Pirelli wins control tyre / Michelin sues FIA

[A.F.F.]

But the cars have tyres next years, right ??

What's all the fuzz?

[WRC2006]

I'm afraid unrelated F1 posts + hypothetical youngster's policy (as if the FIA actually cared for the youngsters) + schedule or plot aren't the way it was decided.

Pirelli simply decided to inject money in FIA's pockets as they were doing with Subaru, Mitsu, Peugeot...

Everybody knows Michelin always refused to do so.

So it's just a matter of willing and marketing issues by both tires companies.

Michelin said they took point of the FIA's decision because they already knew Pirelli would get the deal due to their own strict policy.

Now we can either blame the system and/or Michelin.

By the way, standardization is boring !

I agree with you, Pirelli has the policy to inject money and ask everyboy to shurt up his mouth. They did with Peugeot and with Subaru particuraly with Petter Solberg to shut up his mouth blaming the crap tyres.

How about this link : http://www.rally-live.com/wrc/en/accueil/news2.shtml

[cut the b.s.]

have a look at the FIA website, and you can see the tender documents that all the tyre suppliers had to submit.

It tells about testing, and numbers of tyres.

No matter whether the tyre supplier is pirelli, BFG or anyone else, all the cars will now compete on one tyre, so it doesn't matter the quality.

The issues of what happened in F1 may or may not have had an effect on who wins the tender, but I don't think so.

There will be a schedule, and Pirelli will have come out with the best, that is all. Nice to have conspiracy theories,makes for good rumours, but I think the truth is much simpler.

Good to see some sense posted in this thread, and for all those who worry about 'standardization' relax, the top teams are already on the same tyre, if it reduces costs and if we see tougher hard wearing tyres(no mouse so they will need to try and do this) it may reduce the speed fractionally but it should not affect the spectacle. I just hope that the construction is got right for rougher rallys and we dont see events decided by punctures as seemed so common last year in JWRC

[jonkka]

But the cars have tyres next years, right ??

What's all the fuzz?

Best comment so far!

[[WRCRR]]

Ok, some may argue that for the competitive aspect of WRC it is better that there is only a single tyre manufacturer who is supplying all. But - looking at other aspects, standardization plain and simply - sucks.

I know there will be tyres on all cars next year like A.F.F. humorously mentioned, but still I dont like this kind of route what leads to more simple type of top level championship. These kind of moves are good in lower categories, but in the top level there should ALWAYS be the possibility to compete with the best in all aspects of the sport - whether tires, cars, seat belts, gearboxes, spark plugs - you name it.

If somebody makes better tyre than somebody else - they deserve the success they get...it might not always be good for tightly fought rallies, but it would certainly be the most progressive way.

Next year all will be running with Pirelli tyres...would it be good if some year all would be running with Citroën cars?

[JAM]

The discussion goes on the usual BS from the ones that live in the sky and far from the earth reality.

What's WRC problem right know? MONEY, the LACK OF MONEY. If you have a one tyre supplier system you will need to spend less money. One tyre suplier will not kill the competition neither the rallying.

Rallying needs costs cutting measures and the one tyre suplier is a good option to help that. We are waiting for more measures to help the WRC and to create conditions to have more manufacturers and teams, because only this way will be possible to do WRC strong. The ones who defend the WRC as a pinacle of technology should have a cold bath the open the eyes and put the feet on the ground. On the ground the reallity is different than seing fro the sky.

Wake up while is time... Less MONEY spent is what we need. The pinacles of technology costs a lot of money and ther is no money. Is not dificul to see, isn't it?

[L5->R5/CR]

The discussion goes on the usual BS from the ones that live in the sky and far from the earth reality.

What's WRC problem right know? MONEY, the LACK OF MONEY. If you have a one tyre supplier system you will need to spend less money. One tyre suplier will not kill the competition neither the rallying.

Rallying needs costs cutting measures and the one tyre suplier is a good option to help that. We are waiting for more measures to help the WRC and to create conditions to have more manufacturers and teams, because only this way will be possible to do WRC strong. The ones who defend the WRC as a pinacle of technology should have a cold bath the open the eyes and put the feet on the ground. On the ground the reallity is different than seing fro the sky.

Wake up while is time... Less MONEY spent is what we need. The pinacles of technology costs a lot of money and ther is no money. Is not dificul to see, isn't it?

JAM,

aside from testing, how much do the teams have to spend with regards to tires? I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression, that the tire manufacturers provided the tires in the form of sponsorship in exchange for being included on the vehicle.

So if the only expense teams are bearing is the testing expense, then how will limiting the supply of tires (which means now for the next year or two, tire testing will be very important so car set up can be developed and adjusted to the tires which will be totally different) cut costs.

A tight limit on testing, or tire testing, would likely have resulted in similiar expense reduction, unless of course there is more to tire supply costs for teams than I understand. Honestly, I was under the impression that minus the testing the tire companies bore the brunt of the costs of tires, and the need to do even more testing with the next batch of tires, will increase expenses for teams for the next 18-24 months. I just see this is one of those long term reduction ideas from the FIA that increase the short term expenses and technological barriers to entry.

If teams bear some of the costs of the tires beyond testing then my argument is null and void...

[Captain VXR]

I agree with you, Pirelli has the policy to inject money and ask everyboy to shurt up his mouth. They did with Peugeot and with Subaru particuraly with Petter Solberg to shut up his mouth blaming the crap tyres.

How about this link : http://www.rally-live.com/wrc/en/accueil/news2.shtml

They just sound like sore loosers to me

[JAM]

JAM,

aside from testing, how much do the teams have to spend with regards to tires? I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression, that the tire manufacturers provided the tires in the form of sponsorship in exchange for being included on the vehicle.

So if the only expense teams are bearing is the testing expense, then how will limiting the supply of tires (which means now for the next year or two, tire testing will be very important so car set up can be developed and adjusted to the tires which will be totally different) cut costs.

A tight limit on testing, or tire testing, would likely have resulted in similiar expense reduction, unless of course there is more to tire supply costs for teams than I understand. Honestly, I was under the impression that minus the testing the tire companies bore the brunt of the costs of tires, and the need to do even more testing with the next batch of tires, will increase expenses for teams for the next 18-24 months. I just see this is one of those long term reduction ideas from the FIA that increase the short term expenses and technological barriers to entry.

If teams bear some of the costs of the tires beyond testing then my argument is null and void...

I don't know exactly how many tests are done because the tyres, but i believe that are many days a year. With standard tyres there is less a thing to test and develop, and the money saved by the tyre manufacturer could be a sponsor to the championship. If things were well done, then the one tyre suplier could have a lot of money saved in many areas. But, as i said, IF the things...

I'm totally in favour of "cost reduction", even if we must have less development. I don't like the price of rallying.... very high, very very high even to manufacturers. If os not possible to increase the visibility of the WRC under the Media, then lets make the WRC cheaper, unless one day neither official neither private teams.

[FrankenSchwinn]

I don't know exactly how many tests are done because the tyres, but i believe that are many days a year. With standard tyres there is less a thing to test and develop, and the money saved by the tyre manufacturer could be a sponsor to the championship. If things were well done, then the one tyre suplier could have a lot of money saved in many areas. But, as i said, IF the things...

I'm totally in favour of "cost reduction", even if we must have less development. I don't like the price of rallying.... very high, very very high even to manufacturers. If os not possible to increase the visibility of the WRC under the Media, then lets make the WRC cheaper, unless one day neither official neither private teams.

i'm sorry you have to pay so much money to the WRC jam. but you know teams have a restricted amount of days testing. so, they have to test a lot of things with these days and they HAVE to test the car's reactions to what-ever tire you put on and under different conditions. except for when a tire manufacturer puts a new type of tire out, i do not see how having a controled tire manu would decrease testing costs. show me, show me the money.... that the teams will save. in the end, i think the single tire thing was just for "leveling" the competition and getting rid of as much french stuff as possible.