Pirelli wants 'safe' solutions after surprise F1 tyre rules revamp
Pirelli has vowed to continue working to achieve the best results for Formula 1 following the FIA's surprise announcement about 2016 tyre choice rules
Motorsport's world governing body revealed on Friday an initial series of measures designed to improve the F1 spectacle had been agreed upon for further deliberation by the F1 Commission.
One proposal is that from 2016 teams can choose any two of the four dry compounds currently made available by Pirelli - super-soft, soft, medium and hard - ahead of each grand prix.
| TYRES BACK IN F1 SPOTLIGHT |
| Free tyre choice, refuelling in revamp plan |
| Pirelli: Free tyre choice 'reckless' |
| Michelin ready to return to F1 |
 |
At present Pirelli, which was not in attendance at Thursday's Strategy Group meeting in Biggin Hill, controls the selection of two compounds per race based on all the relevant data available at that time.
In light of the decision taken by the Strategy Group, Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery told AUTOSPORT: "We've duly noted it.
"As ever Pirelli will work with the teams and FIA to find solutions to problems that are safe and deliver the required results."
Hembery felt it prudent to be pragmatic on this occasion given the Strategy Group decision came as something of a surprise.
Speaking to AUTOSPORT last week during the Spanish Grand Prix, he was far more critical of such a proposal - believing it to be an unwise route for F1 to head down.
At the time, Hembery said: "If you start opening up choices this is what will happen: firstly, the top teams will centralise around the same choices because they use the same ideas and data we would be using.
"Then there would be some people that would want to risk a little more, and then there would be some people who would want to be a little reckless.
"That means they would be taking a product into a situation that would create a safety problem, and if there is a safety problem then we cannot accept that risk, so it is impossible.
"That is even before we get into the logistical problems and extreme cost it would involve to do such a thing.
"It's more important to look at 'why would you want to do something like that' and 'what are you trying to solve' rather than suggesting a change without analysing what you are trying to achieve."
Be part of the Autosport community
Join the conversationShare Or Save This Story
Top Comments
McLaren's Alonso sure some F1 teams will get new rules wrong
Formula 1 peaked in 2000s, not Senna/Prost era, Alonso believes
How Hamilton has battled his own mentality
DJR completes Davison car rebuild after heavy Bathurst qualifying crash
The defining moments of Williams boss Vowles’ rollercoaster season
Podcast: The Best of Super Touring Power 2 - Ray Mallock, John Cleland and Laurent Aiello
Solberg's failed Rally Chile protest to be reheard by stewards
How McLaren went from back to front in 18 months
Jon Noble: The one thing McLaren must leave behind for the title run-in
Ranking the real 2025 F1 driver line-up pecking order
Will Sauber's C44 go down as F1's best point-less car, or are there better contenders?
Subscribe and access Autosport.com with your ad-blocker.
From Formula 1 to MotoGP we report straight from the paddock because we love our sport, just like you. In order to keep delivering our expert journalism, our website uses advertising. Still, we want to give you the opportunity to enjoy an ad-free and tracker-free website and to continue using your adblocker.
