From this post of mine, Sumeet got the impression that I was blaming the one-tyre-rule for the Indianapolis fiasco. Far from it. The blame for the fiasco lies entirely woth Michelin.
But I hate the one-tyre rule nevertheless, because it has made the game poorer. No matter how great the tyres are developed, there will be wear and tear, And when there is wear and tear, drivers will take caution. And when drivers take caution, the standards of racing are set to fall.
Most races this year have been a bit like many Hindi films. The first half has been exciting and promising, and the second half has been tepid, predictable and disappointing. There have hardly been any dog-fights in the second half of the race, and if you listen to the occasional radio communication excerpts between the teams and drivers, the instructions are almost always to "finish" rather than try something ambitious. The teams get afflicted with the "a second place in hand is worth two wins in the bush" syndrome.
In the good old days of tyre changes, a driver after changing tyres, could launch an offensive on the car in front of him without worrying too much about tyre failure. It gave us several classic races with race leads changing due to overtaking manouevres even in the closing stages.
Now even though we have seen a couple of races where we feel that that the race leader is being challenged, one has hardly seen a real challenge being mounted. race leads have almost every time changed, if at all, due to pit strategy.
Return to old tyre rules will make racing more exciting than it currently is.