Should we need another tire war?

As long as Mercedes have the slowest tyre...

 

F1's tire strategy is to have tires that degrade quickly. That's like having a circus tell all the clowns to only be a little bit funny during each show.

The Spa track is unique due to the turn and incline which causes a tire to pull away from the rim while being stressed downward at the same time.

I don't mind a tire war, but the rules aren't set up for the healthiest tires at the highest speeds.

 

IMO of course we need another tire war. I will never forget what happened back then, when Bridgestone accused Michelin for the last's tire width and squaring the ends of the tires, allowing Williams to have a small advantage.

Crazy but amazing years!

 

The rules are so screwed up that shady tire issues are the norm- can't blame Pirelli as this is what fia wanted. Drs, tires that go off, dirty air that affects the wing on the following cars so that they lose downforce, no testing to "save costs", etc. FIA really have shyte the bed in the last decade IMHO. Btw the road car relevance argument is stupid-the only thing that fia are allowing is free aero development ("no tokens necessary kids!") and none of us are going to be driving road cars festooned with cascading wings. The endurance cars are much closer to street cars in terms of relevant technology. When I drive on the streets of manhattan I don't find myself reaching for the drs button....

Back ot: no tire war needed, lift the ridiculous limitations and the tires won't be the center of attention. Only three tires needed: one type of slick, inters and full wets. That's it IMHO.

PS-Fix the engines!!

 

From a viewers perspective I think Pirelli is doing a pretty decent job.
They get it right for most races to hace 1-3 maybe 4 stops.

I am not entirely clued on what grudges the drivers hold against Pirelli, so besides not having read up properly, I would say that Pirelli is one of the success stories of recent F1 development.

 

I´d like to see it becasue I don´t like standardization, but in this F1 with ultra-expensive power units and half of the teams almost bankrupt, it wouldn´t make sense. Also, we shouldn´t forget that if a tyre manufacturer gets it wrong, half of the grid gets automatically discarded for the win, no matter how good the rest of the car is.

So I say YES but NOT now.

In any case, I think that Pirelli should be doing a better job. I think that tyres should be strong enough to allow the driver to push all the stint. And they could be safer too. Probably they need more testing to achieve this.

 

This is the problem. Thanks to the FIA and Jean Todt. Our doing nothing leaders have forced Pirelli into this. Why on earth would anyone want to supply F1. Its broken. No testing yields insufficient technical data and leads to conjecture on tire life. Silly.

 

I voted NO. It is easier to control 1 supplier, than appease 2 competing suppliers. If 1 supplier shows an advantage, then the teams on the competing product will complain. Then there will be excuses that winners are based on supplier, not merit. It just simplifies things by having only 1 supplier in an already overly-complex sporting regulation.

If the product sucks, force a hand and have it addressed.

 

+1

It's another I could argue both ways, but overall I think I'm with you.

As for them sucking, it's what Bernie asked them for and the teams all agreed remember.

Having said that, I can't help thinking they're getting tired of all the bad press. I think I'd be tempted to say 'screw this, Michelin, you're welcome to it! Good luck!'

Cheers,
Ian

 

I am all for competition, and a monopoly doesn't offer competition.

Pirelli needs a challenge from 2 or more tyre manufacturers. That's how we will get the best tyres.

Teams should be able to choose their supplier like in the past, and the FIA should stop the tyre monopoly.

 

There was never a tyre "war". One tyre brand always dominated the other. The only time the tide changed was when the FIA changed the rules.

Sure it was great seeing Schumie destroy the Michelin runners but when Michelin started dominating it was nothing but pain and misery.

Never forget that USA 2005 happened during a tyre war.

 

If they allowed testing engines, tyres and all parts would become better, morereliable and more durable. Get rid of the Drs and kinetic crap, and go back to V8 or V10 engines, then the sport will be able to afford testing and make for better racing

 

have to vote no, since I'm assuming that Pirelli makes tires how F1 wants them

If you want a poll on "should tires be expected to only wear out gradually and without life threatening instant destruction like we saw in Belgium", then that's another great question!

With the loss of life of any driver, it seems criminal to NOT mandate that tires be built tough enough to survive Eau Rougue. Maybe F1 needs to mandate a special tire because of the one series of corners going up Eau Rougue? I'd hate to suggest redesigning the course there, but come on, either address the problem (Rossberg and Vettel had blowouts probably caused partly by the same part of the track), or address a solution (mandate # of laps, build tires that last an entire race, build tires that don't explode, etc).

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

If we had another tire war then the manufacturers would have to balance durability with performance and there'd be more variability in the strategy of the teams running different tires. They'd actually be trying to make good tires instead of ones that just provide an atrociously artificial spectacle.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

The spec tire is a great idea where downforce isn't significant/important.

However, tire degradation if pushed, results in drivers hanging back out of the aero of the car in front, relying on pit stops to make a pass(Or DRS). Only if your car is massively faster, or you have no one behind you to lose to on the next step of pit stops, do you go racing.

The primary concern - is safety, and if Pirelli gets it wrong as a sole manufacturer, then there is little difference with a tire war. In NASCAR, teams were blowing tires from inappropriate tire pressures against Good Year's recommendation. This created a lot of friction and bad press for Good Year. (3 or so PSI cold on a left side tire, yeah, that will be great sticky grip until the tire collapses.) I wonder what the tire pressure was for Rosberg and Vettel.

 

I hear you. And to an extent agree.

However, history tells us, as others have noted, that one of 'em gets it right and the others may as well not bother showing up!.....

Assuming they split the load 50/50, that's basically ten cars with very little chance of getting on the podium, and only in the points if things go their way.

I dunno.....
Cheers,
Ian

 

There will always be something: a dominant tire, a dominant engine, a dominant driver... the battle for technological supremacy is part of the show. It's another reason the current rule set to limit development is frustrating because it locks in the performance differentials rather than allowing teams to quickly close the gap and fight for championships.

If variability of equipment is not desireable then one could always watch a spec series like GP2, Porsche Carrera Cup, Mini Challenge, Formula Renault, or Formula E.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

All well stated & very much agreed.

I'd like to ask 'em (the "stakeholders", the FIA, Bernie, Charlie, whoever) why, o why don't we have more post-race test days?..... Additional cost would be minimal and we may see some development.

"Variability of equipment" is one of the main reasons I stick with it! One of the few series remaining where you've got to DIY! It's a *huge* engineering challenge to put a new (hopefully, quicker) one of these things on the grid every year - Let alone at the front thereof!

You don't just call up Dallara/Porsche/whoever and order one! [Although, it appears a lot like that's what Haas is doing of course!......]

Cheers,
Ian

 

The other think to consider, is what team each supplier will favor. Currently, Pirelli makes the tires and it's up to each team to design the car around them. Once you have 2 suppliers competing, they will each choose 1 team as their "factory team". The supplier will work very closely with that 1 team, optimizing the tire for them alone. Then the other teams using those tires have to adapt to them.

Any time you have a competition (in this case, 2 tire suppliers - each of whom wants to supply the WDC/WCC the winning tires) you will have conflicts. 2 teams may benefit, but the rest lose.

 

There are easy ways to enforce parity of supply and prevent a tyre supplier giving preference to one team: distribute the tyres at random, or have the teams draw their set of tyres for the event.

If you do that, the tyre suppliers will have no interest working for a particular team and develop tyres for their need. There would be no "factory team".

 

This is completely pointless. It would add huge cost. It would also materially impact car performance more than any other element of the car, PU and aero included. Net result - those on the 'right' tire win, those on the 'wrong' tire lose. Hardly designed to improve the show and increase the number of competitive teams. I am totally against this idea.

 

I have thought about this a lot. Would a tire war be better or worse for the sport?

I came to this conclusion:


I think it would be worse.

The reason is you can have a great car and driver but the tires let you down. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Tires are just too important to the performance of the vehicle. If everyone has the same tires, they have to figure a way around them to make THEIR vehicle work better than the other guys.

A tire war would make the cars go quicker but not necessarily make the racing more interesting.

 

The change to hydrid power units quadrupled the engine biils.
Any talk about reducing costs will never be taken seriously after that !!


I cannot see anything wrong with teams having the best equipment winning.
The best engines, the best chassis, the best tyres is what they should all be seeking.

Otherwise, turn F1 into a specs series and do away with the competition between suppliers.Maybe you should watch Indycar rather than F1; they put on a good show.