[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If there is no necessity to change from one compound of tyre to another, then you wouldn't get the variations in car speed that we see during the races. With harder tyres you are much more likely to give the advantage back to those teams that have the greater amount of downforce. Harder tyres are less likely to wear significantly due to high amounts of downforce.

If you think that higher amounts of downforce is the holy grail of F1, fine. Give the teams harder tyres.



You are making an assumption about how long the tyres will 'actually' last for.

If the tyres were hard enough to last for two races, how would tyre management be a required skill if you get a new set of tyres for the next race? Pirelli are easily capable of making a tyre hard enough to last two race distances. They have stated this many times. We should remember that Pirelli don't need to make a quick tyre that lasts a race distance, as was the case in 2005. They only need concentrate on durability because they aren't in competition with another tyre manufacturer, and therefore they don't need to make a 'quick' tyre.

How could Pirelli make a race tyre that lasts long enough for one race distance without it favouring one or two teams over the other teams? The only real way it could do that is to make a tyre that lasts for significantly more than one race distance. Consequently, the skill required to look after the tyres would not be necessary.

I never proposed or supported the standardization of tyres, did I? With non-spec tyres having to last the entire race distance we will definately varations in race strategy and thus pace, although not artificially created.