Tyre Wars in F1

[landogeorgelewis1]

Since 2006 F1 hasn't seen a tyre war between two tyre manufactures.

Since Michelin opted out of F1 back in 2006, we've seen a sole tyre supplier in F1. 2007-10 we saw Bridgestone take the roll on but now in 2011 Pirelli have taken over from them.

Has the Sole tyre supplier been good for F1? Or do we need to go back to a good old tyre war between two tyre manufactures?

This article is in relation to the following link:
http://www.f1zone.net/news/michelin-would-return-to-f1-tyre-war/9154/

Personally i miss the tyre war, but thats just my opinion. I thought it brought a bit of spice to racing. I really enjoyed the Michelin Mclarens going up against the Bridgestone Ferrari's. But thats just my opinion, would be great to hear your opinions.

 

[Muddytalker]

I would welcome a tyre war, but with a number of provisos:-

Some form of mid-season testing has to be allowed - Otherwise if you pick a tyre that's a dud on day 1, you're lost for the whole year.
A situation like 2005 has to be avoided, where one tyre company is focussed on one team, whilst another has to satisfy 7 or 8 teams.
Remove the 2-compound race rule. (This proviso can in fact be included for any proposed rules and regs change, Just get rid of it, please)

 

[tooncheese]

Thing is that the tyre war meant that they were developed until they were very fast and very long lasting. The Bridgestones ruined the 2010 season. Whilst it is arguable that Pirelli have swung to far the other way, a new tyre war would just put us back in the situation we barely broke free of.

 

[Slyboogy]

Thinking about it now, I am not really a fan of tyre wars, it became riduclous in the end, someone winning because they had a better tyre supplier? Rather see them win from skill, engine advantage or aerodynamic advantage. What made the tyre war even worse was the suppliers favouring teams, Michelin in the 2005 supplied 7 teams, yet favoured one and continued that trend the year after, and Bridgestone favouring Ferrari for so long, I can't remember the Goodyear and Bridgestone days if teams where favoured or not.

In 2005 the Bridgestone teams where nowhere, while the Michelin teams where at the top, 2006 season was good as the advantages of which tyre was better varied from track and the performance advantage wasn't big, but I think you are only going to get a few seasons like that out of several.

 

[landogeorgelewis1]

Good post there Sly - agree with you that Bridgestone favouring Ferrari was a bit of a joke to be honest and i can see why a number of Bridgestone's teams reverted to the Michelin tyre. But surely if your the FIA this time if you go into a tyre war again you'd make sure that both Manufacters get equal amount of teams. I believe the FIA has learned from the previous tyre war and would be great to see it back maybe just for a season or two?

 

[Brogan]

it became riduclous in the end, someone winning because they had a better tyre supplier?

Why is having a better tyre any more ridiculous than having a better chassis, or a better engine?

F1 isn't a spec series, although it's trying its hardest to be one.

 

[Slyboogy]

Why is having a better tyre any more ridiculous than having a better chassis, or a better engine?

F1 isn't a spec series, although it's trying its hardest to be one.

Because the car be total and yet beat others who have worked their butts off to create a better chassis or engine, the team doesn't have to do that much work if they had a better tyre supplier, if they made their own tyres fair enough...

 

[Brogan]

Some teams don't make their own engines.

Or chassis.

 

[Slyboogy]

Good point

Still not a fan of the tyre war....unless there is not favouring, and there's not much of an advantage...

You could build a rocket of a car, yet be let down by your tyre supplier, you've did everything right at your end, yet you get let down...

 

[Muddytalker]

Good point

Still not a fan of the tyre war....unless there is not favouring, and there's not much of an advantage...

You could build a rocket of a car, yet be let down by your tyre supplier, you've did everything right at your end, yet you get let down...

'twas ever thus, ever since competition started, and in any sport.

Added: Or look at it this way - there are 5 World Champions on the grid, why are 4 of them out of contention for this year? Because someone, has designed or built, something better than their providers.

 

[Fenderman]

Excellent OP, Hammy'.

You know what? I'd like to see the lid taken all the way off and tyre companies allowed an open door to F1 with the teams allowed to make deals with whichever suppliers they chose. Right now we have a one size (well several in terms of compounds) fits all. Some teams benefit whilst others are having trouble working with what is being prescribed. So we have an almost artificial situation (as with ERS and DRS).

Why should one tyre manufacturer have a monopoly on F1 as a showcase for their product?

F1 should be the culmination of all that's best in automotive technology and personnel. So, I'd like to see open competition on the tyre front with Muddy's proviso's:

I would welcome a tyre war, but with a number of provisos:-

Some form of mid-season testing has to be allowed - Otherwise if you pick a tyre that's a dud on day 1, you're lost for the whole year.
A situation like 2005 has to be avoided, where one tyre company is focussed on one team, whilst another has to satisfy 7 or 8 teams.
Remove the 2-compound race rule. (This proviso can in fact be included for any proposed rules and regs change, Just get rid of it, please)

and as Brogan points out:

Why is having a better tyre any more ridiculous than having a better chassis, or a better engine?

F1 isn't a spec series, although it's trying its hardest to be one.

That's my take on it after watching 40 years of F1 so I doubt I'll be changing my mind having taken so long to make it up on this subject.