After writing my wall of text in @Chris Stacey's article on 2017... I started thinking about ways to improve the way tyres are managed in F1. How did we go so wrong? First lets cast our mind back to 2010. This was the year re-fuelling was banned. Bridgestone tyres in this season were essentially too good. The rules we have currently of having to use both compounds in a race was still in effect, but they were both so good that 90% of races still resulted in a one-stop strategy. Although drivers could push extremely hard for most of the race, strategy became extremely one dimensional. So in 2011 FOM decided to hire Pirelli to construct a tyre that would produce races similar to that of Canada 2010, an oddball of the 2010 season which saw teams make upwards of 3 tyre stops because Bridgestone bought an uncharacteristically soft tyre to the event. For 2011 the Pirelli introduced the intentionally fragile tyres requested by FOM, and the intended result was initially acquired. Teams/drivers, having not figured out the optimal strategy, ran races as if it was 2010 for the most part. A combination of fast running and just pitting as soon as the tyres hit the pundit coined "cliff". This continued for the next year and a half until Pirelli started to get a little bit more conservative to the point where teams realised that it was actually faster during a race to just protect the tyre as much as humanly possible and keep the number of stops down to 2 or even 1 depending on the track/compound combo. Effectively turning a two hour sprint into a two hour endurance race. This brings us to today were teams are intentionally running races with drivers up to 10 seconds off qualifying pace in an effort just to save tyres and thus do less pitstops. Because tyre saving is so critical at present, following in another cars aerodynamic turbulence for anything longer than a lap or two is completely infeasible. This is due to that fact that when they are in the turbulence there is less aerodynamic grip and they must use more of their tyre grip and thus wear them faster. This then scuppers their race strategy. So instead of trying to pass they just hold station and pray for undercut. China, Brazil, Mexico are just a few races which come to mind from this season which display this. Of course this dullness is amplified in our currently situation due to the Noah's Arc pecking order of the cars. So what do we do? Well obviously we want drivers to be able to feasibly drive as fast as possible. To obtain this with the current regulations would probably require some form of Goldylocks tyre that somehow only functions at qualifying pace an 2011 "cliff"-like characteristics below that whilst wearing evenly at both temperatures... Perhaps a bit far-fetched. But what if we could reach some sort of compromise between the racing regulations and the tyre construction? Hear me out... 1. Bring the tyre compounds closer to 2010 Bridgestone in terms of endurance/grip coefficient. Q3 Q4 2013 Pirellis probably come close to what I mean. 2. Teams MUST use two sets of the Option tyre during the race. Thats it. This to me reaches a decent compromise between manufactured strategy and giving the ability for drivers/teams to do stints at a higher pace. O > O > P Two high speed stints followed by a longer third. O > P > O Extended middle stint O > O > O ( > O ) Three stops 4 qualifying stints. O > O Rare one stop for Perez types to pull off an low wear tracks P > O > O >10th options. The current regulation of having to use both compound encourages the team in most cases to ditch the option and rune two extended, conservative stints on the prime compound. Ditching that in favour of forcing the use of options twice in theory almost guarantees two stop strategies geared towards faster stints, assuming step 1 is accomplished. Thoughts? Am I stupid?