281 replies to this topic

[Tapz63]

It would seem so, what with Pirelli offering to do whatever the FIA wants and Michelin setting conditions needed for their entry.

[Victor_RO]

It would seem so, what with Pirelli offering to do whatever the FIA wants and Michelin setting conditions needed for their entry.

 

The article says that the FIA would accept either manufacturer, so they must have had an agreement with Michelin about what would change in the technical regulations should they get the contract. The bigger issue is the amount of money Pirelli currently pumps into trackside advertising... and directly or indirectly into FOM's coffers. And also Bernie's bad impression of Michelin.

[andrewf1]

It should be the FIA's decision, not Bernie's  seeing as the choice of tire manufacturer & design is first and foremost a technical aspect.

 

It's ridiculous that he's to one who has the final say, given his concern for the "show". The only meeting with FOM should be about levels of sponsorship money and exposure.

 

As it is, the possibility of a multi-million, lucrative, long term investment in technology and advertising, for each tire manufacturer, hangs in the hands of a senile 85-year old who's out of touch with the sport and world in general.    

[ANF]

Why not ask the drivers? Let them vote, anonymously.

 

I don't think any of them would want to spend another five years trying to race on Pirelli's tyres.

Edited by ANF, 21 July 2015 - 22:20.

[PayasYouRace]

At first I thought it should really be the FIA's decision. But it appears the FIA have approved both manufacturers, so it has now passed out of the technical domain and into the commercial, which is a matter for FOM.

[Donka]

It should be the FIA's decision, not Bernie's  seeing as the choice of tire manufacturer & design is first and foremost a technical aspect.

 

It's ridiculous that he's to one who has the final say, given his concern for the "show". The only meeting with FOM should be about levels of sponsorship money and exposure.

 

As it is, the possibility of a multi-million, lucrative, long term investment in technology and advertising, for each tire manufacturer, hangs in the hands of a senile 85-year old who's out of touch with the sport and world in general.    

Unless Bernie has concrete evidence that the changes to engine and technical/design regs that have been proposed "to improve racing" are actually going to be agreed by the teams in their little cabal, he just may give Michelin the contract to mix things up.  Word is Merc is making the tyre's work best out of any team and this may be a way to slow them down.  

 

What is Pirelli's $50m in trackside ads doing for the sport when Merc dominance is seeing TV and attendance #'s dropping.  Ultimately it's those #'s he is worried about most, so if Michelin comes in with a half way decent offer, it may be enough.

[Lennat]

If we look back on the last tire war (2001-2006), weren't the tires fairly even for the most part, except from 2005? Of course it's hard to tell exactly when comparing different cars, but still. 

 

Edit: And also when comparing Bridgestone and Goodyear in 1997 and 1998, we had no proper top cars on Bridgestones in '97, but they were very good on some occasions no matter what. And we had a very close fight for the championship in 1998...

Edited by Lennat, 22 July 2015 - 11:39.

[FerrariV12]

Unless Bernie has concrete evidence that the changes to engine and technical/design regs that have been proposed "to improve racing" are actually going to be agreed by the teams in their little cabal, he just may give Michelin the contract to mix things up.  Word is Merc is making the tyre's work best out of any team and this may be a way to slow them down.  

 

What is Pirelli's $50m in trackside ads doing for the sport when Merc dominance is seeing TV and attendance #'s dropping.  Ultimately it's those #'s he is worried about most, so if Michelin comes in with a half way decent offer, it may be enough.

 

Possibly, but without a tyre war I can't see Merc being beaten. A control tyre is a control tyre.

 

Yes you get situations where a car suits particularly hard or particularly soft tyres, Mercedes themselves back in 2013 were a bit like this, but they're too well rounded now I think.

 

 

If we think back to the last tire war (2001-2006), wasn't the tires fairly even for the most part, except from 2005? Of course it's hard to tell exactly when comparing different cars, but still. 

 

 

Michelin definitely had a big advantage mid-2003, but otherwise yeah (in my opinion, as you say it's hard to tell definitively, which for me is part of the fun).

 

Some days Michelins would be better and Williams/McLaren/Renault would have a shot at winning, some days the Bridgestones were better and Schumacher won a bit more comfortably than he would have done otherwise, but over the period as a whole it was far from one-sided.

Edited by FerrariV12, 21 July 2015 - 22:52.

[andrewf1]

Unless Bernie has concrete evidence that the changes to engine and technical/design regs that have been proposed "to improve racing" are actually going to be agreed by the teams in their little cabal, he just may give Michelin the contract to mix things up.  Word is Merc is making the tyre's work best out of any team and this may be a way to slow them down.  

 

What is Pirelli's $50m in trackside ads doing for the sport when Merc dominance is seeing TV and attendance #'s dropping.  Ultimately it's those #'s he is worried about most, so if Michelin comes in with a half way decent offer, it may be enough.

 

I wouldn't go there. TV and attendance have not dropped because of the Merc dominance, that's sort of just wishful thinking from anti-Merc fans. They dropped because of a very large number of factors, ranging from technical regulations to lack of online media exposure to overpriced tickets and bad mouthing the sport & engines every 2 weeks instead of promoting them.

 

If Bernie really cared about attendance dropping, he would look at his own way of running the sport, not find a scapegoat in Merc or Pirelli. 

 

That being said your theory of him giving Michelin a chance just for the sake of changing things sounds somehow plausible, but it's very improbable.

[PayasYouRace]

If we look back on the last tire war (2001-2006), weren't the tires fairly even for the most part, except from 2005? Of course it's hard to tell exactly when comparing different cars, but still. 

 

Edit: And also when comparing Bridgestone and Goodyear in 1997 and 1998, we had no proper top cars on Bridgestones, but they were very good on some occasions no matter what. And we had a very close fight for the championship in 1998...

 

McLaren and Benetton switched to Bridgestone for 1998.

[automovelbrilhante]

Sold to the highest bidder. Bernie doesn't like them 18 inch wheels, or whatever wheely, he loves money.  

[foxyracer]

At first I thought it should really be the FIA's decision. But it appears the FIA have approved both manufacturers, so it has now passed out of the technical domain and into the commercial, which is a matter for FOM.

 

If as you suggest it has passed out of the technical domain, the commercial outcome should be a no-brainer in favour of Michelin.  They will make a tyre that lasts the whole weekend at least so why would that not be cheaper all round than Pirellis that last 20 laps?

 

Perhaps though it hasn't passed out of the technical domain.  How can the FIA approve two completely different solutions unless both are going to be permitted?  Each solution has its own set of technical and sporting rules and that's FIA territory - or it should be.  Maybe Bernie does hold all the power.....

[foxyracer]

What we need is a tyre that lasts the whole race (i.e. Michelin) but with tyre changes still permitted but just made unattractive in the competitive sense.  Overtaking would have to happen on the track so a big incentive to design cars that can overtake.  Tyre changes could still be made in the event of punctures, flat-spots or even an unbalanced set but they should take 30 seconds not 3. Restricting the number of people allowed to work on the car at a stop to two would achieve this and save loads of money because numbers of "mechanics" would reduce dramatically.

[Fastcake]

What we need is a tyre that lasts the whole race (i.e. Michelin) but with tyre changes still permitted but just made unattractive in the competitive sense. Overtaking would have to happen on the track so a big incentive to design cars that can overtake. Tyre changes could still be made in the event of punctures, flat-spots or even an unbalanced set but they should take 30 seconds not 3. Restricting the number of people allowed to work on the car at a stop to two would achieve this and save loads of money because numbers of "mechanics" would reduce dramatically.

You are aware that the teams do not hire people for the sole purpose of changing tyres, right?

[PayasYouRace]

If as you suggest it has passed out of the technical domain, the commercial outcome should be a no-brainer in favour of Michelin.  They will make a tyre that lasts the whole weekend at least so why would that not be cheaper all round than Pirellis that last 20 laps?

 

Perhaps though it hasn't passed out of the technical domain.  How can the FIA approve two completely different solutions unless both are going to be permitted?  Each solution has its own set of technical and sporting rules and that's FIA territory - or it should be.  Maybe Bernie does hold all the power.....

 

The Autosport report seemed to suggest that both have FIA approval. The FIA can easily say, "Yes, either of these are suitable. You pick the one that you prefer. We will apply the rules appropriate to your decision."

[Lennat]

McLaren and Benetton switched to Bridgestone for 1998.

Sorry, I meant in 1997. Edited my post now.

Edited by Lennat, 22 July 2015 - 11:39.

[Tapz63]

The Autosport report seemed to suggest that both have FIA approval. The FIA can easily say, "Yes, either of these are suitable. You pick the one that you prefer. We will apply the rules appropriate to your decision."

But it is much more likely the FIA will say, "We would prefer the tyre supplier willing to do as we ask".

[SealTheDiffuser]

I don't like Pirelli's but also don't like low profile tyres... classical "lose/lose" I assume

 

the scandal is, FIA should kick out Pirelli for their inability to produce functioning wet weather tyres, but that won't happen. (you know what I mean... , garbled sentence )

Edited by SealTheDiffuser, 22 July 2015 - 13:10.

[KingTiger]

If we look back on the last tire war (2001-2006), weren't the tires fairly even for the most part, except from 2005? Of course it's hard to tell exactly when comparing different cars, but still. 

 

Edit: And also when comparing Bridgestone and Goodyear in 1997 and 1998, we had no proper top cars on Bridgestones in '97, but they were very good on some occasions no matter what. And we had a very close fight for the championship in 1998...

 

No, they were not fairly even. Michellin were pretty poor in 2002 and 2004, but they were the only option most teams had, since Bridgestone designed their tires for Ferrari only. 

[ElJefe]

Is there no possibility that BCE will agree to a tyre war? Or is this just wishful thinking from my part? 

[FerrariV12]

Is there no possibility that BCE will agree to a tyre war? Or is this just wishful thinking from my part? 

 

I was about to reply to this with the usual comment about the odds being comparable with hell freezing over, me having a three-way with (insert famous attractive women here), peace in the Middle East, McLaren winning at Monza, etc.

 

But the way I see it, based on what I've seen him say down the years, Bernie pretty much doesn't have any opinions beyond what will make him more money. I can guarantee if the new engines had brought in loads of new fans, had brought in loads of rich environmentally-aware companies pouring money into FOM's coffers to be associated with the sport, he'd think the engines sounded beautiful.

 

If he could concoct a way to milk Michelin/Pirelli/whoever into bettering his bottom line for the privilege of them competing against each other, he'd be all for it.

 

But I can't see a situation where that happens, so I refer you to my first paragraph. Sadly

[scheivlak]

No, they were not fairly even. Michellin were pretty poor in 2002 and 2004, but they were the only option most teams had, since Bridgestone designed their tires for Ferrari only. 

Michelin were not poor at all in 2004 - just look at BAR's results, changing from Bridgestone to Michelin. And when Sauber changed to MIchelin at the end of 2004 they suddenly started topping the timing sheets in test sessions!

 

As I pointed out in other threads, it wasn't Michelin who failed in 2004. It was McLaren with the anorexic MP4/19 and Williams with their walrus design.

[Fastcake]

Is there no possibility that BCE will agree to a tyre war? Or is this just wishful thinking from my part? 

 

It wouldn't matter if he did. That decision is not up to him.

[OvDrone]

I want Michelin to come back and make Pirelli pay for the sins of the last five years.

[foxyracer]

You are aware that the teams do not hire people for the sole purpose of changing tyres, right?

 

Of course I am.  But the numbers of people the teams take to races now is ridiculous.  The whole thing needs to be simplified and if it ever got to the stage where teams were saying that they had to take 15 people just to change tyres this is the perfect solution.

[SpeedRacer`]

Michelin were not poor at all in 2004 - just look at BAR's results, changing from Bridgestone to Michelin. And when Sauber changed to MIchelin at the end of 2004 they suddenly started topping the timing sheets in test sessions!

 

As I pointed out in other threads, it wasn't Michelin who failed in 2004. It was McLaren with the anorexic MP4/19 and Williams with their walrus design.

 

There was a definite swing during the season though. Bridgestone had a significant advantage at the beginning of the season that Michelin gradually eroded. 

 

It wasn't a coincidence that McLaren, Williams, BAR and Renault were closer or even faster than Ferrari's ultimate pace during the final few races.

[Seanspeed]

I'm fine with Pirelli, but I'd like to see tires with a bit wider operating windows. Right now it just seems a bit too hit and miss with teams trying to maintain proper tire temperatures.

People that want more durable tires seem to ignore that almost every time we come to a race where the tires hold up just fine throughout most of the race, we get predictable and boring racing and people complain about it. Degrading tires have been great for the racing overall.

It just creates a situation where you basically finish how you qualify. The difference between qualifying and race pace diminishes substantially. Even if you do find yourself 'out of order', you better hope the car in front of you doesn't have a better top speed than you, otherwise you're going to spend the entire race behind them with little chance of getting by. Pitstops are useful right now because due to discrepancies in power output of various engines, you sometimes *need* another way of getting by a car in front of you. It's all well and good to say that all passing should be done on track, but the reality is that it's just not possible in many situations.

[Seanspeed]

There was a definite swing during the season though. Bridgestone had a significant advantage at the beginning of the season that Michelin gradually eroded. 
 
It wasn't a coincidence that McLaren, Williams, BAR and Renault were closer or even faster than Ferrari's ultimate pace during the final few races.

What I hated about the tire wars was that just like with the cars, which tire was best often changed from track to track, or even with changes in conditions. The tire manufacturer you used simply played *too* much of a role in the competitive order of things from weekend to weekend. And I hate that. I much prefer to see the tires be a 'standard' thing, where everybody is on the same footing.

Edited by Seanspeed, 18 August 2015 - 12:55.

[SenorSjon]

I'm fine with Pirelli, but I'd like to see tires with a bit wider operating windows. Right now it just seems a bit too hit and miss with teams trying to maintain proper tire temperatures.

People that want more durable tires seem to ignore that almost every time we come to a race where the tires hold up just fine throughout most of the race, we get predictable and boring racing and people complain about it. Degrading tires have been great for the racing overall.

It just creates a situation where you basically finish how you qualify. The difference between qualifying and race pace diminishes substantially. Even if you do find yourself 'out of order', you better hope the car in front of you doesn't have a better top speed than you, otherwise you're going to spend the entire race behind them with little chance of getting by. Pitstops are useful right now because due to discrepancies in power output of various engines, you sometimes *need* another way of getting by a car in front of you. It's all well and good to say that all passing should be done on track, but the reality is that it's just not possible in many situations.

 

I don't see degrading tires as a great thing. 

 

Finish as you qualify is due to parc ferme, top 10 points, test ban and save every part you have.

[Seanspeed]

I don't see degrading tires as a great thing. 
 
Finish as you qualify is due to parc ferme, top 10 points, test ban and save every part you have.

We don't have finish as you qualify right now. There's actual potential for disparity between race and qualifying performance.

Points structure has nothing to do with anything.

Test ban only helps quali/race pace disparity. Give the teams more and more time on-track to test and they can figure things out better.

Saving parts also has nothing to do with this.

[Graveltrappen]

Should have been a tyre war

[SCHUEYFAN]

Time to close this thread...