Analysis: Alain Prost’s simple plan to mix up F1 tyres doesn’t play well with Pirelli
Posted By: Editor   |  24 Apr 2017   |  1:33 pm GMT  |  121 comments

Four-time Formula 1 champion Alain Prost’s idea to allow teams to combine different tyre types on the same car has been met with scepticism by Pirelli Racing Director Mario Isola. Speaking to Auto Motor und Sport, Prost said, “Let the drivers put together their own tyre choices from the five different compounds and assemble 13 sets according to their wishes.

“I would also remove the rule that you have to drive two different tyre varieties. If you want to drive through a hard tire without a pit stop, please [do],” he said.

The suggestion was first floated in early April by Prost and would allow, for example, a soft tyre on the left-front, and a hard tyre on the opposite wheel. This would result in varied strategies and greater room for error, perhaps increasing the amount of overtakes in a race.

Currently the rules state that only four tyres of the same compound and in set numbers as prescribed by Pirelli may be used.

Pirelli’s Isola replied after the Bahrain Grand Prix to say that the idea would bring an element of monotony into F1, and would be too difficult to implement. “If you take the toughest tyre in a race, you could endure almost the entire distance,” he said to Auto Motor und Sport.

Hypothetically speaking, he gave a situation where Supersofts would be used on the front wheels and Softs on the back: “On the front axle you would have much more grip than behind. This inevitably leads to great oversteering and slipping.

“It would be incredibly hard for the teams to balance the two axles. What we could do would be [to have] different mixes for the front and rear of the same tyre type,” Isola continued.

Car performance order

JA reported in March that the lack of overtaking is a serious threat to F1, with just five in Melbourne this year compared to 37 the previous year. As a result, Pirelli is being asked to review its tyre selection.

A processional race is predicted for the Spanish Grand Prix in May as Soft, Medium and Hard tyres are the choices, and no team will use the Hard tyres, so strategies will be similar. Mercedes’ Valtteri Bottas managed 20 laps in testing on Ultra-Softs – using softer compounds than those prescribed for this year’s race would help to avoid the cars finishing in car performance order, as they would on the harder compounds. There is plenty of evidence that only the top three teams with significantly more downforce can ‘switch on’ the harder compound tyres, so this exaggerates the gap between front and back of the field even more and offers no chance for a midfield team to score a podium through bold strategies.

This season, Pirelli’s tyres degrade at a slower rate than in 2016 and there’s less of a difference between compounds in terms of wear rate. In short, tyres with the same names as last year are a couple of steps harder this year. And when cars are on different strategies, especially with the softer compounds, overtaking is far more likely, as we saw in Bahrain.

Add to that the widely reported turbulence in the wake of the cars in front, and it’s understandably difficult to swap places on track this year if the right combination of factors is not in play.

Isola said to Auto Motor und Sport, “We must reduce the delta between the individual mixtures. At the moment, the time difference between medium and soft is too great. We must increase the delta between Supersoft and Soft and Ultrasoft and Supersoft.”

He spoke after Pirelli conducted their first tyre test for the 2018 rubber in Bahrain last week, in which Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel drove 130 laps on different tyre compounds. Further tests will be conducted at Barcelona in May 16-17.

Do you think that there is a lack of overtaking in F1? Does Alain Prost have the right idea or is Pirelli on the right track? Comment below or on Facebook.  

Featured Innovation
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.


by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Pirelli or The Professor on what would make F1 better? I'd lean towards listening to Prost on what's right for racing on track


Am I the only person who thinks F1 does NOT have an overtaking problem? Yes, we have less of it than last year, but come on: overtaking had become way, way too easy in recent years!

The whole point of F1 drivers NOT being seen as 'heros', causing the younger generation to turn off the sport (not to mention some of us who aren't that young, who missed races last year) is that the cars were too easy to drive AND overtake, especially when two cars of unequal performance levels got near each other.

Think back to your favourite overtaking manoeuvre in the late 90s or early 00s. Whichever one it is, you remember it because there was very little overtaking back then. If it had been one overtake in a race that had 80 of them, would it really have stuck in your memory in the same way?

In Bahrain this year, we watched Alonso deliver a tutorial on how an experienced driver can use skill to stay with younger drivers who have more horsepower available under their right foot -- not just blocking them, he got overtaken, then got back past them, several times. If that didn't convince people that F1 does NOT need more overtaking, nothing will.

Let's just calm down, everyone. I like the Professor, I really do, but let's just let this season play out as it is. It already looks much better than the snooze-fests we had in the last three years.


Pirelli said for much of last season that as they were designing these new tyres without having a representative test car, then they would be conservative. So it has proven. The characteristics of the tyres are spot on - it's just that across the range they are a couple of steps too hard. It seems almost every race would be better served by bringing Ultra-Soft, Super-Soft, Soft - forget the mediums and hards for now.

In short, Pirelli just need to rework the tyres a little; there's no need to go crazy sticking different compounds on each corner. Bottas already tried that at Spa last year anyway 😉


I would like to see a mix-n-match of tyres used at the same time as used in MotoGP.
With regards to the number of overtakes; quality over quantity, please.


As I recall, the only reason two compounds have to be used is due to the lack of stops in the Bridgestone days. But that was years ago...why are they still doing it? I have been of the opinion that drivers should be able to use what they want to get the result for some years now (I asked James Allen on here a few years back and he agreed it was worth a thought). It would lead to some proper ragged edge strategies from some lower grid teams and maybe even the odd win for FI or Williams. I'm with Prost on this one.


If you look at China and ignore the inter period, Ferrari and Mercedes went S-S while Red Bull went SS-SS. That variance couldn't happen in a normal dry race and there's no real reason why it shouldn't be an option.


Yes I agree, the driver can feel the cars movement and how much grip and downforce they have, they are the professionals let them earn their money, if they make a wrong choice it's not teams fault, too much team treating them like babies, let's see some racing


Agree with this, let teams and drivers pick what they want, always thought the twin compounds in the race was a bit forced,


In WRC they use mixed tires.

I favor free tire rule to allow the teams to buy their tires where ever they want and how many they want.


Yes and please remove the Pirelli people and other tyre specialists. Let the drivers do all the maths with the different sets. Place them in a container for 24 hours and broadcast the inside of the container to the public. Let the TV viewers control the rules: no computers or calculators, just pen and paper. Would even bring some extra money to the financially suffering F1 bosses.

Then do a big show on Thursday evening in TV when the engineers and strategists are confronted with the tyres their drivers have chosen and what they think about it. Even more money and fun...

Jokes by side, anyone remembers USA 2005? And then the tyre makers had less combinations to check if the tyres would last.
Pirelli doesn't want exploding tyres, but it will not be in their control with this (2 out of 26) times (2 out of 26) lottery change.


This. Love it. You had me at "pen and paper". Of course, drivers that can do long division and integrals in their heads would have an advantage as they could make strategy changes just before they pit.


Prost never used mixed tires in F1, while Senna used diferent tires in the right/left sides to win the Mexican GP.
BUt I agree with some handicap in the form of ballast and tire restriction.
Podium finishers in the previous race should have one set of tires taken away.
Q1 and Q2 eliminated drivers should have no mandatory dual tires usage restriction.


Prost was a master in handle and keep tires to the end.

I like the idea to provide more freedom to drivers and teams to play with the different compounds as they wish, as well as the non stop one tire selection.

I think ideas like ballast and tire restrictions to winners is ridiculous, penalizing the ones who are doing a good job.


Prost surely used mixed sets of tires in his days, maybe not in that Mexican GP but in many other races as all drivers would do back then. Go back to watch some of the races before calling people hypocrites. Marc


Nonsense. Back in the goodyear 80s drivers including Prost picked from A B C D compounds and frequently ran mixed sets.
Compound E were qualis i think.


Handicaps just creates more artificial racing, why should the team that has done the best job be penalised?

This is Formula 1, not wrestling.


Also it would be pretty hard to commentate on a car with a split tyre strategy on four wheels.


Exactly. No need for this madness . I can't see Renault wanting it at the moment. A big yellow gag for prost. We just need more of the softer compounds as James says.


This is Formula 1, not horse racing. Oh, wait, don't they...


Pirelli are in a lose/lose situation. A few years ago it's "make the tires degrade" and then everyone complains. This year it's "make the tires more durable" and everyone complains. Tires are not the problem. I love F1 and have been watching a long time. The sport needs to figure out what it wants to do. The solution seems to be to take the above the car downforce off, remove or minimize the wings and make up for this with added downforce under the car. What they do with the tires won't matter much if the aero wake of the cars doesn't allow the following car to get close.


did you see the last two races...overtaking seemed fine to me...


The problems with F1 are its own doing. It keeps changing things over and over again, year after year, or mid season if it so wishes. Instead of having fixed identity of the product, it is like a flag waving whichever way the wind is blowing.

There is no definition of what F1 really is. To me it is 600kg, V10, refuelling, multiple tire brands. To you it's low downforce, tires in the background. To someone else it's V12. What the defining key features of F1 are is no longer clear. And when there is no clear definition, the whole thing is blurred and we get these huge expensive technical efforts that are easily overpowered by tire rules or other silliness. F1 for some time now wants to be all things to all people, when it clearly can't be.

One thing is certain, only the richest teams can keep up with the constant changes demanded. This is by design of course. It is this constant change that prevents teams from catching up and from the grid being competitive. Do you think a close competitive field would be exciting? A grid where any driver has a chance to win? Or at least 1/2 of them? There of course is no way to achieve this at all ever, right?

Ricciardo Aficionado

The f is for frontier motoring. And as with any technological frontier it is always moving. So to be at the front you have to keep up.


The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The frontier in motoring is automation and electrification, not anything that F1 is doing.

Ricciardo Aficionado

Pop Quiz Sebee.
Who said,

“Many people say technology transfer is just a marketing story – I can tell you from here, it is not. The S-Class is running on a six-cylinder turbo engine, and the way we optimise our engines in terms of efficiency and power deployment translates directly into road cars. We are using some technology for cooling invented here and that technology is being used in the next generation of S-Class as well. It is all because of the development on-track absolutely."
“So that is happening. It is a reality and this is why the hybrid six-cylinder turbo engines are so important for us.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the clue.
Cooling seems to be THE relevant issue of discussion 'round here. Always has been thus.


I agree with most of what you say Sebee. The one thing you didn't mention though is that F1 is meant to be at the cutting edge of innovation -at a commercial level -eg the transference of brake energy harvesting into road cars, and of course (your favourite -hybrid technologies), but also because it is meant to be the pinnacle of all things fast -if it didn't evolve to harness new fastness then it would be surpassed as the pinnacle!
As racing fans -we want it's very core we effectively want GP2. Equality of the cars so the drivers skill shines through.
Add to that all the commercial pressure added by sponsorship's and the pressure to have a winning brand and you've got a schizophrenic political-economic combination of socialism and free market capitalism....difficult to navigate when the guy running the sport was beholden to marauders whose only goal was to strip as much cash out as possible, without a care for the sports future.
In my view, this was when the sport lost it's "identity" and it's ability to strike a balance between competition, commerce and technology.

In Ross we trust!


Solid points.

First the pinnacle thing. To me this always meant pursuit of speed. I got into F1 mid 90s. It was easy to see right away these things were fast, unbeatable, and getting faster. I remember in the V10 era on occasion I thought what a crazy house of cards this whole F1 thing is. How in the world could they be making these crazy V10 cars and justify it? Immediately followed by a thought - don't worry about it, enjoy as much of it as you can while it's here. And I did. It was the pinnacle. Peak F1. You only have to look at fastest lap times even today to see that. Also, there was no question, that no other race car could beat a V10 F1 car. Not over a single lap. Not over a lap distance. Not on a Grand Prix track. Not on their track. Not in F1 format. Not in their format. There was no possible scenario where a V10 F1 car was beaten by anything that completed a lap of any sort. And today, that is not the case. I've argued it, and I'm convinced by it. A race legal F1 car goes to Indianapolis and gets its tail handed to it in a short few laps. Once 33s passes and F1 PU battery runs out, with no hard F1 style braking on an oval, limited fuel flow it is game over. How can that be the pinnacle then?

Questions come up. Do you want pinnacle of speed, filthy awesome extreme speed? Do you want pinnacle of technology? Do you want pinnacle of complexity? Do you want pinnacle of thickest rule book? Do you want pinnacle of spending? What kind of pinnacle do you want?

To me for Formula 1 to be the pinnacle - it has to be the pinnacle of absolute speed first. It can't be slowed down artificially. There should be no hint of that. A starting point should be that a fan of any motorsport should not be able to devise a scenario of any sort that would somehow better a Formula 1 car. After that, just keep it simple, look to previous formula for simplicity.

I still have some old early 2000s F1 magazines that talked about how sterile and controlled F1 has become. PU era has definitely not improved and it's only become worse, more contrived, more controlled, more restricted.

Just think of how many more things you can't do today that you could back then? How many more things are restricted? How much more you are told what to do and when to do it? Like telling a child you can play anywhere you want, as long as it is within this sand box. No wonder fans are turned off by it. All of it done in the name of saving money and decreasing budgets. How has that worked out?


Wierd... i agree with everything on Sebee's post!! First time for everything 😉


Anything is possible!


spot on, Seebee.
The problem stems from vested interests. Any changes introduced to 'level the playing field' or to 'cap costs' or 'liven up the show' (and even the worst one of all, 'road relevance') are just bandaid measures, stuck over the last rule change. We have so many bandaids stuck on top of each other, we can't even see what F1 is supposed to be about.
Until, we determine that, then no change is going to amount to much at all.


Sebee, I think your post neatly illustrates the impossibility of pleasing everyone. You want the V10s back, but that is another change that you say is bad for the sport, the V10s came about through regulation change, if there was no change they would all still be driving around in front engined cars! There have been many changes over the years, some good, some bad, but no branch of motorsport can stand still.


No, in this point I say my definition of F1 is V10 circa 2004, as you well know.

Say what you want, no one was telling teams how many pit stops they had to make, how many tires they had to use, how much fuel they were limited to, how said fuel had to flow, and how many engines they could use.

But indeed, it would mean another change away from these complex hybrid PUs. Remember, along with V10s, some other things from that era could return. What would those things be? What would the benefit of V10 NA be in F1?
- less complexity
- no fuel saving modes for drivers to satisfy fuel use quota
- lower cost engines
- more engines per season to avoid penalties for drivers
- likely an independent engine maker being able to supply teams, maybe even two!
- return of trademark F1 sound billions identify with Formula 1 racing
- return of 600kg cars
- No DRS!
- Glowing brakes - I swear I have some photos from 2004 where a few cars still had that amazing thing going on.

I hardly see the down side. Manufacturers pulling out? And taking their crazy budgets and spending with them while freeing up money they were sucking away from other teams in the sport? So long, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I have admitted that the recent V8 era was the closest, most competitive, with often top 10 separated by 1s, 5 champions crowned, seasons where 7 drivers won first 7 races, etc. At this point, I'm totally willing to settle for V8 return. I'm reasonable.


@ Sebee...another fine post. Well said and i fully agree. Complexity is the problem with current engines. The proof is there with the 'honda' debacle. Complexity is fully served in LMP1 and other like series.


Sebee. Point by point.
Less complexity. The V10s were not as simple as you think, less complex than a PU, but not simple devices. Would less complexity be a good thing? I like the technology, so do many.
No fuel saving, there has always been fuel saving. It's just that less fuss was made of it years ago. Did Lewis look like he was saving fuel in Bahrain?
Lower cost engines. Yes they would cost a bit less, but if the sports income was disrtributed in a more equitable way, this problem could be solved. The costs are falling anyway, if the rumoured dropping of the MGUH goes ahead, they will drop further.
More engines per season. I can see that, apparently the move to four engines for next season is not going to happen as the manufacturers say it wont cut costs as they will have to redesign too many components. It is possible not to pick up penalties already, don't forget what would have happened to the driver's championship last year if Lewis hadn't had to start at the back in Spa, be careful what you wish for Sebee!
Independant engine suppliers. I see no reason why they would come into the sport now when they didn't before. Designing and building any competitive F1 engine is hugely expensive, remember how badly Cosworth failed with their V10 and V8? I doubt they would want to go through that again.
Trademark sound, the current engines are too quiet for many, but making them noisier is a stated aim for Liberty.
600kg cars would be a nice figure to band about, but the cars remain extremely light at 722kg, still lighter than Indycars for example. If the MGUH is removed the weight will drop.
No DRS, ok if you want, it wouldn't bother me either way.
Glowing brakes? We have those.
The potential downsides of your plan are huge. Manufacturers pulling out would be a disaster, those well funded team would be replaced with Manor style no hopers, budgets have always been, and will always be stratospheric in F1, but crucially the sport generates enough income to meet those costs, we have ten well funded stable teams now, why risk that? The sport is not in crisis as you like to think, track attendances are up, tv figures in many markets that haven't switched to pay per view are increasing (including yours), Liberty have good plans to expand in the US and there are many countries vying to host a race. A move away from the current formula would risk all that, and for what?
Close racing has returned Sebee, or haven't you noticed?


All good points. Except wasn't the Cosworth V8 the most successful engine if F1? (12 WDCs and 10 WCCs)


Martinw, I was talking about the V8 and V10 engines of more recent times, the DFV was a great engine, but those days are gone.


You're confusing complexity with technology. No one was complaining that a 600kg V10 car wasn't high tech enough. I certainly don't remember any complains. You only needed to see a V10 on a dyno to have no further questions. Funny enough, if you look at 20 year old footage of an F1 V10 engine on a dyno today, it still looks high tech as heck!

95kg V10 - that's amazing. Good high tech is simple and accessible and most importantly widely applicable. There is no argument that this Formula 1 PU is not only complex, it is not accessible and not applicable in the real world. And it's expensive. Very. Add to this all the rules that go with it. Just think for a moment, what could you do in 2004. Today, you can't do this, you can't do that, you have to save fuel, you have to save engine, you have to manage fuel flow, you have to use this engine for 5 GPs you have to choose from one of these 300 engine modes. How does this add to the spectacle of a sprint race?

Why do you feel that the financial problems in Formula 1 can only be addressed with more equitable distribution of funds? It's like saying that a financial gap in F1 can only be addressed by giving more money to those who have less of it. As if to win you think some won't spend even more. How about we look at the spending and expense side of the ledger as well? Who not address funds distribution and also the total allowed spend? It seems like a more balanced solution to approach it from both ends. It's like saying - you're fat? OK, let's stuff everyone else with food so that we're all fat. Makes no sense.

Why should fans who fly to Brazil to see the Grand Prix be at risk of cars DNFing because they raced at other Grand Prix? I told you, I consider myself above cheering just for one driver. I don't think anyone wins in Formula 1 when stars of the show are hindered by penalties. It is yet another artificial thing. I do feel there is a difference when in 2004 a fresh V10 fails in the race vs. the rather artificial forced case of using engines over and over again until they inevitably do fail. At least I knew they did everything they could to put on a proper race. There is at least a week between Grand Prix, and I hardly see a reason why a Formula 1 team isn't allowed to service the engine fully in between those Grand Prix to ensure that fans that paid good money to go to the Grand Prix or those watching are given the fairest chance to see their drives succeed. Remember, these engine use penalties don't only penalize the teams or the driver, they also penalize the fans. Just ask how pleased Lewis fans are about 2016 if you need an example. When I traveled to GPs during the V10 era, not a single time did a thought cross my mind that traveling to GPs near end of the season increases the odds I'll see my favourite drivers likely suffer engine failures as they are sure to do in 2017.

Didn't the car weight now go to 728kg? I don't care how F1 compares to other series on weight. High Tech is light weight, and we all know that PU F1 cars put on 128kg in 2017 over V10 era F1 car. Starting with 105kg of fuel, that's 55kg more fuel on average than V10 cars started with. PU F1 car lines up at 183kg heavier on the grid than V10 car did. That's high tech to you? Why don't you go to the local park and tell your friends about your brand new high tech 22lb road bike - see how impressed they are about it's high techness.

We have glowing brakes? Wow, we do! I didn't even notice. Thank goodness teams have decided to remove the covers off the brakes and let them glow in Bahrain. We need to see more of that.

I told you quite a few times:
- McLaren P1 - V8 based.
- McLaren 720S - V8 based.
- Mercedes AMG top selling engine - V8
- Ferrari - V8, V12
- Renault/Honda - why are they here I don't understand. They have no F1 related product. Honda NSX vs. Tesla P100D - no one here in their right mind would choose the NSX. Everyone here would want that P100D acceleration at their foot. And neither Honda or Renault sell any meaningful units of hybrid cars. Hybrid continues to be flat or down as 100% electric charge forward. Even Mercedes AMG is here now promoting their EQ brand - with first car in 2019 a 100% electric SUV. Consumers will push away the hybrid complexity in favour of electric simplicity. Apple self driving car I bet you will have a 50/50 split battery, and will drive itself to a depot where someone will swap out the removable 1/2 battery for a charged one and give the car 200miles range in less time than it takes to full up a car at a gas station. I could put together a serious case of why the current Formula 1 PU is less road relevant than a V10 NA engine. Even today you can still buy a V10 NA car. This PU based tech - never. Unless you consider that marketing run of 300 cars by Mercedes road relevant.

Close racing? What do you mean? No one has won a race with an on track pass. And as you know it is my theory that Mercedes have turned it town early on to preserve PUs for later part of the season when they will light it up and coast to the WDC. Hence, we're not going to see Ferrari pass a Mercedes for P1 on track. This little early part is just a tease. A little give, before the big take.


Sebee, V10s aren't applicable anymore, what was high tec 20 years ago seems stone age now, I loved the V10s but there day has passed. Reliability is better now than it was in "the good old days", the engine modes keep the cars running at optimum efficiency meaning more power and less fuel saving, not having them would mean more lift and coast and slower lap times. The fuel flow limit and engine life may not bring anything to the party in terms of on track action, but do they really take anything away either? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone watching a Grand Prix is thinking, "this would be so much better if there was no fuel flow limit"?
The difference between what a V10 and PU supply would cost is small beer in F1 terms, we had teams going to the wall in the 90s and 00s, it was expensive then, just as it is now. The fundamental point is the sport can afford those budgets, we have ten solid teams and enough money to help them become more competitive, let Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes spend whatever they want, rule stability will make excess spending pointless.
You say the drivers are sure to suffer engine penalties in 2017, why? The majority suffered no such penalties last year, no reason to believe they will this year. Going to a race towards the end of the season doesn't increase your chance of a driver retiring, the engines are just as likely to be new then as they are now.
I have spoken about weight before, the cars will get lighter, if the MGUH is removed they will get lifghter still. Can you tell the difference watching them on track? Do you think the fans sitting in the grandstands care about 128kg? I think they want to watch a good race, in the V10 era they often didn't have that, bringing them back wouldn't guarantee that the racing was better than today.
Your figures for hybrid car sales are wrong, I have given you accurate figures many times before, but you choose to ignore them because you don't want to believe that hybrid cars are selling well, the fact that Mercedes and Ferrari sell V8s is irrelevant, the main point of the current formula isn't hybrid, they were already hybrids, it is moving to smaller capacity turbocharged engines and away from higher capacity naturally aspirated units. The continued pressure on the manufacturers to meet ever stricter emissions legislation has caused this shift, and the F1 manufacturers wanted their racing engines to reflect this. Honda and Renault are in F1 to promote their brands, they don't make V8s at all, this is why the PU formula was so attractive to them, it reflects what they do make, and is why they would leave if V8s were reintroduced. Mercedes sell far more V6s than V8s, even Ferrari have started turbocharging their cars, this is the immediate future of road cars, full electrification is still decades away.
There is close racing, your theory about Mercedes not trying is nonsense.


you forgot raikkonen passing fisi in 05 at suzuka on the last lap for victory...that was v10s best race...but I cant remember 2004 formula producing any good close race! Ferrari ran away with everything it was a pretty boring season


I don't entirely agree with you.

The hybrid PU's, whilst technically amazing, are very expensive and clearly more complicated than the V10's. Cost is the issue here, some teams have no chance. I agree keeping chopping and changing the regs is not a good thing we need stability, at an affordable cost. Personally I prefer the V10's. The whole limit to the number of PU's at the moment is as a result of their extremely high cost. And penalties have ruined races and at least one drivers championship.

I think fuel saving is an artificial rule. Teams always did it, but by choice, not compulsion. Lewis probably wasn't saving fuel in Bahrain - as a result of the Virtual and actual Safety cars, but he possibly would have been if they didn't happen, which would have removed any semblance of a race.

I'm not sure all these big manufacturers are good for F1. I like the Manors of this world, but they are clearly no hopers under the current system. It is not financially attractive for any team to come into the sport as they know they will never compete with the big 2 or 3 teams. The likes of Williams, even, have no chance of a World Championship. I would rather have 10 Manors than Ferrari, Mercedes, maybe Red Bull in a good year and the rest having no bloody chance whatsoever.

Close racing - almost, though anyone on this forum can tell you 16 cars that don't have a chance in Russia. And 14 that don't have a chance next year.


"would help to avoid the cars finishing in car performance order"...

Errr... why bother with all the car engineering stuff then, if the objective is to artificially influence the car performance order?

Ricciardo Aficionado

There is confusion over whether "racing" is done by the man or the car. And everyone wants to see "racing" but apparently cars racing isn't really "racing" because the drivers in the cars "losing" the race don't really get to "race".
The confusion stems from people's lack of empathy with machines. Which is only natural and the reason robot racing will never fly. We just can't connect to nuts and bolts.
The only way we can experience the vicarious pleasure of winning the car race is by recognising it in the victorious driver.
The car does not display such emotions that we are familiar with.
This is why we don't like processional racing, because that is a "car" race and we can't connect with a car.
Apart from the new Passat which has fantastic voice recognition software and learns your moods in connection with your gps inputs. (the accent is also very reassuring) But the car is slow and people don't want to see them racing because it is a family saloon.


...why bother with budget control or even cash distribution to teams if the objective is for the cars to finish in order of who has chucked the most amount of cash at their PU development.


@Clarks I'm not going to quibble with you over that.

The larger point is that F1 needs to; decide whether it wants to be driver or engineering led formula, resolve the fundamental structural business model issues behind the current imbalances, and develop a cogent long term plan to get there.

Messing around with tyre compounds to "change the performance order" is akin to playing the fiddle while Rome burning, which of course suits those fans who like to harp on about their pet peeves, whilst ignoring the big picture.


yep, totally agree, they do tend to shift focus away from the big picture.


Clarkes, I'm not sure that is the objective. Are you suggesting that Ferrari have spent the most on PU development? Controversial suggestion, surely everyone knows that Mercedes spend 100 Billion while those paupers at Maranello could only scrape a few hundred Lire together......


At first I was skeptical of Prost's suggestions, but with some pragmatic adjustments, a general opening up of the rules governing tire usage, the questions is: why not?
For example, as a pragmatic and logistical constraint, I would run the same tire supply, as is now provided by Pirelli, they bring three options per race, plus a rain set (something like that).
But after that, aren't we past the contrivances phase of a mandatory pit stop/minimum usage of two different compounds?!
And after you are that far down the (best) path, 'like why do they HAVE TO have all the same compounds, all the way around?

Wasn't it still allowing multiple compounds in the early 90's?
When did they disallow multiple compounds on a racing car?

Open it up?
(same thing they should do with the engine formula, governed by one primary parameter, less fuel per race, every year, with fuel equivalency, i.e. deisel v gasoline, to further open the field for innovation and radically different design concepts)
party on!


I'm all for it.. anything to mix it up. I would prefer if they still had refueling options so some cars could start lighter and make it up during a pit stop. At least that adds variety. I miss the days when slower cars would use less fuel and overtake at the start... at least we didn't see so much predictability.


I have been calling for total tyre freedom for years and we are still talking about it? To repeat myself, yet again, Pirelli have no right to interfere in race outcomes...which is what they are effectively doing. Different teams have different set ups/set outs and unique characteristics built into their designs. It is the teams that should be making the decisions what tyres to run according to how they see the best outcome for them. The FIA should butt out also. If teams can go a full race on a single tyre then so be it. If some teams want to do three stops then they should be free to do that as well. If teams want to mix and match then they should be able to do so as well. Why strangle the freedom to race with all this phoney baloney. All i can say is that i hope that Prost's outburst carries some weight and we eventually see the freedom of choice allowed back onto the grid.


I've been listening to Ken, Tim!
Lets face it PZero is there to get brand recognition -the more tyres, the more colours, the more controversy...the more we're talking about their tyres!!
I think they have shot themselves in the foot going down the bullet proof path...they want as many pit stops as possible.


@ LKFE...Merci mon ami.


Agree. and if nothing else it will stop the drivers com[plaining about not "getting the tires to work". You chose them mate, so make them work.

The only potential problem I can see is the logistics of Pirelli getting all the tires ready for each race?


But you do need greater speed difference between tyres. The softer, faster tyres need to be 2+ seconds per lap you can get back a pit stop in 12/14 laps.


"I have been calling for total tyre freedom for years and we are still talking about it?" It beggars belief that the FIA haven't listened to you Kenneth.....


How about a tweak to the regulations that starting outside the top ten does not require the use of two different tyre compounds.

Also, to accommodate new tracks, sign up 40 venues and rotate the tracks through a two year cycle.


You want even more artificial rules?

This is why I don't watch f1 anymore.


Two things come to mind (other than stripping the cars of wings and diffusers). One is historical: Stirling Moss won at the Nurburgring in 1961 by running Dunlop wet weather tires for the entire race on a drying track - Dunlop specifically advised against this on the grounds that the tires wouldn't last. In the same race, Jack Brabham crashed because he was on a mix of wet and dry weather tires.

The reality is that F1 is at cross purposes. The hybrid PU "thermal efficiency" formula is mixed with a race format developed in a time when "volumetric efficiency" (high power from small displacement) was paramount. In other words, you have endurance racers shackled to a sprint format.

Strategy, tire and otherwise, should play no role in a sprint race...

If we must have these PUs on the dubious claim of "relevance" (more of which later), with all the endurance racing aspects (strategy, heavier cars), Increase the race distance to 250 miles without refueling and leave tire choices wholly up to the teams.

If you want "road relevant" sprint racing, then (1) eliminate aerodynamic cornering power. (2) Recognize that an F3 engine, mandated to use intake restrictiors, catalytic converter and muffler, despite not having to come from a production road car, is inherently "road relevant" - and already available from multiple sources. F3 engines make about 260 hp from 2 liters. A freer intake and exhaust size, plus a turbo, surely gets you over 600 hp, minimum.

Cut minimum weight to 450 kg. Cut race distance to 100 miles. Get rid of the wings. That's F1 as sprint racing, with road relevance.


@ Rudy P...well said. Some aspects there that i hadn't considered. Well done.


Quite an interesting view.

I bounced it around in my head, and feel 2004 formula was quite close to the truth. A few tweaks perhaps, like 8 speed gear boxes and I'd like to see brakes glowing. And timed races. Why timed instead of distance of 300km? Because when you know the Grand Prix is 100 minutes of green flag racing, it throws all kinds of variables into the mix. And most importantly, it eliminates the need to reset the formula to slow down the cars every few years because Grand Prix are not filling in the TV time. I feel this artificial slowing down of cars is the most damaging thing Formula 1 does.


"Cut minimum weight to 450 kg. Cut race distance to 100 miles. Get rid of the wings."

I'd trade in weight savings in battery and storage unit for a V12. Keep race distance where it has been historically. Get rid of wings and all these other attachments at various points on the car.


Why are we relying on tyre choices to make racing more entertaining? This is one of the things that makes F1 hard to attract new fans. Just have one ultra soft that lasts 15-20 laps max, then you are guaranteed to have fast cars and pit stops. Keep things simple.


@ alanT... my original idea was to have three compounds available, say a soft med and a hard. With the hard tyre, a built in max of 85% of race distance and subsequent reductions over the other two tyres. This would mean no matter what strategy was employed there would need to be, in most cases, at least one tyre stop. Teams could then mix and match to extract the best performances for their individual cars and even for their individual drivers needs. How could that not be a winner for all concerned. We should also open up the supply side and allow Michelin into the game. By allowing the total relaxation of control [within certain parameters] we'd see some pretty exciting approaches to the racing.


The only way you'll get good overtaking in F1 is if you stop putting the fastest cars at the front of the grid.

In a formula where car performance is a significant differentiating factor, it's simply logical that if the fastest car starts at the front it will likely stay there. True, a bad tyre/pitstop strategy could mess that up, but I'd hardly call that a plan for exciting racing.

In the old days, we had less aero and less reliability, which both made for more eventful races. I don't see F1 turning the clock back much on either of those things. All this mucking about with tyres just takes us back to the Schumacher era where all the most important passes happened in the pits. It looks like that's already happening this season.


So, from your first paragraph; good overtaking is a Mercedes tearing past a Sauber or (current) McLaren.....?


Meh. I mean - what is good overtaking? A slower car passing a faster one?

I'm not really a fan of reversed grids. But if you do want overtaking to happen you need to, in some way, artificially bump the best car back down the grid a bit. Or at the very least make it much more likely that the best driver/team will make serious errors fairly frequently.


you can always rely on Max when he has to either start at the back with tech issues or spins in the opening laps 😉


Sainz could have started that race with supersofts on the front and inters on the rear. Grip to get him off the line better then burn the rears down to slicks as the track dries... 😉


I'm not too sure about the total freedom idea, mixing compounds etc could lead to a team getting it horribly wrong and being nowhere. If we have a close championship battle that goes to the last round, and then one of the contenders wins easily because the other guy chose the wrong tyre, then everyone will say it was a stupid idea! One thing I would be very much in favour of is softening the compounds, I understand Pirelli's cautious approach, but 20 plus laps on ultrasofts?! That is ridiculous, 5 laps expected life, eight if you are really gentle, and then the other stages moving up from there. Why are Pirelli wasting money making hard tyres that nobody is ever going to use?


Take the average amount of fuel used for each car on the fastest lap in qualifying. Multiply that by the number of race laps to be covered and this is how much fuel all cars are to start with. Penalise any driver that does not finishe the fuel by the end of the race. In other words mandate that every driver pushes to the maximum all the time! No going slowly to preserve tyres


... and watch no cars cross the finish line?!? Sounds like a well thought out plan


I wonder often to myself what is is that commenters who by default take the negative without regard get from doing so....


Pirelli should do what Michelin have been accused of doing in MotoGP. Supply random tyres that are not the compound is says on the tin.

Since that ridiculous Canadian GP, tyres have been the major story in F1 - until Honda arrived - this is wrong. There is much more to F1 than tyres that are made to fall apart after less than 100 miles.


I have to be honest. When I came across the words "MIX UP F1 TYRES" I wondered if he was proposing a lottery of sorts..."Hamilton is in trouble! He just won 4 rain tyres for the Spanish Grand Prix, with no rain in sight!"


...he'd probably still come in 4th, a lap ahead of Fernando and two ahead of Stoff before they retired. 😉


How will different tyres affect energy recovery and brakes? The series with different tyres had all direct control by the driver and no electronics involved.


1 simple option is to remove no re-fueling rule. Let them still keep 105 kg total fuel and flow rate of 100kg/hr, but let the teams use it any which way they want. For ex: start the race with 50 kgs and then add remaining 55 kgs during pit stop. OR start with 30kgs and then pit twice to add 30/40 kgs more.
No one else will know the amount of fuel you are starting with. May be you can start with less fuel and be fast at the start and probably stop more.


Um, sorry to bang on about my favourite hobby-horse. I think Pirelli are being unfairly asked to help artificially fix a broken formula and then get the blame for not fixing what is beyond their remit.
Mandate far simpler and less effective aero, relax a lot of the rest of the rules, and I bet F1 will become much more interesting to the fans and cheaper for the teams.

Geoffrey , Tromp.

F1 need a different Tyre supplyer like back in 90's or 80's ,you hear no body complain about the tyres, pirreli is Italian so is Ferrari.


Get rid of the fuel flow regulation. That would open up the revs and make it louder. We've already seen drivers turning their engines down to finish the race, this is supposed to be Formula One.


They can also just stop racing at Barcelona. Dullest track of the year.


Controversial probably and noone will agree, but what I'd like to see is a tyre war where the tyre companies are centrally contracted to the sport. Then e.g. Michelin and Pirelli both bring X compounds to a weekend and the teams can choose from either company's boots.

They'd still be limited to a fixed number of compounds for the weekend from the end of FP2 onwards but they could still mix and match sets from both tyre companies.

That way you get the interesting bit of the tyre war without the potential for splitting half the field onto the inferior rubber. Assuming both companies were relatively close to each other in performance it could give you a lot of strategic variation as well.

Neeeeeeever gonna happen though and I'm sure it's probably only a good idea in my head 😀


Let the teams and drivers pick what they want instead of this stupid mandatory pitstop rule.

Wondering if a car is going to make a pitstop at all with 15 laps to go would be far more interesting.

Id gurantee someone (perez) would try and do a whole race with no pitstop first race.


Tyre performance has always and will always be a part of F1.
There's lots of comments about freeing up the choice but for me I'd actually go the opposite way.
Everyone turns up on Friday and is told by Pirelli......your all using super softs. Or your all using mediums......or whatever, but only one hardness. As to the number of pit stops,I'd let the team decide.


The problem with that concept is that all cars are different and they use their tyres differently likewise the drivers all have differing degrees of tyre usage nd control. We then get back to the perceived problem of Pirelli calling the shots.! That is not the role of a third party supplier. In fact i would argue the exact opposite. Teams are freee to choose various parts suppliers for their cars so why constrict the choice of tyres?


I however think you should read your own comment on my comment and I think you'll see that you've beaten your own argument.
By giving all the drivers and teams a level playing field with the same tyre then you'd actually be removing the tyre manufacturers impact on the outcome in the same way you would by giving everyone the same engine or Aero.
Sadly,history has taught me that you won't see this at all.


@F1 canmaker...You've lost me. I'm not advocating that all drivers and teams are on a pre determined 'level playing field' at all. I want to see the individual teams making choices for what tyres they use and when and in what config. This would also apply to individual drivers choices as well. Maybe i didn't make that clear.


But they are not calling the shots; they are being told what to do by the powers that be, in the name of making the racing more "entertaining" so as to increase profits. Lets call a spade a spade, shall we?


@ it whatever you like...a shovel even! AFAIK the FIA do not specify chemical make up of compounds, the FIA do not specify which tyres must be used for the first three races...pirelli have done that. Pirelli determine the tyre pressures according to their specifications...I happen to recall that some of the teams were dissatisfied with the tyre pressures that pirelli insisted on as being ludicrously high? .anything else on your mind? Those elements that i've just outlined are Pirelli decisions. Not the team's and not the FIA's...that is unless you have data to prove that i am wrong,and if so i am ready to put my hand up.


@Kenneth - The FIA do not specify the chemical make-up of the compounds because they obviously do not have the competence to do so. What they do specify is tyre characteristics such as performance targets, degradation profiles and wear rates, as well as the number of compounds. Its then Pirelli's job to deliver tyres with those characteristics, based on (this year) relatively unknown loadings, development rates, and performance gap between front running and tail end teams. I'm no expert, so can't personally judge if they have delivered to their mandate, but from what I've read, there have been no real complaints; apart from the fans, who in all honesty have a very limited understanding about how the tyres work.

Where Pirelli obviously have some latitude is in setting the operating guidelines; including which tyres to bring, and inflation pressures for the races. My understanding is that this is driven by safety considerations which are largely track dependent. Ludicrous? On what basis do you make that judgement? Clearly the teams want to maximize performance, whilst Pirelli have to consider the safety trade-off, and I don't know that anyone is in a position to second guess them (the FIA apparently agree…).

It all seems pretty logical and transparent to me, but clearly there will always be some wise-guy that points the finger at Pirelli, saying that they are manipulating the races. Its usually the same guys that have CFD eyes that can diagnose the cars aero problems, and supercomputer brain power that can outwit the pit-wall boffins on strategy calls...................... right?


@ are reading into this. Just why shouldn't the teams be free to make their own choices in what tyre they use and when? Take the first three races this year...the teams had no choices as to what tyres could be used. They were set by Pirelli. Pirelli should just be a supplier of a standard range of suitable racing tyres across maybe 3/4 compounds. That is all. Likewise there are three brake suppliers and each team is free to use what best suits their cars and drivers. Tyres are perhaps the most crucial decisive element in F1 racing. You can have all that mega million dollar tech on tap but if you cannot transfer that performance to the track you are going nowhere. The ultimate decision should be own to the teams...after all they and only they know how best to utilise their strengths and manage their weaknesses.


@kenneth - yes I take your point, but there are two fundamental issues you must consider:

1. Pirelli contracted by the FIA, not the individual teams, as is the case for the brakes. The teams can choose any specification of brakes they wish, but they bear the cost associated with their choice.
2. With the tyres I assume its a matter of practicality, logistics and costs that Pirelli doesn't have to deal with 20 individual sets of request, from non-contracted parties. They bring a limited range that per simulations is best suited to the conditions and majority of teams and individual set-ups. The choice is unlikely to be optimal for anyone, but probably some teams are more penalised than others.

The overarching point is that Pirelli are doing what the FIA has asked them to, and I doubt that there is much latitude for them to deviate from that, to theirs or anyone else’s advantage.


"using softer compounds than those prescribed for this year’s race would help to avoid the cars finishing in car performance order,"

You DO realise that F1 is supposed to be a sport right? That is, the entire point of the sport is to find out who is the fastest driver/car over a race distance and ultimately a season.

If you start making decisions to undermine that you are basically talking about turning F1 into a farce like wrestling.

Overtaking is a good thing because it makes it easier for the fastest driver/car to ultimately win. Drivers/cars SHOULD be finishing in performance order - any decision which undermines that basically turns this elite sport into the most expensive reality show on earth.

Sorry for the rant, but its a pretty fundamental point, and as entertaining as it would be to see the Rock racing in F1 jumping off turnbuckles it would destroy what is one of the ultimate sporting challenges on the planet.


Nail on the head! Its as simple as that, although i suspect that F1 is on a trajectory to become "entertainment" with the rules being the "packaging" to deliver the best possible "show" to the widest possible "audience" and extract the maximum possible $ per set of eyeballs....

Excuse me while i vomit.....


This would be fantastic as it would create more variables and allow maybe a driver in not so fast a car that can set it up properly or get lucky take advantage and be able to outperform


messing with tyres will not make f1 as fair as sharing the revenue equally between teams.


As far as tire solutions are concerned, I like JPM's idea of simply removing all the sensors related to monitoring tires with the exception of the pressure sensor (safety).

I hope Pirelli don't plan to change the compounds mid-season like they did in 2013 (although 2013 was due to "safety reasons")


Leave F1 alone, it's fine apart from the dull engine sound! Overtakes should be hard!


I am not sure how drivers doing their own thing with tires is somehow supposed to be a part of a racing formula. Just the production and logistics of it would seem prohibitive. Oh, and do think the teams are going to gamble with their millions of dollars in the cars by letting the driver decide the tire selection? Not!


Let them chose, if it goes wrong, they wil, pay themselves.


I know that it used to be the way in his days (mixed set of tires.), but i not sure if it would help the races to be more exciting.
I feel that so far this year the racing has not been too bad. High number of overpass does not translate into better racing if you ask me. Leave it as it is for a few more race then make a more learnt decision.
Organise a special test where team can play with the all range of tires as they wish, mixed sets and so on, and see what can be learned from that.
Stop wanting to change everything too quickly. Marc


The voices for F1 which includes previous champions, senior journalists and the racing teams should focus on what is good about the pinnacle of motor racing. If a potential newcomer to F1 searches for articles they will find most of the news is all about knocking our sport. When did it become trendy to disrespect this great sport?


@ GuyM....when the plusses exceed the minuses is when it will turn around.


Agree with Prost!

I'm a long time ex-fan of F1. The compulsory tyre pit stop rule was the first rule as modern F1 that really really bugged me. It's anti-racing and anti-strategy as almost every driver does the exact same thing.


I think we need to go back to two compounds per event and make them two steps apart e.g. Super soft and medium or soft and hard


Heres an even better idea, coax Bridgestone to come back and ditch Pirelli.

Bridgestone manufactured without doubt the best ever intermediate tyre in the history of F1. Those things could operate in nearly dry to almost monsoon conditions.

Its now 2017 and Pirelli's inters and wets are not a path on the Bridgestones from the mid 2000s


Yesterday was the anniversary of the titanic battle between Schumacher and Alonso at Imola in 2005 I believe. Schumacher couldn't overtake, but it was one of the most exciting, genuine, climaxes to a race of all time. You had one driver who was supremely fast and a very capable overtaker, and one who was obviously in the slower car was absolutely supreme on defence. The same thing happened the following year with the roles reversed and it was nail biting, truly enthralling.

Compare that to today, and overtaking is cheap and meaningless. If a car is 2-3 secs a lap faster at any point, overtaking is almost guaranteed. F1 has clearly had the balance wrong this last decade. So for me, cutting the Australian GP down from 37 last year to 5 this year, is a step in the right direction to addressing the balance, even if it is a step too far. But Pirelli really need to be praised for achieving the goal of producing tyres that drivers say they can push hard on for much longer.

Addressing the wear issues to produce overtaking is a tweak from this point out, F1 does not need to do any more leaps in direction such as the one suggested by Prost. What it needs is a very slight and gradual adjustment to the tyre formula until we get overtaking to an acceptable level (I'd suggest a target should be 10-15 per race).

F1 should hold fire on any major changes, and keep an eye on the US when Indycar brings back ground effects next season. They should follow that closely and look at the impact on the racing and the ability of cars to follow closely, safety considerations etc, and look to make changes over a much longer period to gradually phase out artificial overtaking driver aids such as DRS and KERS.


I agree with Prost. I have always said that the obligatory use of both compounds is a stupid and fake rule, it was introduced during the Bridgestone years where the tyres were so good that you didn't really need to stop for tyres.

I have always said, if you want to stick on a set of hards and go from lights to flag without stopping then great, if you think you can pull off a 4 stop ultra soft strategy then go for it. Not sure if there's a need to be able to mix the tyres but it would certainly add another element. None of this giving sets back after practice / quali etc. You get your allocation for the weekend and use them however you see fit.


so needlessly complicated, just make softer compounds next season, a step change if you will

couple that with not needing to run two compounds in the race to allow drivers to go the full distance without stopping if they're feeling a bit like perez on roids


@ Kenneth: Thanks! The penny dropped for me reading the November issue of Racecar Engineering. There's an excellent article in that issue discussing engine design and fuel characteristics from the V10 era up to now; reading that was a real eye opener.


"...using softer compounds than those prescribed for this year’s race would help to avoid the cars finishing in car performance order".

Isn't that the point of F1, that the best cars finish first. Anything else is artificial racing - no thank you.


It is kind of interesting to read all of the views of the 'racing pundits' below, It is quite hard to find two people who agree on anything (there are one or two!). You can understand why teams and organisers do not seriously ask for public opinion! They (the teams) probably have the same diversity of ideas and issues when they are looking at changes following 2020. Ten teams with hundreds of differing solutions and ideas, most of them self centred. Its akin to getting turkeys to agree that Christmas (or Thanksgiving) is a good idea!


Just wondering of these idea and feedback . Does anyone really understand how F1 works? Why we just stick to what we know on personal knowledge. Be quiet and let the real professionals do their work

Alan Prost better to get his team perform or just keep put. Talk is cheap

The other Bernd

Huh, I didn't expect this site to double down on their bogus post-Melbourne article after the other races in the season have proven that there isn't actually a problem with tires, only potentially with bad racetracks.

Racing driver 1

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Add another variable - refuelling. It was always exciting to see refuelling, before they sanitised the sport.


I'd be happy to see the bogus rule about running different compounds go away. That was a publicity stunt cooked up by Bridgestone and Indycar in the strange belief that it was required to make the morons with mics talk about tires during a race. Then Bridgestone and crooked Bernie foisted the rule onto F1. its also been a fake and phony element thrown into race strategy, and it should go away.

And, my guess if you let the teams run combinations of tires, they'd find a way to make it work to their advantage. And its quite obvious that Pirelli can't really come up with a real reason why it wouldn't work. The guy just seems to sputter along without making a point, at least in the quotes used.

Pirelli just wants to maintain bogus rules that don't reallly have a place in racing. And getting rid of them wouldn't hurt Pirelli. Give the teams these freedoms with tires, and they'll come up with interesting uses and the morons with mics won't ignore the tires as they'll be an interesting part of the racing.

Of course, the idea I'd love to throw into the mix would be multiple tire suppliers. Pirelli won't like that having successfully paid off Bernie last year.


Only F1 could design aero rules that everyone knew would make following and passing much more difficult ...... then blame the tires for lack of passing.


I'd like to know when F1 will move up onto at least 15" wheels instead of those small 13" things. Surely it's time now to move with the times in that department. Indycars have 15" why can't F1 cars have them? Why are they so against increasing the size?


You guys need to stop this "V10 Blues" , V10/12 are not going back sadly, F1 is the pinnacle of motor industry and there are not too many people looking to develop a V12 this days, its more likely the industry will get in to the FE approach.

Anyhow, about the tires, I'm with Prost on this one, I think regulations needs to be simple, let them do what they want to get what they need... And please bring more brands to the competition.

And about the handicaps, that is SO LAME, why Mercedes, Ferrari, Redbull or any other dominant team needs to be penalized for their good work? it is what it is and that the way has been all the time in F1, there is a team who dominate because has done their homework and has done a good job and research and development to be at the top on that moment, so, they earn the privilege to be the dominant top team for the moment.


The current tyre rules were designed with the idea that with two different compounds mandatory you would have conflicting tyre strategies and more overtaking

The exact opposite happens. Teams qualify and start on the softer tyre then finish on a harder tyre. Give the teams more freedom and different strategies will prevail.

But since they couldn't figure out how to make qualifying less predictable - have shorter sessions, I don't think they will figure this out 😀


I still too often see this erroneous opinion that overtaking must somehow be enhanced.
When in actual fact formula one was so much more credible a sport before this false over taking comcept was born.
The procession was F1.End of
Little errors were what we waited for,the stuck wheel nut,the sticky refuel nozzle.
The ptb's keep compounding their previous errors with yet more layers of cock up.
The more input they have (FIA/FOM) the crappier the show has become.
Only an idiot cannot notice that the cars were so much more 15 years ago than they are now.Forget track lap times..
Im talking about presence..


Oh yea, now there is an idea!! I've only been saying this for a decade, ever since they bought in this silly artificial 'every car must use two tyre compound rule'. This sport really is ridiculously mismanaged. The powers that be seen oblivious to what is blindingly obvious to people on the outside.

They banned refuelling, in part at least, to promote racing and passing on the track rather than in the pit lane, but then immediately impose a stupid compulsory tyre change which runs counter to that very intent.

Give the teams total free reign on tyres, allow them to mix and match and you will promote unpredictability, real ok-track racing, and as Prost said, the potential for drivers to attempt to run the entire race without stopping.

Combine that with the removal of that most cynical of contraptions, DRS, and you have a recipe for a racing series that might genuinely be half interesting again.

At least it would be a start. I suspect you'd still have isssues over the lack of overtaking but that would require more fundamental aerodynic rule changes; something I have been arguing for two decades.

We need Increased mechanical grip, reduced aero grip, allowing cars to follow each other more closely through the corners. Additionally the banning of paddle shifting semi auto gearboxes in favour of a return to three pedal/ 'H' pattern, manual gearboxes. This will promote the mistakes by the drivers and therefore present overtaking opportunities.

All simple stuff, but do we think the F1 rule makers will think if it...of course not......sigh....

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation
JA ON F1 In association with...
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer

Sign up to receive the latest F1 News & Updates direct to your inbox

You have Successfully Subscribed!