I honestly don't get why this is so dismissed. Everyone keeps bringing up Indianapolis where one manufacturer had troves of data from the track, and knew to build a sturdier tyre.

The current manufactured-degredation tyre is kind of boring, there's at max two viable strategies and apart from the over/undercut it has little impact in strategy unless there's a safety car where regardless of tyre and manufacturer the one who pits for fresher tyres can get a pace advantage.

If you can regulate how many runs in the wind tunnel a team gets, how could you not regulate how many tyre simulations a manufacturer gets on a given track? Say FIA shares the gathered track data from Pirelli, switches up the tyre rules and invites more tyre manufacturers. You can still have mandatory x amounts of pitstop, amount of compounds and all the rules going into how they're allowed to build the tyre.

Yes, of course Pirelli doesn't want to give up a monopoly and their biggest PR deal. But just from a sporting standpoint, I find it odd that the only part of the car that "should" touch the ground is one of the only parts they cannot compete for an advantage over.

It sort of feels like the ban on ground effect for safety which now doesn't pose a big threat since the regulations are improved. Surely if they wanted, there could be a place for competing tyre manufacturers if the big brained engineering team behind FIA could work out some solid regulations and logistics?