Tyre disparity to be reduced at four GPs

[John S]

Just when we are getting used to allowing for the big gap between the two tyres in the grid game, along comes this announcement to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 At least now we shall have an excuse for not overtaking The Wiz in the game.   

Bridgestone has announced that there will be a smaller than usual gap between its tyre compounds in the Hungarian, European, Belgian and Italian Grands Prix.

Normally this year Bridgestone has tried to make the two compounds that must be used in each grand prix 'two steps' apart - for instance super soft and medium tyres rather than super soft and soft. This system, which was requested by the Formula 1 teams, was designed to create greater variation between cars' performances at different stages, and to encourage better racing.

But the company's motorsport boss Hirohide Hamashima said Bridgestone had decided it would not be practical to have a big tyre disparity at the Hungaroring, Valencia, Spa or Monza, so would use compounds just one step apart at those four tracks.

"Hungary is a circuit where the characteristics demand our softest tyres," he explained. "This is also true for street courses, and we used the softest allocation earlier in the year at Monaco, and will again in Valencia.

"In Spa the weather temperatures can be quite cool, so the hard compound could have caused difficulties, and the super soft would have been too soft for this track, so that means the allocation of medium and soft is obvious.

"In Monza the hard compound would have given too big a difference between it and the soft, so we will bring the soft and the medium."

The only time Bridgestone had previously used two similar tyre compounds so far this year was in the Monaco GP.

By Matt Beer Today, autosport.com

[SennaMan]

i abhor the one supplier policy of F1 for the reasons outlined in this article.

almost as if BRIDGESTONE can dictate the actual racing, rather than the teams.

as i have consistently mentioned, monopolies never work for the betterment of F1 racing and at least one other supplier is needed to keep BRIDGESTONE honest and effective.

[Jericoke]

i abhor the one supplier policy of F1 for the reasons outlined in this article.

almost as if BRIDGESTONE can dictate the actual racing, rather than the teams.

as i have consistently mentioned, monopolies never work for the betterment of F1 racing and at least one other supplier is needed to keep BRIDGESTONE honest and effective.

I agree in theory, but it would be hard to argue that the Bridgestone/Michelin years were made better by a 'tire war'.  It was impossible to win on the wrong tires. 

If there was more than two tire suppliers... or an ability for teams to switch... then I'd be more interested in multiple tires.

As for spicing up a single supplier... give each team a fixed number of each set for the entire season.  Make sure you don't use up your super softs too early!

That would put the tires in line with the engines, and hopefully create more strategy as teams use up all their super softs in 'must win' races.

[SennaMan]

i abhor the one supplier policy of F1 for the reasons outlined in this article.

almost as if BRIDGESTONE can dictate the actual racing, rather than the teams.

as i have consistently mentioned, monopolies never work for the betterment of F1 racing and at least one other supplier is needed to keep BRIDGESTONE honest and effective.

I agree in theory, but it would be hard to argue that the Bridgestone/Michelin years were made better by a 'tire war'.  It was impossible to win on the wrong tires. 

If there was more than two tire suppliers... or an ability for teams to switch... then I'd be more interested in multiple tires.

As for spicing up a single supplier... give each team a fixed number of each set for the entire season.  Make sure you don't use up your super softs too early!

That would put the tires in line with the engines, and hopefully create more strategy as teams use up all their super softs in 'must win' races.

good points Jeri, my assumption was to give the teams the ability to switch choices between suppliers, and your idea to have a fixed set for the season could work effectively too.

[Warmwater]

Where the heck did the idea of having to use two different compounds in a race come from??
Maybe Bridgestone can't control their quality and so fudge some into soft and others into hard.....
IMHO everyone should be using the same tire spec throughout. Using the 'logic' of more than one tire specification, why not 2 different brake pad and fuel formulations that have to be used during a race? Total foolishness.
The people who invent the rules need a dose of reality.

I also have a big problem with the tires shedding marbles that accumulate off the racing line, in effect creating a railway track that everyone has to follow. I don't care if harder tires result in slower cornering speed, no one will notice except the guys monitoring the data in the back of the garage. Speed is relative, and a bit of sliding in the corners sounds like a good idea to me.

[Jericoke]

Where the heck did the idea of having to use two different compounds in a race come from??

I couldn't say who came up with it, but the theory is that different tire compounds are better in different conditions - in theory there will be passing when a car is on the right tire and the other one is on the wrong tire.  I don't think it's panned out that way.

[cosworth151]

I think this started when Bridgestone, through its Firestone brand, was the sole supplier to CART/Champ Car.

With only one tire supplier, the only mention they were getting on the air was negative, i.e. when a tire failed. Forcing the use of two compounds per race lets Bridgestone get its name on the air more often.

Team in Le Mans / ALMS are allowed to cut their own tire deals. There are multiple suppliers. Why not just do that?

[Jericoke]

Team in Le Mans / ALMS are allowed to cut their own tire deals. There are multiple suppliers. Why not just do that?

Indy2005 is why.  Which is a shame.  That race really undid a lot for Formula One.  Probably more damage that Piquet Jr and Flavio ever did.

I honestly don't think the tire wars made for better racing.  I agree that teams should have some choice, but one supplier seems to completely dominate, which isn't really much fun.

[cosworth151]

I was at Indy in 2005. That is just exactly why F1 needs to do things like ALMS. If the Dunlops aren't working, take them off and put on the Avons. By the F1 rules, the Michelin runners had to use Michelins. Worse than that, they had to use the ones they started the week-end with. Michelin had flown in replacement tires. They were in the garage. Max, sitting in his ivory tower in Paris, wouldn't allow them to be used.

[Scott]

Having multiple tire suppliers at each race with enough rubber for all the teams wouldn't be logistically feasible, but like you say, let the teams cut their own deals with whoever they want (maybe some would even want to make rubber in-house).  Keep the FIA's nose out of the whole thing.  Let them choose their own compounds, just have the tires be of certain dimensions (pre and post race measurements).  If the team itself blows their choice, then they can always cancel the contract and re-sign with another supplier for the next race.

I don't really understand the FIA's right to authorize a tire supplier in the first place.  That is certainly a commercial aspect of F1, which the FIA should have no authority.  What's next, they start asking for bids for all the component parts from F1 cars and force the teams to use the ones they've awarded?   

[Jericoke]

I was at Indy in 2005. That is just exactly why F1 needs to do things like ALMS. If the Dunlops aren't working, take them off and put on the Avons. By the F1 rules, the Michelin runners had to use Michelins. Worse than that, they had to use the ones they started the week-end with. Michelin had flown in replacement tires. They were in the garage. Max, sitting in his ivory tower in Paris, wouldn't allow them to be used.

Sorry, misunderstood.

That would be what I want to see, picking your tires for each race.

Of course, that does go against the concept of keeping costs down, doesn't it?

[Jericoke]

I don't really understand the FIA's right to authorize a tire supplier in the first place.  That is certainly a commercial aspect of F1, which the FIA should have no authority.  What's next, they start asking for bids for all the component parts from F1 cars and force the teams to use the ones they've awarded?   

The FIA has to approve the tire design as a safety regulation.  Certifying a company to make tires makes sense, you can't have just anyone showing up at the track with parts for a Formula One car.

The tire manufacturers probably won't agree to ad hoc contracts.  I've never made a tire before, but I'm guessing it's a fairly expensive process.  If you end up with a second rate tire no  one buys, there goes a lot of R&D, and possibly the company.

[Scott]

The FIA has to approve the tire design as a safety regulation.  Certifying a company to make tires makes sense, you can't have just anyone showing up at the track with parts for a Formula One car.

No they don't.  The FIA don't approve manufacturer's of brakes, drivetrains, engines, cooling systems or hundreds of other little bits on an F1 car, they approve only the specs.  Many are as important for safety as the tires.  There are 10's, maybe even 100's of outside suppliers of F1 car components, and the FIA does not have the right to authorize which companies the teams choose, why the tires?

The tire manufacturers probably won't agree to ad hoc contracts.  I've never made a tire before, but I'm guessing it's a fairly expensive process.  If you end up with a second rate tire no  one buys, there goes a lot of R&D, and possibly the company.

They can negotiate their contracts the way they want to...maybe the teams would put in performance clauses ensuring their chosen supplier worked like crazy to give them competitive tires or the contract was nul.  Anyhow, point is, there is no reason F1 couldn't go with 3-4 tire suppliers, and considering there are already at least 20 tire manufacturers involved in racing series around the world, upgrading to provide F1 rubber might be attractive enough and pay enough (don't forget tires aren't free in F1, even with one supplier) that a few more suppliers would be interested.  Don't forget too that Bridgestone at one point spent all that money to supply just two teams - Sauber and Ferrari.  The exposure was worth it.  Maybe Goodyear would like to be Mclaren's pet, or Dunlop would like to be for Brawn, BF Goodrich for Red Bull.  I'm sure the smaller teams would be happy to take leftovers of one of the big team's supplies.

[John S]

No they don't.  The FIA don't approve manufacturer's of brakes, drivetrains, engines, cooling systems or hundreds of other little bits on an F1 car, they approve only the specs.  Many are as important for safety as the tires.  There are 10's, maybe even 100's of outside suppliers of F1 car components, and the FIA does not have the right to authorize which companies the teams choose, why the tires?

.

Tyres can make so much difference I remember seeing a Formula 5000 race at Brands hatch in the early 70's when a driver on a completley different tyre make ran so fast that he had lapped the entire field before halfway through the race. At least this year in F1 over half the field manage to stay on the lead lap which has not always been the case in previous seasons.

I also remember the problems in Moto GP a couple of years back when one tyre was so much better than the other make, Rossi insisted his team switch his bike as soon as possible to the other trye or he would walk. His teamate had to remain on the other to ride out the contract throughout the next season.