170 replies to this topic

[flatlandsman]

I would love to see more than one tyre, I think it adds far more interest and can often shake things up.  I understand why now it never happens, costs primarily but that is not hard to regulate

 

Imagine a year when one other tyre make just made a better tyre and some of the lesser teams were on it, and the big few teams HAD to struggle because the tyre rules were set in stone. Annnndddd that is why it will never happen.

 

It used to happen a fair bit on bike racing, unknowns suddenly winning races and getting podiums, but just like f1 they soon put a stop to that

[PayasYouRace]

I wonder if there’s the possibility of a bit of a compromise solution by having a competitive selection process set out over a couple of years.

If you had, say, a six year cycle for tyre contracts, the first two years would be open to all suppliers. Teams would be free to contract whichever supplier they choose. After the first two seasons, the tyre supplier with the most points scored becomes the mandated control tyre supplier for the remaining four. You could then continue that cycle as needed.

[Clatter]

I would love to see more than one tyre, I think it adds far more interest and can often shake things up.  I understand why now it never happens, costs primarily but that is not hard to regulate

 

Imagine a year when one other tyre make just made a better tyre and some of the lesser teams were on it, and the big few teams HAD to struggle because the tyre rules were set in stone. Annnndddd that is why it will never happen.

 

It used to happen a fair bit on bike racing, unknowns suddenly winning races and getting podiums, but just like f1 they soon put a stop to that

 

Your assuming all the big teams would be on one make, and the smaller teams on the other.

[AustinF1]

They're really afraid of any change, aren't they?

Yep.

 

This news is another F1 kick in the nads.

[JimmyClark]

F1, FOM or FIA?

As far as I am concerned, FOM should not have a say in the matter.

This is for a standard car component, which is a sporting matter, and not a commercial matter.

Also, I really think it is time for a change.

F1 from what I understand, but none of the sources are what I regard as "solid" so I'll add that as a caveat.

[Wuzak]

F1 from what I understand, but none of the sources are what I regard as "solid" so I'll add that as a caveat.

 

So F1 = FOM?

[pdac]

The title of the thread is "FIA launches tender ...", which implies that the FIA control who the supplier(s) is, what the specifications are and what compounds are made available. The sporting regulations - published by the FIA - would dictate how teams can use the tyres. It's possible (likely?) that the FIA act upon advice/recommendations from FOM or the teams. But they are the ones that enact it all.

Edited by pdac, 28 July 2023 - 06:14.

[JimmyClark]

So F1 = FOM?

 

Yes

[Wuzak]

The title of the thread is "FIA launches tender ...", which implies that the FIA control who the supplier(s) is, what the specifications are and what compounds are made available. The sporting regulations - published by the FIA - would dictate how teams can use the tyres. It's possible (likely?) that the FIA act upon advice/recommendations from FOM or the teams. But they are the ones that enact it all.

 

It shouldn't matter what the FOM or teams want.

 

They don't lobby the FIA about other standard parts.

 

But we know that, at least in one instance, FOM's sponsorship deal determined the contract winner.

[Sterzo]

It shouldn't matter what the FOM or teams want.

 

They don't lobby the FIA about other standard parts.

 

But we know that, at least in one instance, FOM's sponsorship deal determined the contract winner.

Sort of agree and sort of don't. I wish there was no "commercial rights" holder in any sport. But there is, and the governing body is right to consult all interested parties when making a decision.
 

[JimmyClark]

The title of the thread is "FIA launches tender ...", which implies that the FIA control who the supplier(s) is, what the specifications are and what compounds are made available. The sporting regulations - published by the FIA - would dictate how teams can use the tyres. It's possible (likely?) that the FIA act upon advice/recommendations from FOM or the teams. But they are the ones that enact it all.

 
This is what Joe Saward wrote the other day: 
 
 
 

The other things worth looking out for is the ongoing “tyre war” because Bridgestone and Pirelli are fighting to become the exclusive Formula 1 tyre supplier for the next contract, which will run from 2025 to 2027. The deal will cover three seasons, with an option for a fourth and will include tyre supply to F1, F2 and F3. 
 
The latest word is that both tyre companies have been accepted by the FIA to become candidates for the role, and it is now down to the Formula 1 group to negotiate the best commercial contract with one or the other. On paper there is only one likely winner because Bridgestone is a far bigger company with revenues of $24.1 billion per year (the second biggest behind Michelin at $26.37 billion). Pirelli is only the sixth biggest player in the market with revenues of $5.9 billon. Pirelli has all the technology needed to produce the tyres F1 requires in 2025. Bridgestone has been out of the game for  long time, and so would need to get a proper test programme as the cars are bigger and heavier than they used to be. But how will that work? The teams will all want to be involved in any test programme but there are restrictions, which means that Bridgestone might need to build its own car to ensure parity of experience and then there is the question of whether choosing Pirelli would drive Bridgestone away if Pirelli decided it only wanted a final deal, as it has achieved most of what it wanted in F1, so signing up Pirelli for a last deal might not be wise. The one thing that F1 does not want is to be left without a tyre supplier in the future, so the choice is complicated.

So the sources on the internet are saying that Pirelli has been chosen, but I'm not sure of the veracity of those, but it seems pretty certain that FOM are the ones with the final say, I guess because it is a commercial deal.

Edited by JimmyClark, 28 July 2023 - 10:43.

[Wuzak]

Sort of agree and sort of don't. I wish there was no "commercial rights" holder in any sport. But there is, and the governing body is right to consult all interested parties when making a decision.
 

 

The selection of a single supplier component should be the sole discretion of the FIA. It is a sporting matter.

 

It should not matter one bit how much sponsor money the FOM can get out of the deal.

 

Remember the last time, or perhaps the time before that, Michelin put in a bid against Pirelli.

 

The FIA wanted Michelin, the teams wanted Michelin. Only the FOM (Bernie) wanted Pirelli.

[JimmyClark]

The selection of a single supplier component should be the sole discretion of the FIA. It is a sporting matter.

 

It should not matter one bit how much sponsor money the FOM can get out of the deal.

 

Remember the last time, or perhaps the time before that, Michelin put in a bid against Pirelli.

 

The FIA wanted Michelin, the teams wanted Michelin. Only the FOM (Bernie) wanted Pirelli.

 

I agree with you in principle, but is *is* a commercial agreement - as much as there is an official champagne supplier, there is an official tyre supplier that pays for their exposure. Thus you can see why it is treated on a commercial basis, despite being probably the biggest technical factor in performance on the car. 

[pdac]

It seems to me that deciding whether there would be a single supplier of multiple suppliers need not be a commercial matter. It would go like this:

 

1. The FIA checks the eligibility of the suppliers

2. The FIA presents a list of 'approved' suppliers to the commercial rights holder

3. The FIA tells FOM they have to choose just one or that they can choose multiple suppliers

4. FOM then negotiates with the approved suppliers and either chooses one (if the FIA demands just one or if they decide only one is suitable) or they choose several (if the FIA has allow that).

 

This simply requires that the FIA make the choice of single-supplier or not in advance of any commercial negotiations taking place.

[Clatter]

It seems to me that deciding whether there would be a single supplier of multiple suppliers need not be a commercial matter. It would go like this:

 

1. The FIA checks the eligibility of the suppliers

2. The FIA presents a list of 'approved' suppliers to the commercial rights holder

3. The FIA tells FOM they have to choose just one or that they can choose multiple suppliers

4. FOM then negotiates with the approved suppliers and either chooses one (if the FIA demands just one or if they decide only one is suitable) or they choose several (if the FIA has allow that).

 

This simply requires that the FIA make the choice of single-supplier or not in advance of any commercial negotiations taking place.

 

Shouldn't the commercial aspects be set out in the tender for the suppliers to bid against? Seems crazy to be bidding blind.

[Wuzak]

I agree with you in principle, but is *is* a commercial agreement - as much as there is an official champagne supplier, there is an official tyre supplier that pays for their exposure. Thus you can see why it is treated on a commercial basis, despite being probably the biggest technical factor in performance on the car. 

 

Some tyre manufacturers would be happy to just have their name on the side of the tyres and maybe a logo or two on each of the cars (which the FIA could mandate).

 

Plastering the name of the tyre supplier all around the track is a commercial arrangement, but has nothing to do with the supply contract.

[EvilPhil II]

I'm afraid I've got some awfully distressing news. It appears Pirelli has been awarded a 2 to 3 year extension.

[flyboym3]

Some criticism from George Russell

FORMULA 1 / BELGIAN GP NEWS
Russell feels F1 wet tyres are “pretty pointless” after Spa sprint
George Russell has called Pirelli’s Formula 1 wet tyres “pretty pointless” after drivers were quick to ditch them at the start of the sprint event at Spa.

“The extreme tyre is pretty pointless tyre, it's really, really bad,” said Russell. “It's probably six, seven seconds a lap slower than the intermediate. And the only reason you'd ever run the extreme wet is because you'd aquaplane on an intermediate. So that needs to be substantially improved.

“The aquaplaning with fairly little water is really substantial. I remember watching the old onboard videos of 2007 with [Felipe] Massa and [Robert] Kubica in Fuji, so much water, they were still pushing flat out.

“I remember doing test days here in F3 and Formula Renault, on Michelin and Hankook, aquaplaning wasn't really a thing, but I appreciate we're doing well over 200 miles an hour. It's not straightforward. But yeah, there needs to be some significant improvements."


So yeah really shame the fia let the pinnacle of motor racing not have the best products. I bet Bridgestone can role out amended Ferrari tyres from the noughties and it'll still be a better product than what Pirelli have come up with 20 years later.

Pirelli make good show/demo tyres though.

[Primo]

Pirelli has been terrible from the beginning and it is somewhat unbelievable that they have kept their contract for so long. Wonder who's bank account they've bolstered. 

[flatlandsman]

I would guess as you say it is all to do with money. They have also announced some new tenders in bike racing and Pirelli in bike racing are known for sometimes for making tyres that are great one minute awful the next and also routinely producing a duff tyre and then stopping anyone talking about it!

[Wuzak]

So yeah really shame the fia let the pinnacle of motor racing not have the best products.

 

 

I blame FOM, who, for some reason, make the final decision on tyre suppliers.