From: darryl_johnson@rogers.com   
      
   On 2025-11-02 10:00 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:   
   > On 2/11/2025 11:41 pm, scole wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Re tyres, is there a case to make for a rule mandating that all   
   >>> compounds   
   >>> must be used in a race, soft and medium and hard? That'd make every   
   >>> race a   
   >>> two-stopper, and you'd have people start on softs to try and gain places   
   >>> early and others who'd save the softs for a sprint to the finish. It   
   >>> could   
   >>> be good...   
   >>   
   >> No thoughts on this? Would it be a good idea or would it be too much   
   >> of an   
   >> intervention on the sport?   
   >   
   > I think the TWO compound thing is too much intervention. I'd like to see   
   > a season where there is only one tyre compound, roughly equal to the   
   > current 'medium', with no mandated stops. A gradual drop-off in lap   
   > times but no 'cliff' would make pit stops an option for faster cars that   
   > are hard on their tyres. Conversely cars that are easier on their tyres   
   > (but slower overall) could get away with fewer of even no pit stops. Car   
   > set-up would certainly be easier for the teams (perhaps making sprints   
   > more viable?).   
   >   
   > A single compound would make Pirelli's task easier and reduce the carbon   
   > footprint of F1. It would also be easier for newer punters to follow the   
   > action on track as there's less data to follow.   
   >   
   > Just a thought. I'm open to hearing reasons why this might not be good   
   > for F1 and why we shouldn't try it.   
   >   
   >> Has it ever been tried before, in F1 or another   
   >> formula?   
   >   
   > I'm not sure that it's been tried before. It hasn't been TTBOMK.   
      
   Back in the "old days", F1 cars basically ran a single compound. You can   
   see photos of cars with treaded tires. If I remember correctly -- not at   
   all a given -- the cars had a selection of tires they could chose from,   
   different makes if nothing else. But they could run their tires for the   
   entire race if they chose. Teams with more cash could purchase the tires   
   from the "best" maker and come in for a tire change if they felt the   
   need, while poorer teams might have to make do on cheaper tires or even   
   reuse tires at subsequent events.   
      
   I do hope I've got the fact right. By the time I was going to races,   
   slicks had replaced tires with treads, but I believe that there were no   
   rules about mandatory tire changes and compound changes. Teams had   
   advanced to sponsorship deals with the tire makers so pretty much   
   everyone had a shot at getting good tires. Although that produced the   
   laughable Indianapolis race in which one manufacturer withdrew their   
   tires for safety reasons, leaving only a couple of teams actually   
   running the race.   
      
   The good old days, right?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)