Time for 2 tyre manufacturers again?
#1
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:10
Advertisement
#2
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:13
Hankook want into f1, and a way around these current tyre problems could be to have two companies fighting each other. I'd love to see another variable come back into the mix.
Cant have that if the and since FIA wants a control tyre with rather short projected life.
Edited by Oho, 28 May 2013 - 07:04.
#3
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:14
#4
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:15
Why not three?
DMACK?
#5
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:16
#6
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:18
#7
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:18
If we went tire war, I'd like to see THREE brands.
FOUR
#8
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:18
#9
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:23
#10
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:24
#11
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:24
But I imagine then people claiming that team A won because he had better tyres etc.
So it is bad choice as well :]
#12
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:25
#13
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:26
#16
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:37
Maybe each team should have their own supplier; like brakes, helmets, and other stuff.
Are there even 12 tyre manufacturers that could do F1?
Although I'm happy with one supplier, if the teams really did have their own personal tyre it would probably be more fair than having two that concentrate their efforts on one team.
#18
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:46
Teams, rather than FiA would procure tires, and one supplier would supply maybe tires to two teams based on their respective agreements, with unrestricted development in compounds and structure, as long as geometry and form would remain compliant with basic specs. Selection of compounds for specific races, including number of stop-overs I would leave also to team strategists. No more parc ferme, no more regulatory meddling into tire business.Are there even 12 tyre manufacturers that could do F1?
Although I'm happy with one supplier, if the teams really did have their own personal tyre it would probably be more fair than having two that concentrate their efforts on one team.
#19
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:51
Advertisement
#20
Posted 27 May 2013 - 19:57
It would mean the complete end of Pirelli-style tires and the current form of racing.Hankook want into f1, and a way around these current tyre problems could be to have two companies fighting each other. I'd love to see another variable come back into the mix.
If thats all you want, you dont need to introduce another tire brand, just tell Pirelli to make a different type of tire.
Tire wars suck.
Edited by Seanspeed, 27 May 2013 - 19:58.
#21
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:00
Teams, rather than FiA would procure tires, and one supplier would supply maybe tires to two teams based on their respective agreements, with unrestricted development in compounds and structure, as long as geometry and form would remain compliant with basic specs. Selection of compounds for specific races, including number of stop-overs I would leave also to team strategists. No more parc ferme, no more regulatory meddling into tire business.
I thought you meant everyone gets a separate supplier for a minute, but you wouldn't find six tyre manufacturers either, especially if you want them to have unlimited development. There's no money for it, even if there was the will for a new tyre war.
#22
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:02
It would mean the complete end of Pirelli-style tires and the current form of racing.
If thats all you want, you dont need to introduce another tire brand, just tell Pirelli to make a different type of tire.
Tire wars suck.
So do tires that can't be pushed at all.
So do DRS passes.
So do races decided only by the car because the driver isn't even close to his personal driving limit.
#23
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:08
#24
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:10
Wait, when was F1 not decided by the car?
In our minds!
#25
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:15
Wait, when was F1 not decided by the car?
The days when winning because chronic unreliability knocked out all your opponents was down to pure driver skill.
#26
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:15
#27
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:21
More competition is always great, but that can only come from less regulations. Otherwise you'll just have two companies making the same lacklustre tyres.
I don't see that happening though. The trend is towards more regulation, more spec parts, and more control over the operations of the teams.
#28
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:21
That had more to do with the car design than with tyres.
Edited by darkkis, 27 May 2013 - 20:22.
#29
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:22
When Hamilton or Alonso drives it.Wait, when was F1 not decided by the car?
#30
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:28
Not since 2005, at the height of the tyre war between Bridgestone and Michelin, have the four cylindrical pieces of rubber bolted onto an F1 car been the main talking-point of the paddock and the watching media throughout a race weekend.
They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, and it is easy to suggest that a return to those days would be good for the sport. But there were plenty of people back then who became weary of watching races where the performance of a car was determined more by its choice of tyre-company than the skill of its driver or the expertise of its aerodynamicists, and there were many who clamoured for a move to a control tyre.
But there are those, myself included, who believe that F1 is fundamentally improved by variety; be it in chassis design, engine manufacturers, or indeed tyre makes. Competition is contagious, and it breeds speed, ingenuity, and progress. These are the qualities that enable the sport to attract millions of fans across the world, and are the markers for its superiority when compared to other forms of racing. They should therefore always be at the cornerstone of the technical regulations.
Successful law-making is about striking the correct balance between order and freedom, and in F1 it becomes a balance between entertainment and sporting values. Admittedly, the scales were skewed from 2001-2006, when Bridgestone was able to work closely with Ferrari to build a succession of deadly tyre and chassis combinations to the delight of the tifosi, but the detriment of everyone else. Yet, today the balance is off too, as we see a Formula that now preaches nurture rather than punishment, protection rather than attack, and endurance rather than sprint.
The lap record around Shanghai is 1:32.238, a time set by Michael Schumacher in the heady days that resulted from the particular nature of the 2004 rule-set. The fastest lap on Sunday was set by Sebastian Vettel, a 1:36.808, four and half seconds down on his compatriot despite nine years of technological development. And that time was set during the Red Bull driver’s near-qualifying run towards the end of the race, with the average bests of the other top cars firmly in the 1:39’s. Schumacher’s time was set in an era of refuelling, but even so, four and a half seconds is too big-a-gap for a sport that is supposed to pride itself on unsurpassed speed.
There is no doubt that the Chinese Grand Prix was entertaining, but the fundamental point is that entertaining races can be found in a whole host of other series; Indycar, GP2, British Touring Cars and sportscar racing to name just a few. The reason why F1 continued to hold its mystique in the processional era that precluded the move to highly-degradable tyres was that it was the undisputed leader in almost every field of motorsport, and engineers and drivers settled for nothing less than precise perfection.
The same cannot be said of the sport in 2013, where marginal tyres have rendered many traditional aspects of F1 to the status of moot points, with the overriding emphasis centred on keeping the tyres intact. Unfortunately, entertainment is vacuous without an attractive product to underpin it, and the attraction in F1 found in its ability to challenge engineering minds and showcase the talents of the greatest drivers on the planet. A car that is easy on its tyres, and a driver that can look after his rubber as opposed to aggressively battling for an overtake, should never be the features that lead a team to success.
Some races in the tyre war era may have been predictable, but at least we knew the reason for certain outcomes. They were the result of innovation and a sense of ferocious competition. The unpredictability of races in the Pirelli-era is more the result of luck over judgement; of whether you ruin your tyres stuck in the wake of another car, or wreck a race strategy from a simple lock-up. Nowadays, the car with more downforce can be at a disadvantage due to its propensity to work the rubber harder, and surely this flies in the face of progress?
For F1 to remain the premier sport on four wheels, a tyre war is a much better alternative to the current malaise. Sure, there were problems before, but the regulations could be changed so as to avoid the intensely close relations we saw between tyres and teams in the previous era. Ultimately, a variety of manufacturers allows fans to become emotionally invested in the fortunes of a company, and it adds another dimension to the show.
If the sport wishes to avoid the charge that it has sacrificed sporting values for entertainment, then it could do a lot worse than to instigate a tyre war, and bring speed back to the forefront of the minds of the teams, drivers, and fans alike.
People are very averse to it and I can understand why. If a tyre war was allowed, which I think is very unlikely, there would certainly have to be more regulations surrounding it than last time.
#31
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:30
#32
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:41
#33
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:45
But then we would have no pit stops at all, is that what you want?
#34
Posted 27 May 2013 - 20:47
Pirelli could make a fast tyre that lasts the full race distance.
But then we would have no pit stops at all, is that what you want?
I hate this stupid argument. It's either Black or White. Grey doesn't exist.
No. They can make a tyre that lasts 100km at full whack. It doesn't have to be either 300km tyres or 100km tyres but you have to drive like a granny.
#35
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:01
That must have been in the past. I've been reading a lot about that around here.Wait, when was F1 not decided by the car?
#36
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:04
As a wise man once said, we're fans. We don't know what we want.
We're... we're... women.
#37
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:06
I've argued for a tyre war before:
People are very averse to it and I can understand why. If a tyre war was allowed, which I think is very unlikely, there would certainly have to be more regulations surrounding it than last time.
They would probably have to homologate the exact shape of the tyre. I believe last time the tyre contact patch was homologated but Michelin were found guilty of cheating because the curvature at the edges effectively increased the contact patch unlike bridgestones which had a sharp drop off. It got pretty silly as you can imagine.
Maybe they should do it the other way - maximum weight and set cost. No other rules. But then the development costs get silly.
Maybe one decent tyre manufacturer is the answer.
#38
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:08
#39
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:12
As long as the current tyre allocation, qualy tyre rule, and the mandatory 2-compound rules are still in effect, I'm quite sure that another manufacturer won't solve the problems we have now.
Well the mandatory 2-compound wouldn't make any sense at all under a tyre war and would surely be dropped.
I don't understand where the will for a tyre war would come from, under a time it's said many teams are on the verge of folding. The fact the current tyres are funny doesn't really mean a control tyre is a bad idea, it only means the current tyres are funny.
Edited by noikeee, 27 May 2013 - 21:12.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:28
My post wasn't very long, yet it seems you only read the last 3 words.So do tires that can't be pushed at all.
So do DRS passes.
So do races decided only by the car because the driver isn't even close to his personal driving limit.
#41
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:46
My post wasn't very long, yet it seems you only read the last 3 words.
I read your entire post, but I don't agree with it. Multiple brands would be fundamentally different than one BS-style tire. Tires would be better at different parts of the weekend (qualifying, new tires, worn tires) and it's likely that the sticky tires created would encourage multiple stops between faster stints.
It doesn't matter anyway because it absolutely won't happen with the current popularity of F1 and economic situations around the world, nor would it solve F1's multiple woes that currently exist.
#42
Posted 27 May 2013 - 21:58
Saying this would have been far more useful than what you said before.I read your entire post, but I don't agree with it. Multiple brands would be fundamentally different than one BS-style tire. Tires would be better at different parts of the weekend (qualifying, new tires, worn tires) and it's likely that the sticky tires created would encourage multiple stops between faster stints.
It doesn't matter anyway because it absolutely won't happen with the current popularity of F1 and economic situations around the world, nor would it solve F1's multiple woes that currently exist.
I also never said that having two manufacturers is the exact same as having one, just that IF the intention is just to fix drivers not being able to push and get rid of the current Pirelli-style racing, you dont need two tire brands for that.
#43
Posted 27 May 2013 - 22:17
#44
Posted 28 May 2013 - 06:46
Edited by Sakae, 28 May 2013 - 06:47.
#45
Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:19
Formula 1 has become this "stock" class which it is not meant to be. Multiple tire suppliers would mean
1. Faster tires
2. Properly wearing tires
3. Better overall performing tires
4. Variables
Aren't all those things what people are wanting?
#46
Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:33
#47
Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:44
In that case there are already 11 different championships within one.No thanks. You just end up with two different championships within one. Its like giving 1/2 the teams one set of rules for front wings and the other half a different set. Not a fan.
#48
Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:23
Pirelli, Michelin and Bridgestone!
#49
Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:02
It was mostly the 2 tier championship it created. If they forced half the grid to using 1 or the other it might be better but then half the grid would be pissed off every weekend.
Why is that so different to when engines were a big performance differentiator, just as they're set to become once again next year? What do people have against competition between tyre marques? If the only criticism is that some manufacturers do a much better job than others, resulting in a less tightly knit field than we have now, well boo-hoo frankly - I thought the spirit of F1 was competition and to strive to do better, not this 'everyone's a winner' mentality. It's this sort of attitude that might see F1 eventually become a spec series, because spec series racing is better for the average punter, and the powers that be have cottoned on to the fact that close racing, no matter how artificial, is still more pleasing to the eye for most than an emphasis on technical perfection.
I accept that it's not necessarily practical, or desirable for the teams to introduce a tyre war again, I can put that to one side. But what I want to know is what fans have against it? If you can give me one good reason why there shouldn't be a tyre war, that isn't on a superficial level to do with the 'show' or the cost factor of it, if there is any genuine sporting reason why a tyre war isn't good then i'm all ears.
Edited by PretentiousBread, 28 May 2013 - 09:04.
#50
Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:14
Saying this would have been far more useful than what you said before.
I also never said that having two manufacturers is the exact same as having one, just that IF the intention is just to fix drivers not being able to push and get rid of the current Pirelli-style racing, you dont need two tire brands for that.
A tyre war is the most natural, least contrived way of achieving this, and probably the most sustainable in terms of fan interest - introduce a bit of Darwinism and there's no need to instruct a tyre supplier to produce better rubber, it just naturally happens, and so long as there is a tyre war the tyres will always be better. Natural selection is a more powerful force than zoo keepers trying to get Pandas to breed.
Edited by PretentiousBread, 28 May 2013 - 09:29.