74 replies to this topic

[Risil]

I strongly believe that Goodyear should be credited with those 147 wins, as they were never the contracted sole supplier as Bridgestone and Pirelli were/are.

It's not Goodyears fault that their tyres were so good that no one wanted to compete with them.

It's true that Goodyear was never a control tyre, but they didn't drive the competition out by producing better tyres. Michelin left F1 after 1984 having won 14 of 16 races that year.

[Cornholio]

Iconic: Goodyear
Best: Michelin

 

Yeah that was my line of thinking really. Probably because my first four full years of watching (1992-96) Goodyear supplied the whole field, but even before then they seemed to be an ever-present. But have respect for Michelin who would eventually come out on top whenever they did enter, but they lacked Goodyear's longevity.

 

Not sure what happened with Goodyear really as they seemed to fall off a cliff, not just in F1 but also IndyCar and sportscars around the turn of the millennium. Maybe the promotional aspect of being tied to NASCAR as it went through its boom in popularity around that time was enough for them?

 

I'm in the minority who wouldn't be against another tyre war as well, I think the last one is looked at through sh*t-smeared specs because it coincided with the Ferrari dream team peaking, and if anything having Michelin around to add a bit of extra variables might have been the only thing that prevented Mercedes-levels of dominance from them. Not to mention the literally once in a lifetime occurrence that was the 2005 US GP - it was bad but something that had never happened in hundreds of races featuring open tyre competition, sometimes freak things just happen.

 

 

I strongly believe that Goodyear should be credited with those 147 wins, as they were never the contracted sole supplier as Bridgestone and Pirelli were/are.

It's not Goodyears fault that their tyres were so good that no one wanted to compete with them.

 

Yeah I'd agree with this, and same with the others e.g. Dunlop who had a (non-mandated) monopoly for a while. In fact I'd even give Bridgestone their 2007 wins, as I think the spec tyre rule only game in in 2008, but Michelin withdrew a year early.

Edited by Cornholio, 20 September 2021 - 15:11.

[PayasYouRace]

I strongly believe that Goodyear should be credited with those 147 wins, as they were never the contracted sole supplier as Bridgestone and Pirelli were/are.

It's not Goodyears fault that their tyres were so good that no one wanted to compete with them.

I don’t believe you should be credited for wins achieved without competition, no matter what the circumstances. They might not have been the contracted sole supplier, but they were just left as the sole supplier by default. It’s not true to say nobody wanted to compete with them, because Pirelli and Bridgestone did.

[Sterzo]

I come down firmly on the fence on this question. The occasions when there have been multiple (i.e. 3+) tyre companies involved contending for wins at once are small in number. So (arguably) it hasn't always been a real competition. Years with multiple contenders that do come to mind are mainly in the fifties. In 1950, 51, 52, 53 and 1957 the drivers' championship was won on Pirellis. Difference from now was, they were Pirellis designed by Pirelli, not by the FIA trying to spice up the show and suffering the dreaded "unintended consequences".

[milestone 11]

Cant believe Pirelli got some votes!

Nostalgia, the CN36's were untouchable back in the day.

[PlatenGlass]

I don’t believe you should be credited for wins achieved without competition, no matter what the circumstances. They might not have been the contracted sole supplier, but they were just left as the sole supplier by default. It’s not true to say nobody wanted to compete with them, because Pirelli and Bridgestone did.

Well Pirelli and Bridgestone presumably didn't want to compete with them in the years they were absent.

 

In any case, I don't think this is a particularly meaningful statistic however you cut it. Tyre manufacturers aren't the primary competitor anyway so there's been no effort to make sure that there is meaningful competition even when there wasn't an enforced monopoly. Because of that having more than one tyre manufacturer could theoretically have meant anything from two right up to the number of teams. So it seems pointless to say that it counts for nothing when there's one manufacturer but equally for everything from two up.

 

But if I'm counting at all, it's either everything, or everything when there wasn't an enforced monopoly. An unenforced monopoly counts as much as anything else as far as I can see. To finish with a cliche, you have to be in it to win it.

[eibyyz]

 

 

Not sure what happened with Goodyear really as they seemed to fall off a cliff, not just in F1 but also IndyCar and sportscars around the turn of the millennium. Maybe the promotional aspect of being tied to NASCAR as it went through its boom in popularity around that time was enough for them?

 

 

They were fighting off vulture capitalists and suffered from general mismanagement.  

[moreland]

I'll admit it, happy to admit it, I've voted Pirelli. It's one thing to be able to produce a tyre that's as fast as possible, and I respect the expertise in doing that, but I'm sure it's also an immense challenge being able to produce tyres that degrade at a desired rate and in fact it might well be the more difficult challenge. I do despair when I read complaints about degrading tyres such as "let them have tyres they can race on, flat out", well that's what we had with Bridgestone and almost every dry race was utterly dull. We sometimes have one stop races with low-deg tyres now and they are also often dull. I'm sure Pirelli could build tyres that last the entire race with no performance drop off, but they are able to look at the big picture and thankfully choose not to do that

[Collombin]

It's one thing to be able to produce a tyre that's as fast as possible, and I respect the expertise in doing that, but I'm sure it's also an immense challenge being able to produce tyres that degrade at a desired rate and in fact it might well be the more difficult challenge.

It's a bit odd that you consider the latter challenge more important than the former in deciding who the greatest tyre supplier is. Says something about modern F1 perhaps.

[moreland]

It's a bit odd that you consider the latter challenge more important than the former in deciding who the greatest tyre supplier is. Says something about modern F1 perhaps.

Well there's a science to making a tyre that competes a set distance in the shortest time possible and there's a science in making a tyre that leads to different strategies and interesting races. I just think it's a far bolder choice to take on the second challenge and we don't realise how lucky we are that Pirelli have taken it on!

[messy]

Historically Goodyear - but I must admit I really enjoyed when Bridgestone first came in and started bumping middling cars up the grid in 1997. I remember equating McLaren’s rise to the top in 1998 to switching to BS (among other things) and really enjoyed the variety it brought to 1997 and 1998. Unfortunately the tyre wars don’t last do they? I really enjoyed Bridgestone vs Michelin too - only that time, Michelin were the up and coming, exciting presence. So I’ll say I’ve enjoyed Goodyear, Bridgestone and Michelin fairly equally.

[as65p]

What always sticks in my mind re: Bridgestone is their exclusive Ferrari deal, which IMO screwed somewhat what could be far more interesting seasons 2001 to 2004. But that's of course a very subjective POV and has nothing to do with the quality of their tyres.

[shure]

Well there's a science to making a tyre that competes a set distance in the shortest time possible and there's a science in making a tyre that leads to different strategies and interesting races. I just think it's a far bolder choice to take on the second challenge and we don't realise how lucky we are that Pirelli have taken it on!

I do get that point of view, it’s just diametrically opposed to my own position! I can’t stand the Pirelli tyres and what they represent, and the occasional good race doesn’t make up for the years of garbage we had to put up with. Rom my perspective, of course. I just don’t think that something that calls itself a pinnacle sport should artificially hobble its competitors. It’d be like telling footballers in the Premier League to wear roller skates, in the name of entertainment. I think it dilutes the sport, regardless of the engineering involved. I certainly don’t consider myself lucky that I’ve had to endure it 😊

[moreland]

I do get that point of view, it’s just diametrically opposed to my own position! I can’t stand the Pirelli tyres and what they represent, and the occasional good race doesn’t make up for the years of garbage we had to put up with. Rom my perspective, of course. I just don’t think that something that calls itself a pinnacle sport should artificially hobble its competitors. It’d be like telling footballers in the Premier League to wear roller skates, in the name of entertainment. I think it dilutes the sport, regardless of the engineering involved. I certainly don’t consider myself lucky that I’ve had to endure it 😊

Fair enough, I suppose it boils down to different fans wanting different things from formula 1. I want the cars to be fast and the technology to be cutting edge, but at the same time, I'm happy to give some of that up if it's necessary in order to have decent races. There were some races back in the early 10s where the deg was a bit excessive, and I'd say that's been the case for a number of recent formula 2 races as well, but in formula 1 I think they're generally in an ok place these days

[Peat]

As an aside - 

British Hillclimb records have been tumbling this year as the quick boys have started shifting over to Pirelli rubber. It's long been the sole preserve of Avon (indeed, they are the championship sponsor) so it will be interesting to see if a war ensues or a retreat from Avon.

[Collombin]

I think in a single supplier situation it's inevitable that the tyres won't be much good. Where's the incentive to invest and develop when there's no competition?

[DeKnyff]

As an aside - 

British Hillclimb records have been tumbling this year as the quick boys have started shifting over to Pirelli rubber. It's long been the sole preserve of Avon (indeed, they are the championship sponsor) so it will be interesting to see if a war ensues or a retreat from Avon.

 

I wasn't aware of that, but with all the cumulated knowledge and resources devoted to F1 for more than ten years, Pirelli will probably outgun Avon, which but be a pity.

[Risil]

As an aside - 

British Hillclimb records have been tumbling this year as the quick boys have started shifting over to Pirelli rubber. It's long been the sole preserve of Avon (indeed, they are the championship sponsor) so it will be interesting to see if a war ensues or a retreat from Avon.

 

I want more hillclimb stories!

[Widefoot2]

Nostalgia, the CN36's were untouchable back in the day.

I had some!

 

On a Ford Pinto!!

 

[I was, and am, quite mad]

[BRG]

Well there's a science to making a tyre that competes a set distance in the shortest time possible and there's a science in making a tyre that leads to different strategies and interesting races. I just think it's a far bolder choice to take on the second challenge and we don't realise how lucky we are that Pirelli have taken it on!

I don't feel at all lucky.  I would far rather see all the teams given a spec tyre that would just about last the race distance.  No pit stops, no over and undercuts, the return of actual racing.  

 

I think in a single supplier situation it's inevitable that the tyres won't be much good. Where's the incentive to invest and develop when there's no competition?

There are plenty of series that have a spec tyre.  As long as they don't fall apart and last the race, what's the problem?  Why do we need development of tyres?  What would they be investing in? That isn't what motor racing is about.  Let the tyre makers develop their product for themselves.  They should only be interested in road tyres anyway - that's their bread and butter and high spec racing tyres are no help at all for that.  Tyre makers are only in racing for publicity.

[shure]

Fair enough, I suppose it boils down to different fans wanting different things from formula 1. I want the cars to be fast and the technology to be cutting edge, but at the same time, I'm happy to give some of that up if it's necessary in order to have decent races. There were some races back in the early 10s where the deg was a bit excessive, and I'd say that's been the case for a number of recent formula 2 races as well, but in formula 1 I think they're generally in an ok place these days

I agree, people want different things and they can't please everybody, and who's to say who has the "right" view, even if there were such a thing?  Change itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just for me personally I fear we have lost far more with this particular change than we have gained in return.

 

I also agree that tyres are better now than they were, but I feel very strongly that it shouldn't have taken multiple years to get us here.  Years in which the tyres could make or break a team or driver purely on the basis of whether they managed to generate just the right amount of heat into them, for example.  There's a reason they were widely given the "comedy tyres" moniker!  I just don't see that as F1.

 

And I still feel that F1 is far too much about the tyres even now.  A couple of high profile examples are Hamilton struggling in Monaco and Bottas at the following race - both were credited to the drivers having difficulties getting the tyres to work.  Some people like that element, but for me I just want them to be able to race without having a handicap.  We're constantly hearing about the tyres and not a race goes by where they aren't mentioned: the phrase "driving to a delta" must be one of the most over-used in the F1 lexicon.  Almost everything centers around them and I think the influence they have on driver and car performance is still much greater than it should be.

 

While I do appreciate the technology that goes into it, the bottom line is that the current tyre philosophy was born from a plan to throw a spanner in the works during race weekends.  They wanted something that would cause upsets, or create the illusion of racing by providing dramatic performance variations.  The 2012 season for me was one of the worst in living memory, purely on the basis that the first half of the season was hugely governed by luck: nobody actually understood how the tyres worked, so if you did well it wasn't necessarily because you were better than others, but owed a lot just to being fortunate that your car's characteristics suited the tyres better than others.  I have a bit of a mental stumbling block for that in a pinnacle sport.  I remember when Hulk and Webber tried WEC - they both commented on how the Michelins allowed them to really push for extended periods, in contrast to the F1 Pirelli rubber that required them to make constant trade-offs between performance and strategy.

 

The current tyres have contributed hugely to the changing identity of the sport.  And again, that on its own doesn't have to be a bad thing.  But I prefer (or long for, if you like!) the time when tyres were part of the performance package of a car and not something designed to force you to make choices and compromises that you don't really want.  When Pirelli changed their tyre construction mid-season it affected some teams more than others, which just shows how a team can spend millions on designing a great car which are just wasted because of the one factor they have absolutely no control over and which even the manufacturer doesn't fully understand.  So pretty much any tyre before Pirelli gained sole supplier status gets my vote, purely on the basis that they were designed for ultimate performance, not for "spicing up the show."  I don't want WWE-style solutions for F1, that's all.  Which means I'm not the audience they want anymore, I guess!  Sucks for me, but hard to change how I feel 

[moreland]

I think the problem is a little deeper than tyres. Tyres are more of a symptom than a cause. The issue is that I think Formula 1, and circuit racing in general, has an inherent problem with a lack of hazards. Other sports don't suffer from this. In football for example, it's just very hard to score a goal against a professional defence, but occasionally possible, and that means that the game is unpredictable. In tennis, it's very hard to hit the ball with maximum power and with the intended flight path, so naturally even the best players make many mistakes, so the game is unpredictable. Athletes get tired, golfers naturally miss a lot of shots etc. In Formula 1 there just isn't an equivalent natural hazard.

 

Maybe the cars are just too easy to drive? Formula 1 drivers are able to lap very close to their limit without making mistakes for the length of an entire race almost every time. Mistakes that involve losing a position in the race, such as spinning, running wide on the grass on the exit of a corner or locking brakes and overshooting the apex, are so rare, I don't have the numbers but I'd say on average, a lot less than once a race for each driver. As a result, if the cars start the race in speed order and the tyres had no performance drop off, how would you ever see more than a handful of position changes throughout the race? You either have to (1) not start them in speed order, so we're talking reverse grids here - and that is a proper WWE-style solution or (2) introduce some other hazard and as things stand, the tyres are having to soak up the entire burden of that.

 

So I do understand your concern about the tyres having undue influence and leading to an unwanted amount of randomness. The problem is it's the only element that's bringing unpredictability and randomness so I feel we have to accept it as a slightly messy solution to a bigger problem. A much cleaner way of having randomness would be cars that have a bigger trade off between setting fast lap times and not making mistakes, which I suppose we already have to some extent in wet races. Somehow that risk versus reward needs to be engineered into the handling characteristics of the cars when driven in the dry.

 

(Just to clarify, the cars obviously aren't easy to drive at the limit, e.g compare Verstappens' lap times to his recent team-mates, but they're not difficult in a way that leads to mistakes. It's not like Perez can lap at Verstappen's pace for a few laps then makes a mistake, he just can't lap at Verstappen's pace full stop, but can lap at a slightly slower pace very consistently)

[AlexS]

Strange no one seems to be praising the Pirelli tires in US GP. Only indirectly.

 

 

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner praised Verstappen for an “unbelievable” and “classy” victory, and admitted on Sky Sports after the race he was unsure the Dutchman could have held on.

“I really didn’t think he was going to pull that off,” Horner said.

“Lewis [had] eight lap newer tyres, the first set of hards that came off, we were pretty much down to the canvas, and we were thinking we wouldn’t have much at the end left.

“Lewis, you know the end of the race, he’s so strong and he’s gone long, he’s bought himself and advantage.

“To lose a race in the last couple of laps would have been really painful. Max just held on, he did a brilliant job and had just enough at the end there.”

[Atreiu]

Michelin, Bridgestone, Goodyear.

[zanquis]

Goodyear by far.

To those who would welcome a tirewar because Pirelli tires suck… you forget that Pirelli is given a much harder mission than any tire manufactor before or that a tirewar didn’t improve racing. It just made it a roulette system which favored 1 tire over the other. Like with Pirelli vs Goodyear. Overall Goodyear was always better except on a hot day. That isn’t great for racing because tires are so important for race cars.

Pirelli is the only manufacturer that now has to make tires that at one point are required to go bad. So obviously that comes with a price. It is much easier to make tires that start fast and then stabilize.