

        2. A tire that simply catastrophically fails from wear is defective, in a road car or a race car. Time was, you could wear an F1 tire down to the “cords” before it failed. Now they can fail at any time while still keeping up performance? We should not have a kind of casino where you risk flying into the scenery at 200mph if you don’t change tires with a lot of wear left in them.

          1. The tyres were at the cords through….. Pirelli have already said that some cars in the paddock were worn that way.

          2. @dmw The Bridgestone’s & Michelin’s could be run down to the cords & still not fail as they had a secondary safety margin in place. Look at how bad Hamilton’s tires were in the 2007 Chinese Gp for instance.

            I’ve said many times over the years that a big criticism teams/drivers have had of the Pirelli’s is that they don’t have the safety margin’s designed into the tire design as previous suppliers did & so as soon as you do anything to the tire that it doesn’t like it fails or at least starts to rapidly fall apart in some way. This is why the FIA have had to start regulating the way tires are used in a way that has never been needed before.

            If you look at Silverstone 2013 as an example where Pirelli claimed the failures were caused by teams running low pressures, extreme camber angles & swapping sides (Right side tires on left side of car). All of those things were just a normal part of F1 & things none of the teams or anyone else thought anything of because they had been running those low pressures, camber angles & swapping tires for decades by that point without issue.
            The difference between the past & 2013 was that the Bridgestones, Michelin’s & Good Years were all designed around knowing that teams were going to push boundaries because that is a part of F1 & so the suppliers of the past designed the tires knowing/expecting this & had a safety margin allowing tires to be pushed to/beyond the standard limits.
            Pirelli don’t do that & that is what has led to many of the problems that have come up since 2011. They design the tires to be used one way, You try to push at the limits & they can’t withstand it like tires from the past could because Pirelli don’t look at F1 in the same way others did. For Pirelli F1 is a pure marketing exercise while suppliers of the past viewed it as that as well as a development test-bed to showcase their technology.

  4. Oh no, teams may need to stop more than once, can’t have that. Seriously, what is the problem with teams just planning out a 2 stop for once instead of just 1 stopping every single race? Used to be more interesting a few years back when there actually was consideration over how many pit stops a team should do, and teams had to think about whether they wanted to tyre manage and do less pit stops, or drive harder and take more pit stops.

    1. First they discuss mandating a two-stop, then they say “oh no, tyres might not last a one-stop – it`s a huge safety concern!”
      Go figure eh.

    2. There’s less to be gained from pitting multiple times for fresh tyres when the fuel will inevitably run out first. They can’t put any more of that in or burn it any faster.

      It’d be great to see teams deciding whether a 2 stop or 3 stop was ideal. One stoppers are almost always the least interesting and eventful races.

      1. Great so they’ve got a viable alternative which is an obvious disadvantage or take a risk on over-used tyres

        Problem is, apart from Hamilton and Verstappen, the other experienced drivers don’t seem to see overtaking as part of the drama, but something to be avoided

        Hence we get the complaint that extra pit stops means they’ll have to overtake a car, as if it’s some bad thing

        Thank goodness we’ve got some new blood, who do seem to want to have a go, i.e. Le Clerc, Norris

        1. I don’t think the drivers get much of a choice anymore…

  5. if the temperatures are going way up the softer compounds are going to be useless after a handful of laps. three stoppers and tyre saving every lap sounds like purgatory. maybe more rubber down will help but still they need to get to the bottom of why the tyres underperformed last weekend quickly

  6. Scrap Pirelli, eh?!

    Bold? Yes
    But it will solve a huge problem

    1. @dallein
      And either shift it to another place, or create a whole new one.

  7. They can just deal with it and pit a few times. Maybe it’d be cool to see a 1 stop not being the simple strategy, make them think more about the fastest way through the race.

    1. Also re safety and debris, I don’t believe any of the tyres actually delaminated? It looks like they just deflated but managed to stay in tact, even with Hamilton pushing relatively hard on them to try and maintain 1st.

      1. The Mercs were not pushing hard during that race which resulted in no lapped cars and being just 10 secs ahead of Max on the road. The Merc has a lot more performance. They were just managing a one-stopper.

  8. BS.

    If the reason for those problems was debris, harder tires aren’t going to fix it.
    If the reason for those problems was wear, harder tires aren’t going to fix it.

    The problem happened with these tires: given the same conditions, it will happen again.

    1. @m-bagattini When reading this, my first thought was that all tyres blown are the harder compound. Going softer might actually be the solution (they might wear enough that team feel the need to change them before they explode).

      1. good point there @jeanrien!

  9. Oh no, we cant have the golden goose having to work for his wins/championship, that is pretty much already his again this year anyway.
    Dear lord!! Just do a 2 stop ya flaming numpties! Or, heaven forbid, a 3 stop strategy. I mean it must be so stressful for those Merc strategists at the moment! And the stress on Toto must be unbearable after 6 consecutive championships. Good grief, what has happened to this sport I used to adore!

    1. > 2 stop

      Come on, don’t be silly

      > 3 stop strategy


    2. In fairness, as always, Toto is the most sanguine about it. He’s been quoted saying that we are likely to see “an exciting two or three-stop”

      It could be 10 stops and MM will still win

    3. @Gubstar: are you bitter that LH is winning? If so, then maybe you need to take a break and stop watching for a while? Because I think he will continue winning and that may not be good for your health, seriously!
      And yes, in hindsight a 2-stop would or could have avoided what happened with the tyres but I reckon 3 things dictated the 1 stop:
      1) Pirelli said the hards could do somewhere between 40-45 laps. Most of them pitted on lap 12 or 13 during the 2nd safety car (SC), which means 39 or 40 laps to go was within Pirelli’s range.
      2) The SC meant they did some laps driving sloooowwwwly, which should count towards tyre life after resumption.
      3) With the above in mind, making a 2nd pit stop and losing 20+ seconds in the process wasn’t on any team’s radar.

      So in conclusion, having the benefit of hindsight and calling the teams ‘numpties’ for not doing 2 stops is unfair and uncalled for, IMO.

    4. Thank god because if red bull was dominating right now it would be even more boring. Atleast Hamilton is challenged by bottas who is close in qualy and race, Max’s teammates are like half a second slower

  10. It is quite easy, the teams need to stop pushing the envelope

    I can imagine them blowing up a balloon so much that it bursts and then moaning at the manufacturers

    It’s getting reminiscent of the time that Vettel blasted Perelli when his tyre burst at Spa 2015, when he’d done six laps than what was recommended!!!

    1. @banbrorace How were they pushing the envelope when Pirelli had told them the hard tyres could go 40+ laps & none of them were anywhere near that?

      Besides F1 has always been about pushing the boundaries, That is a big parts of it’s attraction over the many (Dull) spec series around the world & up until the Pirelli era the tyres were designed around that & were actually able to be pushed to/beyond the limit without issue. Just go back & look at all the issues we saw the past 9 years & compare it to the 9 years prior or even longer back where tyres were far better in every regard.

      The fact the Pirelli’s can’t handle normal F1 conditions is purely down to Pirelli not been good enough. It’s time to stop the excuses & either force Pirelli to make proper tyres or let another more competent supplier come along & show them how to do it.

      It’s embarrassing that the pinnacle of the sport has the worst tyres in the sport.

      1. You have no idea (and neither does anyone else) whether or not another manufacturer can build a better F1 tyre for the current cars. No-one else has even attempted to produce a tyre that accepts the loads and stresses placed on them by a modern F1 car.
        I can’t imagine why you hate Pirelli so much (unless you are simply uninformed), they are essentially only making the tyres the FIA tells them to make – and even the teams, given that they were given a choice and rejected the 2020 spec tyres.

        If Pirelli were allowed to make a tyre that they think is best for F1 – maybe you’d be surprised, maybe not – but you’d still have nothing else to compare them to.

        1. they are essentially only making the tyres the FIA tells them to make

          Up until 2016 yes to an extent although even then it was simply a request to ensure 2-3 stop races, Neither the FIA nor anyone else involved in F1 have ever actually told Pirelli how to acchieve that target or how make the tires. The actual philosophy in terms of how they created the high-deg tires was 100% down to Pirelli.

          An additional point is that the mandate actually went away after 2016 & since 2017 Pirelli have actually been free to do whatever they want with tires. The only input from the FIA, Liberty etc.. has been the regulations around the size of the tires.

          1. I’d be willing to bet that if Pirelli went to F1 with a tyre that lasts 500km without significant degradation, F1 would be quick to tell them that’s not what they want. F1 wants something faster, grippier and more ‘exciting.’
            In that way, F1 do still have some influence over the characteristics of an F1 tyre – even if it is no longer explicit.

  11. Not sure why no one has said the bleeding obvious. Which is they pushed the tyres too much.

    1. @paulipedia Because they didn’t.

      Pirelli said the hards could go 40+ laps and Nobody was anywhere near that. And remember that a chunk of the laps they had done was behind the safety car as well as with the car management periods meaning tyres were not been pushed as hard.

      The tyres should have been nowhere near there life limit unless Pirelli are so incompetent that they are close to 10 laps off with there own guidelines.

      1. So Pirelli’s estimate was wrong.
        Only 3 of the 19 cars had this type of failure and they all went in the final few laps on a circuit that is notoriously hard on the tyre construction. 2 of those cars were from the same team, who (unsurprisingly) regularly extract the most performance from the rubber, and therefore stress it the most.
        14 cars had no tyre failures at all, most pitting at the same time as those who had failures.

        So is it all Pirelli’s fault?
        Or do the teams using those tyres need to take some responsibility for the way they use them?

        1. HorseWhisperer
          4th August 2020, 3:14

          Complete nonsense.. the tires failed in the WRONG way. Usually if someone has exhausted their tires you will see significant performance degradation prior to failure. Do you think Kvyat had any idea his rear tire was going to de-laminate before a >25G accident?

          1. How did Kvyat’s tyre fail exactly?
            I’m not aware that that investigation has been completed yet.

            Certainly wasn’t the same as the Merc’s and Sainz’s tyres.

    2. I agree. Basically those teams wore their tyres out. Whether it was this bit that failed first, or that bit, or some other bit, the tyre as a whole was wearing out. If the first bit wasn’t going to be the first to fail the second bit would have overtaken it, and the third bit was just a lap behind the first two bits. I’m not sure what anyone can do to encourage teams with a car with worn out tyres to pit and fit new tyres, because that means loosing track position, but I’d prefer encouragement than mandating something. One can sympathise with a team’s desire to try and hold onto whatever points they’ve got in sight and to risk loosing those by having a tyre deflate in preference to guaranteeing loosing them by pitting for new tyres.

  12. Don’t Change A Thing !!!

    that was exciting :)

  13. Let us all not forget that Pirelli offered F1 a ‘2020 spec’ tyre that was developed to reduce degradation, provide a wider temperature working range and reduce reduce overheating in dirty air….

    What was the teams response to Pirelli offering such tyres?
    Ah yes, that’s right. They rejected them…

    1. No great surprise there, sadly…

      Situation where Pirelli supply a compound of tyre, can be what is now regarded as Soft, Medium or Hard.

      Teams say “too hard!” Pirelli supply a softer compound. Teams say “too soft!” Pirelli supply something in-between the “too hard” and “too soft” compound. Teams still don’t like it. Rinse and repeat…

      Other tyre manufacturers would have the same problem, not just Pirelli…

      1. Exactly.
        Combine that with the FIA’s directives for how they want F1 tyres to perform and wear, and Pirelli are stuck in the middle with a near-impossible engineering challenge. It’s impossible to please everyone.
        The teams shouldn’t be deciding which tyres Pirelli produce, they just need to put them on the car and learn how to use them.

        1. You’re way off on this! After testing the 2020 tires last year on several occasions, the overwhelming view was the 2020 tires were worse that the current 2019 spec. Go back and read the drivers comments after the tire tests.

          1. *On the unaltered 2019 car*

            Don’t really care if the drivers or teams thought they were ‘better’ or not.
            The tyres were the next evolution designed to be one step ahead in terms of structural integrity, which is an important factor in F1 as the cars are constantly changing.

        2. Combine that with the FIA’s directives for how they want F1 tyres to perform and wear

          The request from F1 to try & create tires to force 2-3 stop races actually ended after 2016.

          And even when that request was in place nobody ever told Pirelli how to actually make the tires. The whole design philosophy in terms of creating the degredation (The thermal degredation with additional chemicals mixed into the compound) was a decision made by Pirelli & one I’ve been told a few times something no other tire supplier would have gone with.

          Certainly both Bridgetone (As they do in Indycar) & Michelin said they would have gone with thinner compound to create a more linear wear pattern rather than the thermal deg that simply falls off a cliff if the tire goes above/below the optimum operating window.

  14. I think this is a shame. The race was an unwatchable bore until the tyres created something to watch. I’m certainly not advocating for randomly exploding tyres, but if the softer compounds would force the teams into multiple stopping, or having to change their plans on their feet a little we might see a bit tighter and interesting racing.

    1. I agree fully.

      Personally, I’d go further in the long term and reintroduce refuelling, as this also creates an added layer of strategy, variety and necessity of racecraft.
      Perhaps they could also drop the stupid fuel flow limit while they are at it?

      1. Refueling simply makes the racing worse, the last period where we had bore-fueling and all of the stats accumulated during it shows us this.

        Refueling should stay away for good!

        1. Absolute nonsense.
          The grid was less competitive (collectively) then than they are now.
          DRS is also a thing now.
          A lot of different circuits are used now.
          F1, generally, isn’t the same now.

          Unless you think that Haas’ strategy calls in the last two races were a terrible thing for F1, a option for extra variety is always a welcome addition.
          Under-fueling and conserving for the entire race should not be the only way to compete in F1.

          I’d love to see a 3 stop full push strategy play out against a 1 stop conservation run again. Keeps viewers watching until the end, rather than all-too-often knowing the result by 1/3rd race distance.
          Also gives teams a chance to develop their cars out into different branches – some economy cars, some aggressive cars.

  15. Let them stick to original plan. There is always talk about bringing more variability/uncertainty to F1, but when there is such opportunity, they default to the safer option.

    1. @gpfacts They will just default to even more management which will make the racing far worse as we saw in the past when everyone complained about how slow they were having to drive to manage the rubbish softer tyres.

      Tyres randomly going pop without warning is also not a good variable, It’s a safety risk & not something that shoudl be looked at as anything other than unacceptable!

  16. Pirelli more scared about their brand image (understandibly) than creating exciting racing…

  17. NO! Stick with the original plan and force more pit stops! Ugh the FIA/Pirelli are so dumb sometimes.

    1. @jblank Why do everyone want to see more pit stops given how that just makes racing worse due to all the passing happening in the pits like when we had bore-fueling.

      The racing is always better when the racing is happening on the track & where drivers were forced to overtake rather than try the under or over cut. I want to watch cars on track and not cruising down a pit lane due to having rubbish tyres.

      Or maybe modern fans just like watching cars driving slowly through the pit lane or during periods of extreme tyre management due to the rubbish soft tyres?

      1. And how much racing do we get on the track? Not a lot at many venues. Too many races are 1-stoppers and many of the overtakes that do happen are due to pit strategy, through undercutting. The rest are rubbish DRS passes, because almost everyone is stuck on the same strategy.
        Quite often, the only cars on a different strategy are the ones who qualify in the back half of the top 10, needing to start on the softest tyres because they couldn’t make it through Q2 on the mediums like the top 3 teams.

        And do you really think that teams are not managing their tyres now?

        What’s a ‘modern fan’ anyway?
        I’ve been watching for more than 30 years, and IMO the current F1 is a pale shade of beige in many ways compared to what it used to be.

  18. Just stop 2 or 3 times then?! The tyres are the same for every team, if softer tyres, higher temperatures and shorter tyre lifespans mean max stints of 20 laps then so be it

  19. What’s the problem with 2 or more stops?
    FIA fixing something that is not broken are shooting themselves in the foot.

    1. @sylversurferr

      What’s the problem with 2 or more stops?

      From a teams perspective there is more risk in terms of potentially getting stuck in traffic that you lose a lot of time trying to overtake or of course simply having a bad stop.

      Additionally more often than not a 1 stop is the faster/more efficient strategy with less overall risk. Hence why no stop races were the strategy of choice for the 60s/70s & still fairly frequent in the 80s/Early 90s.

  20. I hate to state what seems like the obvious but might it not benefit the racing to bring the softer tyres if this then means that the team have to think about their strategy more i.e. having two stops instead of one? I am not sure this would be the outcome but it might be.

    Nearly all races these days seem to be just one stop. I think it would be wrong in the future to mandate at least two stops per race for example. Surely though F1 needs tyres that only last so long but do not just fail for no logical reason.

  21. They have to forget the softer tyres, in fact bring a harder tyre and lose the soft one we just had…so they still have 3 compounds….Although all front tyre delaminations (not quite a puncture). no one explained Kyatt rear tyre letting go??
    Harder tyres mean less grip, lower speeds and hopefully more action on track, which entertain us fans

  22. Surely the harder tyres are most at risk, being the longest-lasting? The structure of the hard tyre is what failed, and it was after 3/4 of a race distance, a longevity which the soft tyres are unlikely to be capable of. The surface tread of the soft tyres will wear out long before the structure reaches the end of its life.

  23. Don’t bring softer or harder tires. Bring better ones, Pirelli!
    Your tires are a liability and have been for 10 years now.
    They are too sensitive regarding temperatures, they need to be run with excessively high pressures, sometimes a minor lock up is enough to destroy them and they are to puncture prone. There should be more of a safety margin when you run them too long. They should not just fail before dropping off significantly in performance (ok, they did Bottas’ case).
    Michelin and Bridgestone did way better when thy were pushing each other. Especially the 2004 and 2006 generation tires allowed the drivers to push for a whole (but admittedly shorter) stint and had a very good balance between peak performance and durability.
    Therefore I would not mind another tire”war”. I think it would only benefit the sport and maybe even the show as it it could rattle Mercedes’ cage a bit.
    Positive side effects: With better tires you could also get rid of the horrible mandatory pit stop rule and let the team run whatever strategy they want. Maybe (just maybe because I don’t know if Pirelli ist all to blame for that) the cars wouldn’t be that pathetic in the rain as they are now…

  24. Justin Hamilton
    4th August 2020, 0:03

    Leave it alone.
    If the teams want to run the tyres until there is nothing left, that’s up to them.
    Both Mercedes cars had obvious severe wear lines. That was their clue and their sign.
    They gambled, and Bottas lost. Hamilton got very lucky.
    Softer tyres that require more pitstops gives more strategy options.
    This was not like the Michelin Indy safety issue.
    Transparency: I am a Hamilton fan.

Comments are closed.