F1 tyre decision is just the tip of the iceberg

If Formula 1 wants to switch to larger wheel rims and low-profile tyres as trialled by Lotus in last week's Silverstone test, fine. It's a perfectly valid thing to do.

For the 14 laps that the experimental tyres were bolted onto Charles Pic's car, they didn't look out of place although, from a personal perspective, they didn't make a great deal of difference either way.

Having seen both the car itself and photographs and stared at them extensively, I can see why many prefer the low-profile rubber. Certainly, the balance of opinion appears to be in favour of making a change to a wheel rim/tyre profile that more closely matches the more aspirational end of the production-car market.

The decision about whether to make a change to this kind of rubber, which could either be harnessed to the 18-inch wheel rims run at Silverstone, or ones an inch or two larger, will be taken in the coming months. Pirelli deserves praise for bothering to create a tyre that could be tried in the real world so that an informed decision could be made on its aesthetics. For make no mistake, the Silverstone trial was a visual rather than technical try-out.

The response was largely positive, but some do overstate the strength of the argument to switch, which is not quite the slam dunk some portray it to be. There are potential downsides that must be taken into account.

F1 has a tendency to be too narrow in its focus when evaluating changes. First and foremost, it's important to isolate potential unintended consequences. Once you have done that, you can work out how such an individual switch might feed into wider-ranging changes to the cars. This is exactly what the low-profile idea should be considered to be part of.

Low-profile tyres won't necessarily lure companies to the sport © LAT

While Michelin is known to favour larger wheels and low-profile rubber were it to return to F1, this is not necessarily a view shared by all tyre companies.

For a start, in terms of technical development that could have an influence on road-car technology, there's more interest in the surface of the tyre than in the sidewalls. Nanotechnology applied to the surface is one of the more interesting areas of potential research and clearly it's ideas like this that promise valuable technology transfer, irrespective of how big the wheelrims are.

There are also the technical implications. The tyre will have less compliance, meaning that its contribution to the overall suspension of the car is lessened. That means more work for the car designers, although you could argue this is a good thing as it gives the teams more control over their own destiny in this regard.

There are also implications for what brakes are fitted. For example, do you go larger and further decrease braking distances or do you deliberately downgrade the brake technology for the bigger size, which would probably not go down well with brake suppliers.

But it's from the commercial perspective that F1 should be really wary. With the current cost crisis, easy as it is to throw around any number of tyre brands as potential F1 suppliers, it's an expensive business.

So you have to ask whether it's wise to cut back on the most visible area for branding by reducing the side of the sidewalls?

While it might seem soulless and unduly money-focused to be concerned about this, F1 hasn't exactly treated its tyre supplier well in recent years and it would be arrogant to assume that next time the tender is up the world's rubber companies will be fighting tooth and nail to outbid each other.

Pirelli uses F1 to drive brand awareness, not technology © LAT

First and foremost, F1 tyre supply for Pirelli, like Bridgestone before it, was more about marketing than driving technology. Bridgestone entered F1 when its brand recognition in Europe was low and left it when it felt it had maxed out the significant gains it had made in this area.

Similarly, Pirelli has gained in terms of brand awareness, but there is a limit in terms of how much benefit it can get out of F1. Perhaps the natural life of its tyre supply is around 10 years, but reduce the space for Pirelli logos on the sidewalls and there is a danger of tipping the balance in favour of walking away after six, especially as it's not yet a foregone conclusion the Italian company will stay on.

None of the above is a compelling reason to dismiss the idea of low-profile tyres, but they are examples of factors that must be given very serious thought before a final decision is made.

There's also the bigger picture to look at. While Pirelli claims to be willing and able to develop low-profile rubber for 2016, the following year is the stated target.

The priority should, therefore, be to make a decision as quickly as possible to avoid over-complicating matters, especially given that history suggests that the 2017 tyre deal will be agreed late after much rushing around and panic following several months of everyone declaring that there is plenty of time to sort it all out.

You could argue that leaving the wheel configuration open might allow a wider variety of tenders from companies with different desires. That might be the case, but this discussion should only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of regulations, which is why the tyre choice can't be put off for long.

As the change to low-profile rubber would have serious implications, and is set to coincide with the planned re-introduction of active suspension, 2017 is shaping up to be a watershed in terms of car regulations.

So why not take the chance to take an in-depth look at the whole chassis regulations with a view to a modified set of rules in 2017? Especially with the current generation of engines likely to be very well-established by then.

Things could be vastly different in 2017. Will the likes of DRS be consigned to the F1 scrapheap? © LAT

This doesn't necessarily have to be a complete and costly overhaul, for there's no question that rule changes can have serious financial implications. But it's a chance to take on board criticisms and try to isolate areas where F1 cars can be improved. Certainly, it's preferable to drip-feeding changes over consecutive seasons.

As ever, there will be hordes of people queuing up with quick-fix easy answers. But there is a chance here for F1 to overcome its usual tendency for muddy thinking and spend some time analysing and understanding what areas can be changed.

The questions are multi-fold. Should the much-maligned, but often very effective, DRS be retained? Should top-body aerodynamic regulations be changed? Should nose regulations be further modified beyond next year's changes? Should braking rules be changed to lengthen stopping distances?

Harnessed to a proper process of research and analysis, F1 could work towards a 2017 package that tackles some of the criticisms of the sport and addresses concerns about dwindling audience.

The trouble is, that would require a coherent and unified approach. That's something that F1 desperately lacks.

Otherwise any such switch to low-profile rubber would just be another disjointed change in a sport characterised by poor leadership and completely lacking in any joined-up thinking.