35 replies to this topic

[Dooly Tilly]

How do you feel about the situation we have now where BS provide all the F1 tyres?
Is this better for F1 because it's more equal? Or was the tyre war something that added to the variables of a Grand Prix?
And in terms of quality, how much better would the BS tyres be if Michelin were still competing? Would they be more reliable?
Please discuss.

[Atreiu]

Not really.
Introducing spec tyres might be a remedy for some problems, but not a permanent solution.

[MikeTekRacing]

yes, i fully support it
i don't care how much better bs would be if michelin were still around. i don't care for differences up to 1sec per lap just because of tyres and not in control of the teams.

[petri]

The season has been very, very tight this year, as it was last year. Need I say more?

[Manson]

Yes. It's a better barometer of where the teams are. No bitching about how team A would smoke team B if they were on tire X instead of tire Y.

[Scotracer]

Yes, I do like their being only one manufacturer but what I don't like about it is the lack of tyre development which a tyre war brings on. The tyres haven't changed in 2 years because Bridgestone doesn't have to :

[glorius&victorius]

Yes its a good thing. What is not good is that there is little difference between the compounds and according to Kimi the consistency of compounds varies.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by Scotracer
Yes, I do like their being only one manufacturer but what I don't like about it is the lack of tyre development which a tyre war brings on. The tyres haven't changed in 2 years because Bridgestone doesn't have to :

what kind of tyre development would you like to see?

[Zarathustra]

The tyre war added an extra dimension to the sport that I personally enjoyed.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by petri
The season has been very, very tight this year, as it was last year. Need I say more?

Yes because you're current arguing for F1 to have spec cars and engines too. GP2 might be more your thing.

i don't care how much better bs would be if michelin were still around. i don't care for differences up to 1sec per lap just because of tyres and not in control of the teams.

But you don't mind it happening just because of drivers and engines and not in control of (most) teams?

The teams chose which tyres to use, just as they choose their drivers, they were as in control of one as the other.

--

Spec ANYTHING is not and should never be F1.

[Kooper]

Personally I believe everything in F1 ought to be about competition. Tyres, engines, chassis'... even motor oil. The dumbing down that has taken place is not what the pinnacle of motorsport is supposed to be about.

[Hippo]

The tire war was adding to the competition. I liked it.

[Scotracer]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius


what kind of tyre development would you like to see?

Well the current tyres are no where near as grippy as those used in 2006. It just shows that when a single manufacturer comes in, they can dictate (with FIAs direction) what sort of performance level the cars can have. I don't like that -- they should always be pushing the boundaries. We could quite easily see a grooved tyre with a coefficient of grip over 1.9 which is what they have now. The slicks next year will have 2.5 most likely but they could, with a lot of work, get that out of a groove.

[pgj]

No No No No No No No No!

Sorry, no.

A single tyre supplier, along with prime/option tyres has spoiled F1. F1 no longer rewards good engineering and unless a chassis scrubs rubber off its tyres, a car will suffer grip problems. Gone are the days when a car that was light on its tyres was seen to be an advantage. Slicks may go some way towards restoring the balance, but I am not a fan of the current tyre regulations or Bridgestone.

It may be a slightly jaundiced view because I am not convinced that Williams has ever got a Bridgestone tyre to work properly over a season.

[MichaelPM]

Would I like a single engine supplier?
Would I like a single chassis supplier?

All answers are no.

[scheivlak]

I was always against it and I'm still on principle, but I have to say that Bridgestone do a good and honest job under the current regulations.

[Dooly Tilly]

Does anyone think that perhaps BS choose which compounds they take to a race based on which team(s) will benefit the most? I mean, if they were choosing between two compounds, one of which they knew would suit McLaren better and the other one Ferrari.... would their decision be in any way influenced by the fact that Ferrari were loyal customers from 2002-2006 wheras McLaren had dumped them for the French stuff? :

[undersquare]

A single supplier I can agree with, I don't care if Michelin outperform Bridgestone or vise-versa, there's nothing to see and it's not an aspect of the racing I'm interested in.

But the teams need more say over what they bring to each race, rather than having to design and set up a car to suit the tyres the supplier decides on.

The rule of using two grades in a race is artificial and should be scrapped.

And the scope for the supplier to favour an old ally should be removed.

[Gareth]

I think it's a good thing for competition within a race. If the two best teams in any given season are on different rubber, you will rarely find a race where they are evenly matched, whichever tyre is on top that weekend will mean the team that runs on that tyre can sail off in to the distance.

[Sakae]

That's why we need a new MM with new ideas, scrapping most of that garbage we see today. Uniformity is killing NASCAR (sport is on decline), just as IRL. Suprise who will show up at next race with what novelty, that's what drew me to F1 track. Max kill that.

[Garagiste]

I don't mind there only being one supplier, but the nonsense of having to run both compounds in the race I could happily do without.

[Enzoluis]

I would push more the rule, only one soft and one hard compound for all the season.
Is not the same one tire for all than one engine or one chasis for all.

[Perigee]

A single tyre-manufacturer series removes (much of the) problem about the tyres, rather than the car or driver, being the deciding factor, so regard it as a good thing on the whole.

Additionally, if you want to keep speeds down, having only 1 tyre manufacturer tends to slow down development, and therefore speeds. If Michelin were still competing the Bridgestones would almsot certainly be quicker.

[Alfisti]

Imagine this year with a tyre war. Assuming Ferrari and McL ar eon different tyres, if one is just a little better than the other we'd see either team blow the other into the weeds.

Then to top it all off, all you'd hear is tyres, tyres, tyres, tyres alll friggin weekend.

Fine how it is now.

[Galko877]

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing
yes, i fully support it
i don't care how much better bs would be if michelin were still around. i don't care for differences up to 1sec per lap just because of tyres and not in control of the teams.

+1

[DoubleWDC]

Originally posted by Dooly Tilly
Does anyone think that perhaps BS choose which compounds they take to a race based on which team(s) will benefit the most? I mean, if they were choosing between two compounds, one of which they knew would suit McLaren better and the other one Ferrari.... would their decision be in any way influenced by the fact that Ferrari were loyal customers from 2002-2006 wheras McLaren had dumped them for the French stuff? :

If anything BS nowadays is more pro McLaren than Ferrari. If they had preferrence for Ferrari all races would be run on soft compounds. Let's not also forget BS got some criticism from Ferrari after Hockenheim.

[petri]

Originally posted by Dudley


Yes because you're current arguing for F1 to have spec cars and engines too. GP2 might be more your thing.

Did I say that???

The chassis's and engines are manufactured or tuned by the team itself so it's complitely different thing. Drivers are also part of the team, they are trained inside the team and the car is tuned for the driver personally. However, I hate to see teams struggling whatever good job they have done just because the tyre is hopeless in certain conditions - we saw that clearly in the past.

And thank you, I'll stick to F1 - been following it since the 70's.

[Dooly Tilly]

Originally posted by DoubleWDC


If anything BS nowadays is more pro McLaren than Ferrari. If they had preferrence for Ferrari all races would be run on soft compounds. Let's not also forget BS got some criticism from Ferrari after Hockenheim.

Eitherway, it's a shame that BS has the utimate power to decide the outcome of races & the championship.

[Deeq]

Unbelievable, You still want more - of the same - rule changes after all the crazy **** F1 had endured through the last decade...
Tyre war means faster cars which means yet another round of - FiA fiddling - with engine and Aero regs...I suppose you guys enjoy so much about bitching about FiAs - costly - annual rule changes that it is become a sacred tradition you can't live without,so to speak. Hence this incomprehensible yearning for the irrational..tyre war.
Max is an amateur compared to you or so it seems...re SM tendencies.

[Blythy]

more companies should be in on it - michelin, kumho, goodyear, pirelli (!), avon, more companies, more competition.

[Smudger]

Originally posted by MiPe
That's why we need a new MM with new ideas, scrapping most of that garbage we see today. Uniformity is killing NASCAR (sport is on decline), just as IRL. Suprise who will show up at next race with what novelty, that's what drew me to F1 track. Max kill that.

You've hit an important nail on the head. The 'rot' set in with specs for V8 engines, only 4 wheels, highly prescriptive aero regulations and so forth which dial out almost all innovation and change. How could a new Chapman or Jim Hall make the sort of design leaps that were the most exciting thing about the technical side of F1 in today's climate? Similarly the entry rules mean that no company can take a risk and enter an experimental car, say in their home grand prix, or an extra car for a rising star driver. These were things which made F1 wild and edgy, not the corporate blandness we have today. Was I the only person to see the irony in Frank Williams objecting to teams buying customer cars? I'd rather see half a dozen McLarens and a few Ferraris than Toro Rosso and Force India. Although, a field big enough to encompass both would be nice. Remember fields of 30+ and prequalifying? That was the 'bad old days'. Now, we are looking at the serious possibility of fields of 18.

[Dooly Tilly]

Originally posted by Blythy
more companies should be in on it - michelin, kumho, goodyear, pirelli (!), avon, more companies, more competition.

Kumho and Avon are too low-budget for F1 and Goodyear just embarrassed themselves last time around.

[Blythy]

Originally posted by Dooly Tilly

Kumho and Avon are too low-budget for F1 and Goodyear just embarrassed themselves last time around.

bridgestone kinda embarrassed themselves in 2005. (as did michelin, kinda). As for the low budget - the budget will lower if they're only supplying one team, although the reasearch costs will still be pretty high.... hmm..

[Sakae]

Originally posted by Dooly Tilly
How do you feel about the situation we have now where BS provide all the F1 tyres?
Is this better for F1 because it's more equal? Or was the tyre war something that added to the variables of a Grand Prix?
And in terms of quality, how much better would the BS tyres be if Michelin were still competing? Would they be more reliable?
Please discuss.

Problem is, that it's bad "as is", but difference betwen former suppliers were affecting race results just far too much for my personal comfort.

[Vegetableman]

I voted for yes but I would put up with it if some other rules were enforced, ie,
A tyre that is hard enough to last the race, and two compounds of that. Just like in 2005 but no enforced lack of tyre changes, just allow teams to run longer strategies.
Have those two compounds be the only two available and the teams can pick and choose to use whichever whenever they like.
The two things I like least about the current situation is
A: Bridgestone enforce upon the teams which tyres they are to use at the track
B: The having to use both compounds rule. It's a waste of time, doesn't provide the promised on track excitement and seems to be causing some teams hassle. Plus that white line looks stupid, and I can't imagine what they'll do on the slicks.

[ViMaMo]

Michelin better, ahhh why dont we have Michelins.
Bridgestone better, same thing.