Tire selections

[J.Clark]

It is a little difficult to sort out what each team may be doing with regard to strategy, based upon this article.  It does appear that not a single team is opting for even one set of the new ultra-soft compound.

I would guess everyone wants a set of mediums for the race to run a long stint.  Just purely a guess, but it seems to make sense that Haas and some of the others not normally at the pointy end of the spear are taking the extra allotment of super-softs for qualifying.

http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/f1-teams-announce-pirelli-tire-selections-australian-grand-prix?utm_source=RacingDaily20160308&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=headline-center&utm_content=body&utm_campaign=awracingdaily

[Scott]

Not much thought went into Manor's selection. 

I bet Pirellis going to be disappointed not to be showing off the purple sidewalls, but from the sound of it they have a pretty short useful lifespan.

[Monty]

Surely nobody will be surprised. The Ultra Soft tyres are simply not fast enough. A Pit Stop at most tracks cost around 30seconds. Therefore the Ultra Soft would have to provide a speed/life compromise to off-set an alternative strategy with other tyres.
From testing it seems there simply wasn't enough speed from the tyre plus they were wearing out in just a few laps.
Unfortunately there were hardly any useful tyre comparisons during testing (i.e. similar cars running different tyres on the same day). But if we consider this one over-simplified comparison:-
03-Mar  Raikkonen   Ferrari     US     1:22.765
03-Feb  Massa         Williams   S       1:23.193 
The difference of 0.428 seconds would require 70laps to off-set a pit stop.

[John S]

For me there are two things that show up from this list of choices:-

(1) How few dissenters from the norm there appears to be. By my count only 3 teams have allowed a variation in what each teammate is using - and then it's only the odd one tyre. Still I suppose this is really caused by the tyre pick having to be made before the testing took place, so any info gained can only inform choices for later races.

(2) The boring conservative tyre choice from FIF1 - aren't they the ones who brought forward the idea of having more choice?   

[Jericoke]

As a quick thought, the FIA could adjust the tire selection rules as a way to balance out the field a little.  Since Pirelli needs a lead time to manufacture tires for each race, they build a fixed allotment of tires per track, and then break them up into batches of 'aggressive', 'balanced' and 'conservative'.  Drivers then select their batch based on inverted finish order.  That is the last place car picks first, then second last and the first place car gets whatever batch is left over.

All the tires are used.  A little drama as the 'best' driver is required to overcome a minor obstacle.  Lower placed teams get a slight advantage to strategy.

[Scott]

As a quick thought, the FIA could adjust the tire selection rules as a way to balance out the field a little.  Since Pirelli needs a lead time to manufacture tires for each race, they build a fixed allotment of tires per track, and then break them up into batches of 'aggressive', 'balanced' and 'conservative'.  Drivers then select their batch based on inverted finish order.  That is the last place car picks first, then second last and the first place car gets whatever batch is left over.

All the tires are used.  A little drama as the 'best' driver is required to overcome a minor obstacle.  Lower placed teams get a slight advantage to strategy.

It would liven the show more than the silly Q rule changes they're talking about.  Gets my 

[J.Clark]

That is an interesting concept.
If I am understanding it correctly, you are saying that the slower teams, based upon where they finished the previous race, would have first pick of the tires, and that since a limited number of each would have been made, Mercedes and Ferrari may not get the tires they would prefer.

Is that what you are proposing?

If so, that could make things a bit interesting.  Would that not however, be sort of manipulating the outcomes a bit too much?

[Scott]

Would that not however, be sort of manipulating the outcomes a bit too much?

I like it.  It means that the teams with the best cars might have a small disadvantage.  Don't forget it won't be as if there would be no tires of a certain type left, just that maybe they would have to do two runs on the less optimal tire and only one on the best.  That wouldn't likely slow down a team with a far superior car very much, and if it means they come in 2nd or 3rd or 4th a few times instead of winning almost every race (yeah, talking about Merc at the moment), it would spice the game up just right.  Of course there would need to be some tweaking to the compounds made available, but I think they could find a nice balance. 

[Jericoke]

That is an interesting concept.
If I am understanding it correctly, you are saying that the slower teams, based upon where they finished the previous race, would have first pick of the tires, and that since a limited number of each would have been made, Mercedes and Ferrari may not get the tires they would prefer.

Is that what you are proposing?

If so, that could make things a bit interesting.  Would that not however, be sort of manipulating the outcomes a bit too much?

That is exactly what I'm proposing.

There have been motorsports in the past that use extra ballast on winning cars to keep the series competitive.  North American sports give an advantage to losing teams by giving them first chance to acquire new talent (through various drafts).

Over the course of a season it's not likely to decide the championship (the first place cars will probably be on the same 'selection' of tires anyway and there is consolation for going out on the first lap), but it's enough to mix up the midfield, put some drama into qualifying and give us something else to talk about about.  "Should so and so go conservative or aggressive at such and such a track?"