First, regarding temperature: tyres should naturally heat up in corners and cool down on straights, but the effect could be more dynamic rather than simply switching between heating and cooling. For example, high-speed corners, heavy braking and acceleration should generate more heat, while long straights should gradually reduce tyre temperature. Ambient temperature, track temperature and driving style could also influence how quickly tyres gain or lose temperature.
More importantly, the compounds should be much more sensitive to their operating temperature. Something like:
- SS: optimal around 5–10°C
- S: optimal around 11–21°C
- M: optimal around 22–32°C
- H: optimal above 32°C
These ranges are just examples, but the important point is that the compounds should have meaningfully different performance curves. If the track is 25°C, for example, the M should clearly outperform the S because it is operating closer to its optimal range. The difference should be large enough that choosing the right compound becomes an important strategic decision rather than a marginal one.
===
The second issue is tyre development.
At the moment, we can have tyres with something like 66 design points versus 180 design points, yet in actual races I often don't see a meaningful difference in degradation. Cars seem to reach approximately 50% tyre condition at very similar laps regardless of how developed the tyre is. If that is effectively the case, there is very little incentive to invest in tyre development.
I would suggest that design points should directly affect both tyre performance and tyre lifespan.
For example, as tyre design improves:
- Higher design points = slightly faster lap times.
- Higher design points = slower degradation.
- Higher design points = a wider or more stable operating window.
- Higher design points = less performance loss as the tyre ages.
So a tyre with 180 design points should not simply be a tyre with the same degradation curve as a 66-point tyre. It should be capable of maintaining competitive performance for significantly longer.
Ideally, tyre wear should also be represented as a continuous performance curve rather than simply "good until 50%, then bad." A highly developed tyre could maintain 75–100% of its potential for longer, while a poorly developed tyre might begin losing performance much earlier.
This would create a much more interesting relationship between development, qualifying pace, race pace and strategy.
For example:
66-point tyre: faster initial degradation, narrower temperature window, greater lap-time loss with wear.
180-point tyre: better peak performance, slower degradation, wider temperature window, and significantly more competitive late in a stint.
That would make tyre development strategically meaningful. Teams would have a real reason to spend development points on tyres because the investment would translate into faster laps AND longer stints, rather than simply producing a tyre that appears to reach the same 50% wear point as a much less developed tyre.
In short, I think the ideal system would make compound choice, temperature management and tyre development interact with each other. The best tyre would not always be the softest one. It would depend on track temperature, how aggressively the car is driven, the expected stint length and how developed the tyre is.
===
I know this would probably be quite difficult to program and balance, but I think a system like this could make the tyre model much more interesting and realistic.
===
Sorry for the wall of text!