93 replies to this topic

[kar]

Me too, the return to a tyre war is what the sport needs.

I was one of the loudest calling for the tyre wars to be ended but with testing restrictions in, the excesses of the past hopefully wont be repeated.

One of the exciting things about 2006 was the way performance could swing so dramatically depending on who got the tyre call correct. That year it was fortunate to be a Ferrari support as Bridgestone had the better tyre that year, even if Michelin took the title.

[MrAerodynamicist]

I dissent, as I don't think tyre wars are particularly interesting. Especially if certain teams end up being the favourite children, getting to unduly influence the direction of the tyre development.

[Henrytheeigth]

Yes China06 was my fav. Even Lauda wrote off Ferrari and look what happened! at him..

[jmlima]

... Rules on tire use would have to change to “show the performance they can bring, notably in terms of fuel saving and CO2 reductions.”
...

It's a surprisingly reasonable expectation.

[jey16]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

[Henrytheeigth]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

I'm surprised you aint calling for a sole engine supplier etc., Variety is the spice of life, and competition is the life of trade. IMHO

[Dalton007]

Me too, the return to a tyre war is what the sport needs.

I was one of the loudest calling for the tyre wars to be ended but with testing restrictions in, the excesses of the past hopefully wont be repeated.

One of the exciting things about 2006 was the way performance could swing so dramatically depending on who got the tyre call correct. That year it was fortunate to be a Ferrari support as Bridgestone had the better tyre that year, even if Michelin took the title.

I'd love a tyre war. I didn't think at the time [2006] that I'd miss the competition but I really do. Three tyre companies please!

[Timstr11]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

Same argument goes for e.g. the engine supplier, brake supplier etc.
Tyres are as much part of the package as the above mentioned elements are.

[femi]

Sounds like good news for Renault.
I think you are going to find quite a few teams running to Michelin

[angst]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

Yeah, and it's just so artificial having different chassis....what's the point of a car being slower just because their chassis/aero isn't the same as their rivals. And those damn engines; what's the point in being slower just because they run a different engine that doesn't have the power or isn't as driveable. So artificial.

[Henrytheeigth]

I think he gets the point

[onemoresolo]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

There are plenty of spec series out there.

The more variables, the better

Edited by onemoresolo, 01 April 2010 - 12:58.

[Lennat]

I'm not completely decided on how I feel about tire wars. In a way it's good that we don't get a 2005 for example where no one on Bridgestones stood a chance. On the other hand the tire war in 2006 was great, like in China with the changing weather conditions. But heck, with this engine freeze crap and all that I think I would prefer a tire war, and it might make the race strategies more interesting as well as the tires would be more on the edge performance wise. But who knows, with the engine freeze and chassis freeze we might just get a "tire freeze" as well...

[craftverk]

Michelin returning is fine with me

Tyre war is not


the gaps in performance in different brands of tyre is sometimes ridiculous, I personally don't want that again, besides, everyone would want Michelins over any Korean manafacturer...

[Timstr11]

If the Korean manufacturers are smart, they won't enter. Leaving Michelin as the sole supplier.

[Lennat]

Michelin returning is fine with me

Tyre war is not


the gaps in performance in different brands of tyre is sometimes ridiculous, I personally don't want that again, besides, everyone would want Michelins over any Korean manafacturer...

Good point there, Michelin vs some Korean brand is bound to fail. Not that Hankook for example is making bad road tires these days, but Michelins experience and resources...

The best thing would be if Bridgestone stayed because they wanted to compete with Michelin again. Not saying that i expect it to happen though.

[Gilles4Ever]

With current testing limitations and cost saving I cannot see how they could ever have a tyre war again.

[Lennat]

My guess is that Michelin will be the sole supplier, whether by being the de facto spec supplier or because lack of competition. So it should not make that much of a difference to how it is now really, except that I would expect that they will probably get a pretty good deal with the FIA as there is few other realistic options.

[Lennat]

With current testing limitations and cost saving I cannot see how they could ever have a tyre war again.

Why not? They are able to develop the car still even with the testing ban during the season. And as I wrote earlier, they could freeze tire development as well, similar to the main chassis of the cars being homologated at the start of each season.

[Boing 2]

Yeah, and it's just so artificial having different chassis....what's the point of a car being slower just because their chassis/aero isn't the same as their rivals. And those damn engines; what's the point in being slower just because they run a different engine that doesn't have the power or isn't as driveable. So artificial.

The tyres are such a critical part of the equation that, if dominant, they cancel out almost every other element of success, driver skill, aero efficiency, power, chassis design. That means you can hire the best driver, build the best chassis, develop the best aero package and design the best engine but if your tyres (designed by an outside company) are poor you lose. conversley you can do an average job in every area, bolt on some great tyres and win.

The success of the team becomes directly and almost solely related to the quality of a single component which is bought in from an outside company, your results are no longer an indication of the job you are doing as a team but simply a sign of how good your tyres are. If my favourite team wins i want it to be because THEY have done the best job on the day, not just bolted the best tyres onto an average car. In any sport your success must relate to your own efforts or it becomes worthless, anything that muddies the waters removes status from your success.


so yeah, **** another tyre war, keep it to one.

[angst]

The tyres are such a critical part of the equation that, if dominant, they cancel out almost every other element of success, driver skill, aero efficiency, power, chassis design. That means you can hire the best driver, build the best chassis, develop the best aero package and design the best engine but if your tyres (designed by an outside company) are poor you lose. conversley you can do an average job in every area, bolt on some great tyres and win.

The success of the team becomes directly and almost solely related to the quality of a single component which is bought in from an outside company, your results are no longer an indication of the job you are doing as a team but simply a sign of how good your tyres are. If my favourite team wins i want it to be because THEY have done the best job on the day, not just bolted the best tyres onto an average car. In any sport your success must relate to your own efforts or it becomes worthless, anything that muddies the waters removes status from your success.


so yeah, **** another tyre war, keep it to one.

Amazing , then, that Jordan and Minardi weren't mullering the opposition in '04...along with Ferrari.

[craftverk]

Amazing , then, that Jordan and Minardi weren't mullering the opposition in '04...along with Ferrari.

you can't possibly compare Jordan and Minardi to Ferrari...

besides, Ferrari might as well have been Bridgestone's only team seeing as how the tyres were virtually made for them

now that it seems Michelin will return, I just hope they don't use "make F1" green paint on them, seriously, I get pissed off every time I see them on this year's Bridgestones

Edited by craftverk, 01 April 2010 - 13:31.

[Henrytheeigth]

you can't possibly compare Jordan and Minardi to Ferrari...

besides, Ferrari might as well have been Bridgestone's only team seeing as how the tyres were virtually made for them

now that it seems Michelin will return, I just hope they don't use "make F1" green paint on them, seriously, I get pissed off every time I see them on this year's Bridgestones

Hence McLaren going to Michelin. And they were on Bridgestones before Ferrari went to em

[Boing 2]

Amazing , then, that Jordan and Minardi weren't mullering the opposition in '04...along with Ferrari.

When bridgestone were dominant they tailor made their tyres for Schumachers Ferrari, no one else got a look in and i remember the other customers complaining about it more than once as the bridgestones just didn't work for anyone else. There was also a country mile between Jordan and Minardi (both teams on the brink of collapse in 04) and Ferrari, one of the wealthiest teams on the grid.

you think tyrrell built a better car than mclaren in pheonix 1990? or that arrows built a better car than Ferrari in Hungary 97? or that Renault suddenly became 3 secs a lap faster than ferrari in Hungary 03? nope, they just did a 'decent' job and bolted on some great tyres and that's not a good enough reason to win in my book.

[angst]

you can't possibly compare Jordan and Minardi to Ferrari...

besides, Ferrari might as well have been Bridgestone's only team seeing as how the tyres were virtually made for them

now that it seems Michelin will return, I just hope they don't use "make F1" green paint on them, seriously, I get pissed off every time I see them on this year's Bridgestones

Sorry, but I was reffering to this part of the post; The tyres are such a critical part of the equation that, if dominant, they cancel out almost every other element of success, driver skill, aero efficiency, power, chassis design. That means you can hire the best driver, build the best chassis, develop the best aero package and design the best engine but if your tyres (designed by an outside company) are poor you lose. conversley you can do an average job in every area, bolt on some great tyres and win.

Nothing quite like 'over-egging' the case, is there? You can't do an "average" job and win because of the tyres. The tyres are simply a part of the package. Like the engine (do Red Bull, McLaren, Williams et al make their own engines?)

[angst]

you think tyrrell built a better car than mclaren in pheonix 1990? or that arrows built a better car than Ferrari in Hungary 97? or that Renault suddenly became 3 secs a lap faster than ferrari in Hungary 03? nope, they just did a 'decent' job and bolted on some great tyres and that's not a good enough reason to win in my book.

So, we shouldn't have races like Phoenix 1990, or Hungary 1997 because it's 'unfair' on the teams that generally have the better tyres? Did McLaren build their engine, or was that Honda? Do you think the Tyrrell was less competitive simply because their chassis wasn't in the same ball-park as McLaren, or do you think that McLaren might have had a little advantage with that Honda V10 compared to Tyrrell's DFR? Should that be banned as well. Do you think Alesi might have more regularly have challenged Senna and Prost had he had a McLaren-Honda?

[craftverk]

The Pirelli tyres Tyrrell were running in Phoenix 1990 were softer than the Goodyear's on Senna's McLaren, they were quicker initially but they were wearing much quicker.

Tyrrell had a handy chassis that year too, not as good looking as the one in my avatar though

Edited by craftverk, 01 April 2010 - 13:52.

[MikeTekRacing]

Same argument goes for e.g. the engine supplier, brake supplier etc.
Tyres are as much part of the package as the above mentioned elements are.

not quite
you can design engines, chasis, aero, brakes etc
you can't change tyres mid season, you're stuck and done for it.
that's racing for you?

[angst]

The Pirelli tyres Tyrrell were running in Phoenix 1990 were softer than the Goodyear's on Senna's McLaren, they were quicker initially but they were wearing much quicker.

Tyrrell had a handy chassis that year too, not as good looking as the one in my avatar though

Exactly, and it's differences in tyre behaviour like that that we miss, in terms of racing. (and I thought that Tyrrell was extremely pretty as well, btw.)

[angst]

not quite
you can design engines, chasis, aero, brakes etc
you can't change tyres mid season, you're stuck and done for it.
that's racing for you?

The teams make their own brakes? And they make their own engines? And tey can change engine suppliers through the year? Or do you think tyres don't get developed? What are you trying to say here?

[Mr2s]

In a way it's good that we don't get a 2005 for example where no one on Bridgestones stood a chance.

That was all part of the 'war' my friend. Teams abandoned Bridgestone because of the special relationship they had with Ferrari. Bridgestone suffered, but Ferrari certainly got the better deal, with more championships won on superior tyres.

[Pingguest]

the tyre wars are ridiculous...whats the point of a car being slower just because they run a different tyre brand, it ruins the entire weekend and its so artificial

sole supplier is still the best way

That very same thing can be said about any part. Gearbox, engines, brakes. Should we standardize those parts too then?

[Chezrome]

I do not mind if Michelin (Good Year or any other supplier) should replace Bridgestone, as long as there is a single tire supplier. I really do not want to see any repeats of performance related differentials we have witnessed in the past.

But that would exactly be the GOOD thing about a tyrewar... Geez. After Bahrain most of the complaints here were: 'The car are too alike in performance. There is no overtaking. There are no suprises.'

I think here the big problem of motorsport surface. Motorracing should be fair and equal (which it isn't and never will be), and it should be exciting and suprising. Without sudden 'performance related differentials' (did you study with Ron Dennis), or in layman wors 'unfair advantages of a sudden competitive piece of engineering' we never would have had, for example, Graham Hill leading the Hungarian Grand Prix... in a Arrows.

Edited by Chezrome, 01 April 2010 - 15:29.

[TURU]

I don't care if Michelin will be a standard tyre supplier or we are going to have another tyre war. Basically Michelin > any_korean_chineese_etc tyre manufacturer that you can imagine, so BRING IT ON

And thanks to Michelin tyres structure, it would allow some drivers like Alonso or Kubica to return to their natural driving style (super aggressive).

Edited by TURU, 01 April 2010 - 15:32.

[Boing 2]

So, we shouldn't have races like Phoenix 1990, or Hungary 1997 because it's 'unfair' on the teams that generally have the better tyres? Did McLaren build their engine, or was that Honda? Do you think the Tyrrell was less competitive simply because their chassis wasn't in the same ball-park as McLaren, or do you think that McLaren might have had a little advantage with that Honda V10 compared to Tyrrell's DFR? Should that be banned as well. Do you think Alesi might have more regularly have challenged Senna and Prost had he had a McLaren-Honda?

i'd prefer to watch a formula one championship fought out between formula one teams not between tyre companies. As i say no other component on a car has an effect like tyres, if your brakes are poor it affects braking, bad engine? affects speed and accelleration, bad tyres? no traction off the line, no traction out of corners, no brakes, poor entry speed, poor apex speed, poor qually if they won't heat up, poor race consistency if they heat too much. They screw everything.

Michelins poor performance helped produce a couple of seasons of tedious Ferrari domination because no matter how good the opposition was without good tyres they were stuffed.

tyre wars distort the whole sport to such an extent that the results become almost meaningless.

[Chezrome]

Michelins poor performance helped produce a couple of seasons of tedious Ferrari domination because no matter how good the opposition was without good tyres they were stuffed.

I think - and I can not be sure in any way - that Ferrari was dominating because Ferrari was very, very strong (with Schumacher, nuff said) and Bridgestone bascially made their tyres for Ferrari... but don't let my buddy Cees van der Grint hear that.

[Boing 2]

But that would exactly be the GOOD thing about a tyrewar... Geez. After Bahrain most of the complaints here were: 'The car are too alike in performance. There is no overtaking. There are no suprises.'

I think here the big problem of motorsport surface. Motorracing should be fair and equal (which it isn't and never will be), and it should be exciting and suprising. Without sudden 'performance related differentials' (did you study with Ron Dennis), or in layman wors 'unfair advantages of a sudden competitive piece of engineering' we never would have had, for example, Graham Hill leading the Hungarian Grand Prix... in a Arrows.

We had a tyre war in the early part of the decade, a period so arse numbingly dull that the sport haemorraged viewers.

[Sakae]

For this fan talk about two tire suppliers is a bad news, even if I understand Michelin's point of view, that they need a whipping boy in the game. Last time differences between two suppliers were so huge, that tires became main subject after each race who won or lost because of rubber. I am not very found of that possibility. I want a driver/car/strategy combination in a play, but not tires.

[Boing 2]

I think - and I can not be sure in any way - that Ferrari was dominating because Ferrari was very, very strong (with Schumacher, nuff said) and Bridgestone bascially made their tyres for Ferrari... but don't let my buddy Cees van der Grint hear that.

Yes Ferrari were strong and they did get tyres tailor made for Schumacher, they also had all the help Max could give them but the fact remains that Michelins tyres suffered a graining problem for about 2.5 years that ruined many a decent race. It was also Max's changing of the tyre rule that ended the title fight at Monza, impossible with a single supplier.

[Tuxy]

Screw Michelin and screw tire wars.

[Pingguest]

The only reason why tyres became a dominant factor before 2007, was because all other parts - engines, aero, chassis - were very much over-regulated already. Getting rid of the standardized tyres should go along with the abolition of the standardization, homologation, enforced reliability and artificial 'spice ups' in general.

Formula 1 had tyre wars before and tyres weren't a dominant factor then.

Edited by Pingguest, 01 April 2010 - 15:42.

[TURU]

For this fan talk about two tire suppliers is a bad news, even if I understand Michelin's point of view, that they need a whipping boy in the game. Last time differences between two suppliers were so huge, that tires became main subject after each race who won or lost because of rubber. I am not very found of that possibility. I want a driver/car/strategy combination in a play, but not tires.

And aren't tires, part of the car ?? Time differences between tyre suppliers on certain tracks would be good for f1. Everyone wants more overtaking, so the situation when car A with tires X can last 30 laps on softs while car B with tires Y can last only 15 laps on softs, would generate interesting differences in strategies and performance during certain parts of the race, and therefore provide more action on track.

[Tenmantaylor]

And aren't tires, part of the car ?? Time differences between tyre suppliers on certain tracks would be good for f1. Everyone wants more overtaking, so the situation when car A with tires X can last 30 laps on softs while car B with tires Y can last only 15 laps on softs, would generate interesting differences in strategies and performance during certain parts of the race, and therefore provide more action on track.

I agree with this but only if the end result is evenly spread, ie over a race distance one manufacturer doesnt dominate. That cannot be enforced unfortunately though, it just needs to be open competition for it to work.

[TURU]

I agree with this but only if the end result is evenly spread, ie over a race distance one manufacturer doesnt dominate. That cannot be enforced unfortunately though, it just needs to be open competition for it to work.

And that is the main problem, because at least on the beginning Michelin would have big advantage due to their experience. Especially, if the another supplier will be a korean manufacturer (I wonder who would go for them ).

[Timstr11]

not quite
you can design engines, chasis, aero, brakes etc
you can't change tyres mid season, you're stuck and done for it.
that's racing for you?

I don't see the argument you're trying to make.
Another example. If a team's exclusive damper supplier has come up with a novel way to control ride heights, that's a very similar situation when tyre supplier X has a technological advantage over supplier Y.

[Disgrace]

I'd like to see a return of a tyre war. Tyres these last two seasons are so mickey mouse. Use both sets during race. Carry them from qualifying into the race. Now the softs can last the race distance in both cold and hot conditions.

Pinnacle of motorsport? Might as well throw the tyres into that equation and create some strategy variation. Tyres on the limit will do that.

Bridgestone this season are only interested in saving brand value: wow, look at our long-lasting tyres! This, while audiences worldwide are falling asleep and renders the two compound rule totally useless.

Edited by Disgrace, 01 April 2010 - 16:10.

[Sakae]

And aren't tires, part of the car ?? Time differences between tyre suppliers on certain tracks would be good for f1. Everyone wants more overtaking, so the situation when car A with tires X can last 30 laps on softs while car B with tires Y can last only 15 laps on softs, would generate interesting differences in strategies and performance during certain parts of the race, and therefore provide more action on track.

...well tires are part of the car, but sattle difference is what are we evaluating.

- lost a race because of puncture
- lost race because of driving-style
- lost race because car-design is hard on tires and driver is unable to offset mechanical factors

or

- lost several races because tires are completely infferior to their competitors


In my opinion one tire standard means the same conditions for all; there are another elements in play in relationship to tires which can make difference between lost or won race, but those are unique to a team, strategy, and driver. (As it should be). I am opposing a specification vehicle, just that tires should not be THE dominant factor in determination how WDC crown is handed down.

[angst]

I think - and I can not be sure in any way - that Ferrari was dominating because Ferrari was very, very strong (with Schumacher, nuff said) and Bridgestone bascially made their tyres for Ferrari... but don't let my buddy Cees van der Grint hear that.

Indeed...and then all the fans blamed Bridgestone for Ferrari's failure in '05. While the Bridgestone's weren't as good as the Michelins for those regulations, Ferrari's performance exacerbated the problems....

[angst]

I am opposing a specification vehicle, just that tires should not be THE dominant factor in determination how WDC crown is handed down.

This is just BS, pure and simple.

[angst]

I'd like to see a return of a tyre war. Tyres these last two seasons are so mickey mouse. Use both sets during race. Carry them from qualifying into the race. Now the softs can last the race distance in both cold and hot conditions.

Pinnacle of motorsport? Might as well throw the tyres into that equation and create some strategy variation. Tyres on the limit will do that.

Bridgestone this season are only interested in saving brand value: wow, look at our long-lasting tyres! This, while audiences worldwide are falling asleep and renders the two compound rule totally useless.

Exactly, different approaches by the tyre companies involved, different characteristics of the tyres, different approaches by the teams - necessitated by those differing characteristics. Exactly the opposite of what the complaints have been this season - from the fans, the teams, the drivers.... everyone's forced into using both compounds..., they'll all end up following the same strategy.

And with one tyre supplier, that supplier isn't going to make a tyre that looks bad. They are, because otherwise it looks bad on that company, going to produce tyres that will last and last and last.... why anybody is surprised at this turn of events is beyond me.