I think you missed my point, sir. I am not giving any one advantage - it can't be held against Red Bull or Ferrari, for making a fast car. All i was saying is that those two teams for the moment have an advantage and they can qualify pretty much on the front two rows with whatever is the harder of the two compounds available at any track. How can the FIA or FOTA disagree or object to that? If a team wants, it can try qualifying on inters or full wets on a dry track. There is no rule against that.
Your point, which has been branded about a lot in the last few weeks, one that James Allen first came up with is to bring two compounds to a race which are not one step apart but two steps apart, say like bring a soft compound tire and a hard, and no medium or bring for example medium and super soft. I can see that working if Bridgestone bring super softs and mediums to races. The super softs will be fast and go away in less than 10 laps and mediums might or might not last the whole race distance thus necessitating another pitstop. How does ONE extra pitstop make races so much more interesting I don't know.
Front runners will be front runners, no? Cars that are good this year are good for a number of reason and one being, they are gentle on their tires compared to others. How does that change anything? Cars will still be slow because of the fuel they have on-board at the start of a race. As the fuel goes down the cars might lap a little quicker but nothing close to the Red Bull and Ferrari, the two teams who seem to have a system that lowers the ride height. Red Bull's system being a lot more complicated and equally effective, while Ferrari's ride height is adjusted during the pitstops.
Bridgestone will not and should not agree. One race is all it took for Michelin's reputation to be destroyed, 2005 Indianapolis GP. They brought softer tires, miscalculated, and the fiasco it led to is fresh in everyones memory. Just out of curiosity, don't Bridgestone supply tires to all Ferrari production cars and the tires on the FXX are 19" slicks designed by Bridgestone? Is Bridgestone in F1, investing millions every year for this reason? To see their super softs not be good enough for even 10 laps. It does not make for good marketing and what if their is a serious accident, a fatal one, as a result of this policy. After all, it was on safety grounds that Michelin had to pull their cars out from the Indianapolis GP in 2005.
An all weather tires has been discussed for some time. It's another of those things that was tossed around for some time but that tire will have grooves. A slick tire can never be used on a wet track. There is no technology for that. Grooves are required to displace water and a slick tire cannot do that. On the other hand, wet weather tires can probably be made hard enough to with stand the demands of racing, inters that is. Don't know how full wets can go the distance without having to be changed if it starts raining hard at the end.
Lastly, talking of Martin Whitmasrh, Stefano Domenicali, Ross Brawn or Christian Horner. All of them want to win. Making the show interesting for the spectators is secondary for all of them. They will all say and try to do things that will help their teams and put others at a disadvantage. Look at their positions one by one.
Took over from Ron Dennis, who made the team what it is today. One drivers title since he took over. Made a dog of a car last season, spent millions developing it and have started this year not where they expected to be. What will be his priority, winning for his team or making the show better for us? I am thinking, winning.
Took over from Brawn, after what was a golden era for the team. One driver's title in debatable circumstances and helped by Mclaren who threw it away. Paid Raikkonen millions to leave the team, paid Alonso an equally large amount to come to Ferrari, not to make the show good for us but to win at all costs for Ferrari.
Did a great job over seeing Honda make the car they made. It was all Honda's money, unlimited resources, four wind tunnels working 24/7 for a year. It's said to be the most expensive F1 car ever built. They sold it to Brawn, who got most of the credit for being a magician and won both titles. Mercedes, return to F1 after 50 years as a works team, buy Brawn, bring back Schumacher, not to make the show good for us but to win.
One of the youngest team principals. Should have won both titles last year but the team kept making mistakes. Has the fastest car this year but no win to show for it.
Dietrich Mateschitz has made it clear- they have to win this year and nothing short of the title would do. Hardly a team that would be interested in making the show good. Would rather win first.
The never ending discussion carries on:D