One tyre supplier?! How about two or more?

[Tallgeese]

Many may agree that Bridgestones are not considered as great as the Michelins but then again it was Bridgestones that beat off competition from Goodyear (who had several years of monopoly) & ensured themselves as sole-tyre suppliers from 1998 until 1999. Noteworthy that besides the constructor & driver's challenges the 'tyre wars' were always an interesting sideline. In 2007 the 'all-French' Renault had to settle for non-French tyres & it was this that they attributed (in part) their slump in the 2007 season. The Michelins were always considered a key factor in Renault's performance against Ferrari.

It is important to note that besides Ferrari, Bridgestone equipped teams often ran last, suggesting that only Ferrari truly understood how to best exploit them. By the second half of the 2006 season, the Ferrari 248 (F2006) was clearly faster than the McLaren-Mercedes MP4-20, & Renault R26 despite its supposedly inferior tyres. Indeed, should the 'tyre wars' be resurrected some more exciting races would be seen. The Hungarian GP of 2006 featured a classic Schumacher-Alonso duel, where the tyre difference (Schumacher couldn't heat them up sufficiently) enabled Alonso to capitalise. Likewise, the Chinese GP enabled Ferrari to 'strike back' thanks to improved Bridgestones.


Bring back the tyre wars!

[christophulus]

I'm not convinced, it brings a completely random element into play. If a team turns up at the track and finds that their tyres just aren't as good as the opposition, they have no hope, particularly as the cars next year should be more reliant on tyre grip.

Bridgestone, as far as I could tell, essentially tailored their tyres to suit the Ferraris, and just gave Jordan/Minardi the same specification. Michelin had to spread their resources around more teams and were never going to be quite as competitive.

I also thought that Renault's mass dampers were the secret weapon against the Ferraris - once they were banned the Renaults started to drop off quite dramatically towards the end of 2006, but just held on to the title.

[Tallgeese]

I'm not sure that the 'random element' is such a bad thing as it adds to unpredictibility. When I race (& so far I've raced at single spec-series at Karting) we all had the same equipment. No two teams in F1 (in theory anyway) should have a common pool of spare parts, & performance differences in tyres may well be due to a 'quality control' issue. Having different tyre suppliers creates more differentials & hence greater unpredictibility.

The Michelins offered superior performance, particularly endurance. Honestly, the Michelins never looked as badly worn down. Renault's dampers were banned mid-season, a strange issue as it was originally approved. The R26 wasn't as competitive in the second half of the season but the superiority of the tyres were visible, particularly in the rain.

The change to 'slicked' tyres is long over-due & should ease development. I'd very much like to see another tyre supplier enter F1 to enhance competition & unpredictibility. I still think that the best driver in the best car will always win the day, but perhaps the margin will be reduced to such a degree to produce exciting racing.

[PolePosition_1]

only Ferrari truly understood how to best exploit them. By the second half of the 2006 season, the Ferrari 248 (F2006) was clearly faster than the McLaren-Mercedes MP4-20, & Renault R26 despite its supposedly inferior tyres.

Have to quote this, as this is one of the most biased (or lack of understanding) pieces of writing I've seen for a while on here.

Ferrari were the only team succeeding with BS tyres because of their spectacular relationship with BS.

It evolved around BS using the Ferrari car to design their tyres, so of course the Ferrari worked better than any other car on the BS tyres.

With respect to both parties, Ferrari were the only front running team on the BS tyres, but then McLaren left BS for Michelin because they were unable to compete with the Ferrari - BS relationship.

Though with regards to the topic, I enjoyed the tyre war, and could play as a good level playing field factor when a chassis wasn't as good, they'd make it up on rubber. Then it could also work against competition and clsoe racing, as I believe was the case with BS and Ferrari, where their closeness damaged other teams on same rubber, as it was specified primarily for Ferrari.

If we scrap the single tyre regulation, I'd like more controls in place for ensuring all teams, top and bottom are giving equal treatment.

[PolePosition_1]

I also thought that Renault's mass dampers were the secret weapon against the Ferraris - once they were banned the Renaults started to drop off quite dramatically towards the end of 2006, but just held on to the title.

In fairness to Ferrari, they also used Mass Dampers (they just weren't as good as Renaults), it was McLaren who complained to the FIA about them, and got them banned because they couldn't get it to work.

But you could argue, the ban benefitted Ferrari over Renault in the title hunt.

[V12]

While more than one tyre supplier would make it infinitely more interesting again - unfortunately the FIA don't deal in concepts such as common sense, sporting integrity and, well, just generally making the sport interesting. They prefer uniformity, a "level playing field", and such.

So it's probably not going to happen again

I personally think any win "earned" by Bridgestone from 2008 onwards should not count in the record books when determining the most successful tyre (2007 was "officially" multi-tyre and no different to when the whole field used Goodyears by choice), and once I get a car I know which tyre manufacturer I'm going out of my way to avoid out of protest

As a general rule, the more variables thrown into the mix, the more interesting the racing is, without having to resort to gimmicks like reverse grids and success ballast and so on. That's why I'd be against a standard engine, single chassis, and it's why I was against the single tyre. BS by name, BS by nature.

[wedge]

Not too keen on tyre wars on the whole. It dilutes the competition and you need a variable that aids parity tó gauge the competition.

In recent tyre war the Bridgestone tyres were handicapped in 2005, bad wet weather tyres for 2006, and this was despite Schumacher's best efforts.

Same problem with MotoGP - Michelin riders handicapped in some races. Rossi jumps to Bridgestone and then so does Pedrosa.

[V12]

In recent tyre war the Bridgestone tyres were handicapped in 2005, bad wet weather tyres for 2006, and this was despite Schumacher's best efforts.

Exactly! Without a tyre war, Schumacher would probably have won EVERY championship from 2000 until his retirement. At least a good Michelin tyre allowed first Montoya and Raikkonen to get a look in (2003) and then Alonso to actually win it (2005, 2006).

Without a tyre war, you'd never have gotten a Minardi leading a race, or qualifying on the front row or Jean Alesi leading his ninth Grand Prix in a Tyrrell that same weekend.

Without a tyre war, Jackie Stewart's 1971 championship win would have been even more processional, oh and finally the small matter of the first Grand Prix ever being won by superior tyre technology.

Another case of a big part of the sport's history being ripped out for commerical reasons. And ironically, given the FIA/Bernie's obsession with "entertainment", it's actually made the sport less entertaining and unpredictable as a result!

[Mark]

Cost is a big factor mind. It costs a lot of money both for the tyre suppliers and the teams to develop the tyres. Plus grippier tyres make the cars go faster, and we don't necessarily want faster cars from a safety perspective.

[V12]

Actually forgot to mention this but just been flicking through the Autosport I bought yesterday, and I found a piece on the FIA GT Championship.

They have bucked the worldwide trend of choosing a single tyre supplier, instead Pirelli and Michelin can both compete, but they must supply a single specification of tyre to any competitor who wants one, at a fixed price.

To me that makes a perfect compromise between all-out development, "bespoke tyres" and favouritism, and the single tyre idea. It keeps more than one brand of tyre to mix up the order a bit week-in week-out, and promoting the essence of competition and sport.

It may be that one tyre manufacturer "gets it right", but in that case they are obligated to supply the entire field should they be asked. It may well be how this thing pans out but I've always found on-track natural selection infinitely more preferable and natural than some "tendering" process.

F1 could do a lot worse than have a look at this, even more astonishing is that it is an FIA championship that's come up with this idea. Although it's probably more down to Ratel than Mosley. Still, credit where it's due...


As far as the speed/safety issue in F1 is concerned, IMO if they banned refuelling, kept (or even reduced) the pit lane speed limit, and perhaps limited the number of people that could work on the cars (say one person per wheel), then it would promote a situation where perhaps developing harder, more durable tyres would become the optimum solution - what's lost on the track is gained by not pitting.