When the tyre supplier revealed a fresh addition to its range of tyre compounds prior to the start of the season, the circuits of Singapore and Las Vegas were initially considered as potential locations for the deployment of the remarkably pliable C6 tyre. This concept was discarded even before a certain driver voiced his strong disapproval following the qualifying session for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
“You’re honestly better off not even bothering with it,” he conveyed succinctly. The C6 will now remain unused for the remainder of the current season, although a tyre with similar characteristics will be introduced in the coming year.
In online exchanges between enthusiasts across various platforms, it’s common to find proponents of softer tyres, operating under the misconception that these will inherently generate more thrilling and unpredictable race scenarios. However, Formula 1 encompasses both intense competition and meticulous scientific methodology, with the C6 serving as a notable illustration of why this seemingly straightforward solution is impractical: its extreme softness renders it difficult to extract even a single flying lap.
It’s also worth noting that the tyre selection for the Sao Paulo Grand Prix is a step harder this year – because in the previous year, the supplier opted for a softer selection, leading to the softest option being “unsuitable as a race tyre”.
At some events, although not consistently, the soft compound can function adequately for both a race stint and as a qualifying tyre. However, this has not proven to be the case with the C6.
The C6 has introduced an element of unpredictability, it has done so in a manner that was unexpected and not always beneficial, although the supplier has still presented this as a positive outcome. This uncertainty primarily manifests during qualifying, where some teams and drivers express a preference for the C5, which subsequently influences the compounds they have available for the race itself.
George Russell, Mercedes
Photo by: James Sutton / Motorsport Images
Consequently, this does exert an influence on strategy, although not in the intended manner. This explains the previously mentioned driver’s outburst.
“I believe I should engage in a discussion with the tyre provider at some juncture and suggest they simply omit that particular tyre, as it complicates the entire weekend,” he expressed. “You lack a reliable benchmark on the medium tyres until qualifying. It’s illogical. If the tyre is ineffective here… It proved unsuitable in Monaco, Imola, and Montreal as well.”
The C6 was developed with favourable intentions: not precisely to compel teams to execute more pit stops during races, but rather to enhance strategic diversity by blurring the lines between choices. Generally, teams tend to favour strategies involving the fewest possible pit stops – often just one – to safeguard track position.
For a strategy involving multiple stops to be worthwhile, it must offer a significant time advantage over a one-stop strategy, which is a delicate balance to achieve. If it is overdone and a one-stop strategy becomes excessively slow, it would encourage everyone to stop more frequently, negating any potential advantage – because those employing similar strategies tend to stop concurrently.
Therefore, the assertion made in Baku that “it’s preferable to mandate a two-stop strategy rather than introduce a tyre that offers no discernible speed advantage” does not hold up under scrutiny.
The selection of tyres for each circuit is determined by the demands placed on the rubber, with the primary considerations being the abrasiveness of the surface, typical cornering speeds, and ambient temperature. The supplier has refined the thermal degradation characteristics of its tyre compounds this year, enabling them to opt for a softer selection at several races, but this has not yielded the desired outcome of encouraging multi-stop strategies.
Lando Norris, McLaren
Photo by: Joe Portlock / LAT Images via Getty Images
The C6 was conceived as part of this overarching strategy, introducing an even softer option, but its implementation has encountered certain shortcomings. It has not consistently demonstrated a clear speed advantage over the C5 and has proven more challenging to manage: its peak performance window is fleeting, and even a minor slide can cause the surface temperature to escalate beyond its ideal range, resulting in a loss of grip. Furthermore, as the surface temperature increases, it exhibits more movement than the C5, imparting a disconcerting and confidence-eroding vagueness to the driver.
Due to these factors, the C6 has only been utilized at circuits that impose minimal stress on the tyres, and plans to introduce it in Singapore and Las Vegas have been abandoned. The tyre selections for the remaining events were announced at the beginning of August, accompanied by the headline “Adjustments and continuity in tyre compound choices for the remainder of the season”.
Evidently, it was a moment of relief for those who wished to avoid using the C6 again this year. However, the supplier retains the flexibility to reconsider its decision until four weeks prior to each race, so the possibility of the C6’s return has not been entirely eliminated.
In Baku, a Mercedes trackside engineering representative suggested that it would have been more beneficial to establish a distinction between the harder compounds rather than focusing on softer options.
“I would have favored retaining the C5 [as the softest option], as it is a reliable tyre that performs well,” he remarked. “Then, potentially replacing the C3 with a C1 or something similar, providing a tyre that is so hard it lacks grip. In that scenario, no one would opt for a one-stop strategy.”
While the C3 “facilitated a straightforward one-stop [in Baku] last year”, the C4 fulfilled that role last weekend – as did the C5, on which numerous drivers executed extended initial stints. But could the C1 prove excessively hard?
Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren
Photo by: Erik Junius
The supplier has already experimented with a difference between the harder compounds earlier this season, specifically in Belgium, but adverse weather conditions prevented a comprehensive assessment. They intend to revisit this concept in Austin and Mexico City.
In the meantime, the C6 will continue to exist – but when it resurfaces, it will need to be enhanced.
“Looking ahead, I would like to see a C6 that is more differentiated from the C5,” emphasized the supplier’s motorsport manager after the Canadian Grand Prix.
“Currently, the gap is around two tenths of a second; we need it to be at least half a second. Therefore, a more aggressive compound with a similar level of degradation to what we currently have would generate more diverse strategies.
“We are actively developing a C6 with this specific objective in mind for the upcoming year.”
