Should FIA put brakes on tyre critisisms by teams?

[John S]

Does constant sniping run close to bringing F1 into disrepute?
After all Pirelli are only supplying what they were asked for.
E J, in the story below, thinks the teams may be liable to shoot themselves in the foot,  ......and if Pirelli calls it a day what then? 
Funny ain't it how no one seems to be blaming their Canada result, for good or ill, on tyres; fair weather friends are sooo predictable. 

Eddie Jordan has warned formula one to ease its criticism of F1's sole tyre supplier Pirelli.

The Italian marque has been the subject of intense criticism of its controversial and heavily-degrading 2013 tyres, and is now embroiled in the 'test-gate' scandal and facing the charges of F1's governing body.

Former F1 team owner turned television pundit Jordan, however, says F1 should treat the maker of its tyres with more caution.

"Pirelli openly submitted its tender, they also paid money for it, and now they're criticised or ridiculed by some teams," the Irishman told Austria's Servus TV.

"I think some teams should be a bit more careful. Who is going to give them tyres if Pirelli is not there?" he wondered.

"Do we see anyone else willing to do a better job? I think we should really be a little more friendly to Pirelli," added Jordan.

He said it would be completely wrong for Pirelli to cave in to the loud protests of teams like Red Bull and agree to modify the 2013 tyres mid-season.

"You can't punish someone who's done everything right," said Jordan, referring to those teams who "built their cars correctly" for the 2013 specifications.

He said Canada was an example of teams only criticising the tyres when they can't make their cars work.

"I didn't hear a word about the tyres (in Canada)," said Jordan.

"Sebastian (Vettel) said nothing, Alonso and Hamilton said nothing, and these were the top three.

"They complain if it doesn't work out for them," he added.

Grandprix.com, Today.

[Irisado]

He's got a point.  Vettel complained so much about the tyres when he wasn't winning.  He crushes everyone at Montréal, and doesn't say a word.  As I've said before, it's not Pirelli's fault.  The FIA told them to produce tyres which wear out, and they did, so the drivers, and teams, should take their complaints to the FIA if they have something to say.

[cosworth151]

I agree with EJ on this point, too. Pirelli delivered the tires they were asked to build. I think the overall result of these tires has been a plus for the sport.

The IRL is going the same way. During the Texas race last Saturday, much was made about the new Firestones being designed to fall off after a certain number of laps. All reports I've read said that it was at the request of the drivers.

[Jericoke]

EJ is right that Pirelli doesn't deserve criticism.

The story doesn't really mention FIA saying anything about the criticism though.  I don't think that the FIA should be in charge of censoring teams (outside the realm of keeping any public speaking to a family tv rating).  Let the teams say what they want, no matter how off base they are. 

[John S]

The story doesn't really mention FIA saying anything about the criticism though.  I don't think that the FIA should be in charge of censoring teams (outside the realm of keeping any public speaking to a family tv rating).  Let the teams say what they want, no matter how off base they are.

Eddie never mentioned the FIA Jeri, that bit is my tuppence worth.  However it's their responsibility to see that the appointed tyre supplier, arrived at through a fair tender process, does not get such a bad press that they quit the series.

Bridgestone left because the positive PR generated by involvement in F1 was perceived as a lot less value than it was costing them. Pirelli have already started making suggestions that they might chuck in the towel too.

IMHO the FIA should have been more proactive and batted down some of the comments from teams like Red Bull, too much public condemnation of the nominated tyre supplier is the same as criticising FOM or even the FIA itself, now that wouldn't be allowed to go on for long - now would it? 

 

[Jericoke]

Bridgestone left because the positive PR generated by involvement in F1 was perceived as a lot less value than it was costing them. Pirelli have already started making suggestions that they might chuck in the towel too.

IMHO the FIA should have been more proactive and batted down some of the comments from teams like Red Bull, too much public condemnation of the nominated tyre supplier is the same as criticising FOM or even the FIA itself, now that wouldn't be allowed to go on for long - now would it? 
 

If being a tire supplier isn't really 'worth it' for F1, maybe it's time to cut the tire supplier costs.

Let the cars run the full race on one tank of gas, and one set of tires.  Do we NEED pitstops?  Speaking for my North American boardmates, spending 90 minutes in a single stretch of driving isn't really a big deal.

It would meet the needs of cutting costs for teams.  It would meet the needs of cutting costs for tire suppliers who don't see the value of the sport.  It would meet the needs of casual fans who don't understand why a car in 5th place is really 'leading' because of the pit stop shuffle.

HOWEVER, if we believe that a pitstop is a fundamental part of the sport, then let me suggest a new item for the pitstop:  adjustable aerodynamics.  As the tires wear down, as the fuel load lightens, the cars can pull into the pits and have the wings adjusted to suit the car.

This keeps an element of strategy in the sport.  It means that the cars are no longer set up as some sort of absurd compromise that don't qualify well, don't start well and don't finish well.

[Irisado]

You could go back to the pre-1994 system which ran for a good number of years after refuelling was first banned in the early 1980s, whereby pit stops for tyres were optional.  This created some interest when some drivers tried to run non-stop.  Some smaller teams used this to great effect if they had cars/drivers who were kind to the tyres, and could finish higher up the order than expected by not making pit stops.  Fittipaldi made good use of this tactic for Minardi in 1993.

[lkjohnson1950]

Jim Clark once won 3 GPs and 1 non championship race on the same set of Dunlops. The last race was tricky because the tires were almost bald and it was raining at Reims. But the team knew a pitstop would kill any chance of winning. How things have changed! I'm sure Pirelli could build a tire that would last the whole race, but would the drivers like it any better? 

[markfarrell9572]

Pirelli came into the sport with a certain brief.  I would imagine to make a tyre that performs at tracks like the Hungaroring or Monaco so it replicates a one of day in Canada is a difficult thing thing to do indeed.  Each and every team knew this when Pirelli was awarded the contract. Although Pirelli have changed the tyres each year, the teams have been told what the changes will be.  It is the team's failures if they can't get on top of the tyres. F1 deserves to lose what has been a very good sponsor and supplier.   Hankook have said they will not supply tyres, I can't imagine Bridgestone want to, in fact with Pirelli having a large trackside sponsorship presence what tyre supplier would want to participate?

[lkjohnson1950]

Bridgestone has already said they are not interested in a return to F1. Hankook wants to do F1, but says they are not ready yet. Which I think translates to we'll come when we can build normal tires that the teams won't complain about. Pirelli took on a tough job and has said that using a 2 year old car to test with is not working out because the cars advance too much year to year. Part of this year's problem is that the cars are loading the tires more than Pirelli expected.

[Willy]

I don't believe anyone can tell the teams to not be critical of the tire manufacturer any more then they can be told to not give their opinion of tracks and pit facilities.
Pirelli knew what they were doing when they got into F1 and if they can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I would love to see things shake up to the extent that each teams gets their tires from whatever manufacturer they can cut a deal with for the season. As long as the FIA regs are followed, who cares where the tires come from.
Then you'd see some strategy.

And bring back refueling.

[Scott]

I would love to see things shake up to the extent that each teams gets their tires from whatever manufacturer they can cut a deal with for the season. As long as the FIA regs are followed, who cares where the tires come from.
Then you'd see some strategy.

And bring back refueling.

 

[Jericoke]

I would love to see things shake up to the extent that each teams gets their tires from whatever manufacturer they can cut a deal with for the season. As long as the FIA regs are followed, who cares where the tires come from.
Then you'd see some strategy.

And bring back refueling.

 

   in theory.

But in practise, the last 'tire war' became a bit of a joke, (not even counting the 2005 USGP) being on the wrong tire meant a complete lack of competitiveness.  If Pirelli, supplying the entire field in a non competitive environment, is losing money, how are other suppliers supposed to make money with fewer customers, and more testing?

Also, the refueling means that the cars can be designed for carrying a light load only.  Right now it's possible to design a car to gain advantages during certain phases of the race based on fuel load/tire wear.  If we go back to the way it was, then teams will revert to using pit stops as the primary means of passing.

The drivers are on record not liking refueling.  It adds danger to the sport without really adding to the spectacle (yes, Kimi's car driving in flames was pretty cool, but hardly safe)

[cosworth151]

Make refueling optional. For an example, watch this vid pf the 1957 German GP. It is arguably one of the best F1 races of all time. Fangio & the Maserati team ran light on fuel and needed to make a stop half way through. The Ferraris ran with full tanks & didn't stop. Fangio ran hard to build up a time cushion for the stop, than ran even harder to catch up.

[Willy]

I don't believe that tire manufacturers get into racing to make money from the teams they supply, but as another form of advertising to get their brand out in front of the public and sell the product to the road car market.
"Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" was the term and it still applies.

Any part maker that expects to make money from supplying F1 teams alone without using that format as a way to generate business outside that environment is missing the point.

If each team had to source out their own tires from whichever manufacturers made their products available to F1 it would add another layer of strategy to the season and offer more interest to the fans to see who can get it right and who will drop the ball.
As it is now, with every team using the same tires it is just about what car can manage those tires to best effect.
Imagine how it could be.......