Tyred of the Tyre debate...

[shiny side up!]

I want to talk tires...

Today the teams agreed to limit tire suppliers to 1 provider in the near future. Why is this a good idea? How are tires any different than engines? Or chassis? I don't get it...

We love to see different car companies putting engines on the grid, and I don't think anyone would be upset if there were more engine manufacturers getting involved in F1. Same holds true with chassis. The latest fad seems to be a return to customer chassis and engines, but it is still far from a homogeneous grid composition. Customer bits will grow the grid, and hopefully increase competition, so I'm all for it.

The two main arguements I see for a single, control tire are:

1) Will eliminate perceived 'special treatment' of a single team by a tire manufacturer and ensure equal tire performance across the grid

2) Will decrease costs through less testing and lower cost per tire

Decreasing costs is very important, but is a single manufacturer the only way to do that? I don't think so... or you could use the same arguement to propose that a single chassis, or a single engine, or a single pit crew, or even a single driver is the future of F1. Bul hit.

As for #1, again, why not apply that same logic to chassis and engines, and just use 1 supplier? IT'S NOT F1 RACING, that's why!!!! Not to mention the fact that we don't hate BMW because they favour Williams, or we don't hate Petronas because they only supply fuel to Sauber.

So, what would I do if I were Max, you ask? I would propose the following:

1. Unlimited tyre manufacturers allowed.
2. Prescribed maximum cost per tire (or cost per yearly tire contract)
3. Tire manufacturers are limited to a maximum of 5 types of tire for the whole year: 1 monsoon, 1 intermediate, 1 soft, 1 medium, 1 hard. A specimen of these tires must be presented to the FIA at the beginning of the year, and at every race, scrutineers will check at random to make sure cars are in compliance (tire durometer and dimension checks). Similar to what they currently do with fuel.

Those proposals, along with the testing ban/limits that will almost certainly be imposed to reduce costs anyway, would provide for cost-effective tire supplies and the felxibility for many manufacturers to come play.

And you know what, one manufacturer may dominate for a given year. And someone else might dominate the next year. Not all that different from chassis or tires, really...

[Adam43]

Interesting topic. There are advantages and disadvatantages to both.

I am in favour of open competition in tyres. Mainly because of your point about what is F1 racing.

Originally posted by shiny side up!
3. Tire manufacturers are limited to a maximum of 5 types of tire for the whole year: 1 monsoon, 1 intermediate, 1 soft, 1 medium, 1 hard.

However I'm not keen on this bit. There is no chance for anyone to react to another's superiority. This will accentuate any domination.
Also, as you say, why are tyres different to chassis and engines in this respect. These aren't frozen at the beginning of the year.

[Gt_R]

I'm never a fan of limiting competition and i believe one-tyre isn't the best way to go.We've had it before, and what we will sadly see is what FIA wants..to put a halt to free-falling lap times.

Not only do tyre manufacturers get "lazy" and save a huge deal on R&D, while still reaping the marketting rewards, we have a case of tyres getting harder and developement stagnant. (tyre punctures don't look good..might as well play safe) On the racing side, at a time when people agree improved mechanical grip would aid overtaking, a harder/less grippy compound isn't helping.

Anyway, last season showed that tyre war CAN spice up the championship significantly and prevent a dominant run..but 02 also showed it's a double age sword if the dominant tyre and dominant cars work together Still, i think F1 should instead open up to another tyre company.

Anyway, since we are on tyres, i would just say i disagree with the no-tyre-change rule during races... It simply hinders different strategy (harder or softer compounds) and removes another option for racing.

[jetsetter]

I am against using a controlled tyre as we have been down that path before & i believe that we are better off having a tyre war.

[grumpy1]

OK let me see if I can help.
1.The future Control Tyre
This tyre will be the same in every aspect for each team.Same compound,width etc.There would be no advantage for anyone.
2. The Current System
The team will work with the tyre supplier to obtain the best possible tyre that suits there chassis.This means Jag for example have a different tyre to Williams.The cost is huge.
The new proposal would reduce costs for the teams that pay for there tyres (IE BAR Sauber)and even the playing feild between the big teams.

The Grumpy1

[Teretonga]

When Goodyear was the only tyre supplier for years it did F1 little harm at all. Teams could build their cars around the tyre characteristics and concentrate on other things like engines, chassis construction, transmissions etc.tyre costs were also relatively stable. Tyre also testing becomes very expensive when you have more than one supplier. The tyre manufacturers want heaps of it as do the chssis manufacturers and it actually makes suspension tuning and development more critical and more of a lottery.

[esorniloc]

If they specify a tyre for `F1' it will be the first of many 1-manufacturer areas of the sport.

Formula 1 is basically the last series that still allows different tyre manufacturers in (open wheel anyway).

It should stay that way.

The most interesting part of F1 since 97 has been the tyre war and 99/00 was boring because there wasn't one.

What happens when someone says we should have a spec engine or a spec chassis?

I also question if they can call it `FORMULA ONE' if they have a spec tyre?

[1200Datto27]

Who is to say that a single tyre manufacture will not favour one team over another? Why couldn't a team say that we won't the tyre to do this, and have the tyres made that way, even if the other teams do not agree/have a choice.

[EERO]

It won't be the first time that there has been a single supplier in F1. As much as I enjoy a tire war and the increasing variables it adds to the spectacle, the limiting of available compounds and is the easiest way to control total costs. Ferrari may have an engineering adavantage ovber Minardi for instance, but is there any reason that they should enjoy a rubber advantage as well, just because they enjoy a larger operating budget? Minardi got their one front row start because the Pirellis were such great qualifying tires in 1990, but today, the best teams lock up the most advantageous contracts with the Tire companies. It provides them with an advantage not based upon their engineering abilities but rather their negotiation skills.

For better RACING, a control tire is the better solution. If tires are engineered to last race distances, we might actually see passing on the track rather than during Pit Stops.

[Gore]

The argument has been made above that spec tyres would reduce costs for those teams that pay for their rubber. What kind of money are we talking? How much would, for instance, Minardi save if their tyre bill was cut in half, and would this make any real difference to their on-track performance? Are we talking a few hundred thousand, or into the millions?

[Hungary 89]

My feeling is that the loss of all the advantages of the tyre war are worth it if it allows us to go back to slick tyres.

[1200Datto27]

IIRC,

F1 tyres are around $2500US a tyre (michelan) and last about 80 ~ 100k's so not cheap. Williams did around 22,000 k's in testing this christmas, so that works out to be around $2.2 million assuming 4 new tyres per 100k's, it's likely to be more than that when you take into account fitting and they would have some tyres that didn't work, etc.

However, in just racing they would use around $2.5million (7sets x 4 tyres x 2 cars x 18 races x $2500) worth of tyres each year.

This doesn't count the cost of wets either, as I do not know that figure. And is assuming that the team is paying for the tyres.

[nameless]

i think there could be some benfits to limiting tyres to one manufacturer in that the tyre is one of the most important factor in the performance of a car and so, as has been seen in the past, a team on the right tyre can be dominant and not necessarily because of the superiority of the car. I personally think that it should be the work of teams engineers/designers/drivers that affect the outcome of races rather than those at an external tyre company. an alternative to reducing the number of tyre companies to one would be to try and increase the number of tyre companies invovled so more companies work with less teams as with engine/fuel etc. suppliers.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by jetsetter
I am against using a controlled tyre as we have been down that path before & i believe that we are better off having a tyre war.

If the rival companies are fairly even over the season a tyre war can be a good thing, but if one is a lot better than the other it can be boring. Catch 22 really.

[hamsmith]

I'm a fan of the control tyre. I hate to hear the comentators saying they think Ferrari will win because it's Bridgestone weather or Montoya might just get on pole because the tems right for the Michelins. I want to see Ferrari and Williams go head to head and the car and engine package goe head to head. Too many variables confuses things or makes up too many excuses for a team to of won or lost.

[esorniloc]

I have a different suggestion.

No team would have a season long tyre contract.
There would be a set limit to the cost of a set of tyres.
Teams would be limited to 3 sets of dry tyres per weekend (as there are no tyre changes in races they would be able to last).
The two manufacturers (or more) can only have 1 compound of tyres for each race.
At the start of practice each car has a set of tyres from Michelin and a set from Bridgestone and can test on each type. Then for each car the team buys (at the set price) a 3rd set of tyres from there chosen tyre manufacturer to qualify and race on.

This way it keeps the tyre war and at each circuit it would be unknown who would race on which tyres until qualifying. It also means that no manufacturer gives support to any one team.

[DriverT]

Yeah it would be interesting. But you'd still have teams like Ferrari with exclusivity deals which guarantee them the best tyres (officially or otherwise).

[climb]

Just a little memory; I remember that when BS had the monopoly, still some rteams accused them to favourish this or that leading team, thus it has to be showed that one tyre bring to even treatment.

[esorniloc]

Originally posted by DriverT
Yeah it would be interesting. But you'd still have teams like Ferrari with exclusivity deals which guarantee them the best tyres (officially or otherwise).

No there would be no season long deals. At each race each team would do a 1-race deal. You could in fact have some teams using different tyres on the cars (one on Michelin and one on Bridgestone).

[Morris 1100]

Allow competition between companies but ban pitstops for tyres. (Except for rain or punctures)
What is the point of the current tyre rules? The people at home know that Bridgestone is better than Michelin (well they win more don't they) But the people at home also know that the tyres only last 50 miles and then need replacing!

[DriverT]

Originally posted by esorniloc
No there would be no season long deals. At each race each team would do a 1-race deal. You could in fact have some teams using different tyres on the cars (one on Michelin and one on Bridgestone).

No, I don't mean year-long deals. I mean a (1-race) exclusivity deal for the best tyres.