36 replies to this topic

[Montoya1]

What do you think?

Should there be one supplier of tyres or should it remain open to competition?

dw

[HP]

There have been many exiting seasons with one tyre supplier and exiting seasons with multiple suppliers.

Considering the blaming that is going around over the last few years, from all sides, it's a good time to switch back to a single tyre rule.

Besides teams and FIA want single tyres. Only Michelin doesn't want that, even though they after all those years finally made it a championship winning tyre. But I won't shed a tyre if Michelin is out again. Possibly without Michelins involvement, we'd have seen a more even championship in the past few years.

It also remains to be seen how Pierre Dupasquiers retirement might change Michelins approach to racing per se.

Finally, it has been said that this season provided better racing on Sunday. Where I disagree with many is this. I do not believe it's because of the single tyre per race rule improved the racing, but that Michelin had the better tyre than Bridgestone. Except Ferrari, all top teams run Michelin. Suddenly there is a closer championship (in terms of WCC at least). If my opinion is correct, then a single tyre provider should actually improve competition even further.

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by Montoya1
What do you think?

Do you mean a single tyre supplier or single set of tyres used per race?

[chris_canuk]

A single tire supplier on a fixed term basis.

Allow innovations in tire technology to a limited degree.

Multiple sets of tires allowed during a race weekend, to be used as the teams decide.

[jokuvaan]

I think there should be 10 tyre makers that are given to teams by allotment, or something similar to this, like rotate.

[HBoss]

I voted no on impulse because I favour all competition, but I'm actually undecided.

[Ivan]

No because, I think BS will favor Ferrari with support. There should be more than one tyre supplier. Bring back Goodyear. The only reason they left was because of the grooves. Or better yet put everyone on Avons!!

[Timstr11]

I favor a single tyre rule because:
-It saves money
-It helps to keep a cap on speeds
-But more importantly it levels the plain field.

At least this year we have several top teams on the best tyre, but last year and prior to that we had ONE top team on the best tyre, enabling them to run away with the title easily.
Many of us were tired (no pun intended) of that.
Thank god this year Michelin have the upper hand and we can compare Michelin teams on the rest of their package.

[Montoya1]

Originally posted by Speed_A
Do you mean a single tyre supplier or single set of tyres used per race?

Sorry to be unclear.

I mean single tyre supplier.
dw

[angst]

I've asked this question on another thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask it again. Why do so many flinch away from the idea of a spec chassis, or a spec engine, and yet gleefully accept the idea of spec tyres? The worst offenders are those that espouse F1 as the 'technological pinnacle of motorsport', and yet are willing to accept a complete dilution of one of the few areas of F1 technology that probably does lead to any innovation to 'road legal' products.

As for tyres being too important; let's take a look at the history of Grand Prix racing. In fact, let's take a look at the very first Grand Prix in 1906. The winners, Ferenc Szisz (a Hungarian) won in a Renault. Why did they win? One of the major deciding factors in their victory was their use of Michelin's latest tyres, which were easier to replace than other's. Tyres, from the very first Grand Prix have played an integral part in the outcome of races.

I've seen views from people that must have been frothing at the mouth in anger at the idea of spec gear parts or brakes, but tyres, WTF?

The over-riding problem in F1 is not the tyre war, it's not qualifying, it's not the single set of tyres rule, it is the predominance of aerodynamic grip over mechanical grip. A single tyre manufacturer is OK by the FIA because it gives them an 'out'. It means they don't have to look at framing regualtions with very much thought at all. If the cars get too fast then, just make the tyres harder. The teams will be happy because they won't be asked to modify their cars too much. No, just make the tyres harder. For the FIA and the teams it is a panacea, a quick fix. Pop the single tyre manufacturer pill and all the ills of F1 disappear. I'm surprised so many are falling for it.

What is needed is some serious thought into where F1 heads over the next few years, some serious structure to the regulations, some serious long term planning, which nobody wants to face up to, so again they'd rather play around the edges and skirt the real issues.

A single supplier is a **** idea, IMO.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by angst
I've asked this question on another thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask it again. Why do so many flinch away from the idea of a spec chassis, or a spec engine, and yet gleefully accept the idea of spec tyres? The worst offenders are those that espouse F1 as the 'technological pinnacle of motorsport', and yet are willing to accept a complete dilution of one of the few areas of F1 technology that probably does lead to any innovation to 'road legal' products.

As for tyres being too important; let's take a look at the history of Grand Prix racing. In fact, let's take a look at the very first Grand Prix in 1906. The winners, Ferenc Szisz (a Hungarian) won in a Renault. Why did they win? One of the major deciding factors in their victory was their use of Michelin's latest tyres, which were easier to replace than other's. Tyres, from the very first Grand Prix have played an integral part in the outcome of races.

I've seen views from people that must have been frothing at the mouth in anger at the idea of spec gear parts or brakes, but tyres, WTF?

The over-riding problem in F1 is not the tyre war, it's not qualifying, it's not the single set of tyres rule, it is the predominance of aerodynamic grip over mechanical grip. A single tyre manufacturer is OK by the FIA because it gives them an 'out'. It means they don't have to look at framing regualtions with very much thought at all. If the cars get too fast then, just make the tyres harder. The teams will be happy because they won't be asked to modify their cars too much. No, just make the tyres harder. For the FIA and the teams it is a panacea, a quick fix. Pop the single tyre manufacturer pill and all the ills of F1 disappear. I'm surprised so many are falling for it.

What is needed is some serious thought into where F1 heads over the next few years, some serious structure to the regulations, some serious long term planning, which nobody wants to face up to, so again they'd rather play around the edges and skirt the real issues.

A single supplier is a **** idea, IMO.

To me F1 should be about the chassis (mechanicals/aero) and the engine. Not about a tire manufacturer.

[angst]

Originally posted by Timstr11
To me F1 should be about the chassis (mechanicals/aero) and the engine. Not about a tire manufacturer.

Why?

[ScudBoy]

Because its a contructors and drivers championship. not a tyre championship.

[angst]

Originally posted by ScudBoy
Because its a contructors and drivers championship. not a tyre championship.

And since when have races not been decided by tyres, in one way or another? Would you accept just any old shite tyres on your road car? Would you accept a spec gearbox? Or a spec engine? There's no engine championship, at least there wasn't last time I looked.

[Pilla]

Bring in more tire companies

[ehagar]

A single tyre supplier can be a good thing. I believe the single tyre rule has saved WSBK's bacon, despite the initial horror from the MSMA. I liked the idea, but thought Dunlop should have been given the nod...

What happened was that Michelin only gave tyres to Honda and the Ducati factory squad. Eventually when Honda pulled out there was one team on Michelins and the rest on Dunlops or Pirellis. That year was a complete joke. Other teams didn't have the right rubber and couldn't come close.

The following year with the Pirelli rule, teams had cheaper tyres and they knew they had the same quality as the factory team. All the sudden the factory team wasn't the best anymore. Haga almost won the title on the little Renegade effort. This year, dispite Corser and Suzuki smashing the opposition, the racing has been pretty good.

Now think about it... this is a sport with souped up production bikes... tyre marketing is important. I would venture it is also more relevant than F1 to the consumer. But they made the switch and benefited from it.

Now I realize that there isn't the equality of teams in F1 as in other forms of motorsport, but I for one would like to see the tyres taken OUT of the equation. I don't root for the smegging tyres, I root for the drivers and teams.

Have a tyre manufacturer sign a contract with the FIA to provide a certain number of tyres to a level of consistency. Then set a universal price for them. No special deals with one team. Hell, you can limit the number of tyres in the offseason so testing gets limited. If Ferrari wants more test miles, test another brand, race with the other.

[giddyup409]

Originally posted by angst


And since when have races not been decided by tyres, in one way or another?

to me, there's a big difference if the race is decided by "maintaining equal tires" than "fortunate to have more quality tires".
that's why i'd only vote for goodyear slicks.
design a car that goodyear slick could handle for 50 laps requires a technical miracle.
and a driver who can maintain goodyear slicks for 50 laps on a f1 and win a gp, requires a genius ;)

[HP]

Originally posted by angst


And since when have races not been decided by tyres, in one way or another? Would you accept just any old shite tyres on your road car? Would you accept a spec gearbox? Or a spec engine? There's no engine championship, at least there wasn't last time I looked.

How you extra the most out of a tyre is the task of the chassis. That is down to the teams. However if one tyre is 1 second a lap slower than the other, then those teams with the slower tyre are out of the picture. What would you prefer this year? A 2 horse fight, or a 3 horse fight. With a single tyre supplier this year, we'd had Ferrari also in the mix, making the championship more exciting. (I know it was Ferrari who didn't want that rule, but lets that leave out of the discussion. Ferrari paid for that.)

The argument, that F1 technology has to rub off into road cars from your earlier post, is more an excuse to pacify environmentalists than anything else IMO. I mean on what grounds do we justify an open wheeler series anyway? Open wheelers are impractical on normal roads, especially when it rains, dirt on the road, etc. What I expect from F1 most, is that we see fast cars competing each other. Cars that can overtake one another. And if a single tyre supplier helps to that end (which I believe it does), then lets do that.

And I don't believe F1 tyre technology goes into road cars as well. From Rally series possibly, but F1? We have a few street circuits remaining, the rest of the tracks is specialized to meet the needs of current F1 cars. Even old tracks are being modified to that end. And who needs a tyre that lasts 400 km at most? Who needs tyres on road cars that are very sensitive to temperature changes that affect tyre pressure?

In the latest FIA proposal they are talking about technology related measuring the tyre pressure, etc. Funny thing is such technology already can be done on a road car easily. I mean when Max Mosley talked about the challenge of the coennctions during a tyre change I had to laugh. Is it that hard to make a marker on the rim, where the connections are located, and even make the system in a way that it snaps in automatically auring a tyre change?

All what I want are rules that provide exciting racing, while still allow for innovative ideas. If different tyre manufacturors have tyres that differ vastly in performance, then for the sake of racing - which is the main reason for F1's existence - it's better to go back to a singe tyre supplier. F1 won't be less the pinnacle of motorsports because of that issue.

[Melbourne Park]

I haven't read any of the posts. But my interest is in the cars, drivers and teams. Not in the tyres.

I reckon there should be just six tyres: four dry weather compound levels, the hardest should require three stops at Indy on a not hot day, a wet and an intermediate tyre.

Having four compounds hopefully should allow the teams and drivers different choices.

I am not sure if a team should have to stick with the same compound for the entire race though.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by angst


Why?

As said by another poster it should be about the work put in by the constructor back at the base. I want the result of the R&D and cleverness to shine through. A tyre manufacturer can completely negate that. Look at Ferrari now. I am sure there chassis and aero are very good, but they could not even run in the points last Sunday (I don't mind though as I am no Ferrari fan).
Tyres can wipeout and advantage you have made with your chassis, or you can disproportionally gain speed from them.

[kos]

I voted no because I love competition and I want to see it in every aspect of F1

[Mauseri]

Single tyre make with a robust full race tyre is good.

[D82]

Originally posted by Timstr11
To me F1 should be about the chassis (mechanicals/aero) and the engine. Not about a tire manufacturer.

F1 should be about the chassis, the engine AND the tire manifacturers. Thats the nature of the sport.

[Pilla]

Why dont we have a control engine as well, half the teams on the grid dont make their own engines so they have no control over it, if someone like Merc builds a better engine than Cosworth then its not fair on teams like Red Bull and Minardi; They could have the best chassis on the grid for all we know.

[Alapan]

More tyre manufacturers the better. Ideally we would have 4 tyre manufacturers with three teams each ...

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Pilla
Why dont we have a control engine as well, half the teams on the grid dont make their own engines so they have no control over it, if someone like Merc builds a better engine than Cosworth then its not fair on teams like Red Bull and Minardi; They could have the best chassis on the grid for all we know.

With the current state of play, engines attribute significantly less to the performance difference then tyres do.

[Blue]

Originally posted by D82

F1 should be about the chassis, the engine AND the tire manifacturers. Thats the nature of the sport.

I totally agree.

Maybe they should bring more tire manufacturers to the game.
Monopoly = low tech

[tifosi]

Originally posted by angst
one of the few areas of F1 technology that probably does lead to any innovation to 'road legal' products.

Actually both companies have said that their F1 work does not translate at all into their road tyres. An F1 tyre would be a piece of **** on a road car. The compounds are totally worthless on a road tyre and there is no tread design.

[HP]

Originally posted by Blue
Monopoly = low tech

Way to go until tyres get low tech. From Max Mosley on the proposed 2008 rules

And finally, on the tyres, all the tyre dimensions and things like that are in the regulations you've seen a long time ago, but the new technology that we will allow and indeed encourage with the tyres is active tyre pressures. That would have safety implications in Formula One, that's to say the tyre could be maintained at a given a pressure at all times, actively. That has great safety implications for Formula One because we wouldn't lose pressure when the safety car was out and things of that kind: different times of day, temperatures and so on.

[Blue]

Originally posted by tifosi


Actually both companies have said that their F1 work does not translate at all into their road tyres. An F1 tyre would be a piece of **** on a road car. The compounds are totally worthless on a road tyre and there is no tread design.

It is hard to believe that “F1 work does not translate at all into their road tyres”. Tire design and getting most out of their tire – with common sense – most likely will improve also the road car tires if not directly then by increasing know how.

[Blue]

Originally posted by HP
Way to go until tyres get low tech. From Max Mosley on the proposed 2008 rules

Nice new rule, I hope they take that. However, safety implication may well be on the negative side

Some product car already has an active pressure monitoring and maintaining system in case of puncture (Mercedes?).

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Blue


It is hard to believe that “F1 work does not translate at all into their road tyres”. Tire design and getting most out of their tire – with common sense – most likely will improve also the road car tires if not directly then by increasing know how.

The technology is way to different. Road tyres must last 30,000 miles and more, whereas F1 tyres are designed to last 3-400kms. The compounds used for these two different applications have absolutely nothing in common. At least according to Bridgestone and Michellin. They copuld, of course, be lieing, but for the life of me can't understand why.

[ASD]

I'm in favour of a single tyre.

Hey, how many of you guys thought 2004 was predictable and boring? I did, even though I cheer for MS.
Why did Ferrari leave the rest for dead? Yes they had a good chassis and engine, but not streets ahead of their main rivals. Yes they had a top driver - in my view the best, but still that doesn't explain why he won 13 races in a season.
They had the best overall package - and their main rivals didn't have the BS tyre.
Season was a no-contest.

Just imagine BS solve their present problems (which are major, but it's not unimaginable that they crack it), and we get another season like 2004. What would all the non-Ferrari or non-MS fans be saying about the tyre war?

[ivanalesi]

OK, if we have Dunlop tyres fitted to every car, but ones with Dunlop sign on the walls, the others with Polnud, will you see the difference?
Not to mention this funny mania on tyre makers to promote how important are tyres to car, and how much fans dont give enough credit to them and all the bs - fans need racing morons! Tyres need double testing, designing cars around them, making huge differences in performance(though in a very very remote case, they would even it), so why on earth do we need them? To watch Dupasqwhatever beg for a chicane and rob us from a race?
Or may be, "we are training our engineers in F1 and you will see the benefit with your own tyres in the future!" Spend a billion on r&d instead of marketing and I'll see it better!

[angst]

Originally posted by ivanalesi
OK, if we have Dunlop tyres fitted to every car, but ones with Dunlop sign on the walls, the others with Polnud, will you see the difference?
Not to mention this funny mania on tyre makers to promote how important are tyres to car, and how much fans dont give enough credit to them and all the bs - fans need racing morons! Tyres need double testing, designing cars around them, making huge differences in performance(though in a very very remote case, they would even it), so why on earth do we need them? To watch Dupasqwhatever beg for a chicane and rob us from a race?
Or may be, "we are training our engineers in F1 and you will see the benefit with your own tyres in the future!" Spend a billion on r&d instead of marketing and I'll see it better!

So, a single engine rule as well? They need "double testing", the cars need to be designed around them. Let's say every enfine had Ford etched into them, except half the field who would have Drof, will you see the difference?

[ivanalesi]

no, i'll just hear it. same goes to you and anyone else outside f1.

[angst]

Originally posted by ivanalesi
no, i'll just hear it. same goes to you and anyone else outside f1.

So, as you obviously missed the point, would you be for or against a single engine supplier for F1?