Todt's right to push the FIA's power on this, they're the ones that set the rules, but we should have been through this like, 3 months ago, no? It's getting very late to produce the tyres in time for testing, nevermind starting a tender yet.

I don't see why everybody shouldn't have a say, the teams are paying and have to work with them, they have to meet FIA standards and the contract is also with FOM afaik.

It's just a bit pathetic that with time very very short Todt has let it get virtually to a decision and then stuck his nose it as Mr Important.

The first bad sign from him.

How, exactly, was anyone except the tyre suppliers supposed to know that the tyres for Indy were potentially dangerous ahead of the event? After all, Michelin supplied tyres from 2001 to 2004 before that race without trouble.

So methinks you're just looking for an excuse to attack FOM.

Of course, everything OK with that but he should've done so in January but not now, after Michelin was desperately trying to get the deal and allegedly failed to do so.
If it smells like poo and looks like poo ...

Spanky has been putting in his two cents lately. I would not put it past him to be the birdie in Todt's ear whispering "are you gonna let them push you around? show them who's boss."

FIA should set the tyre regulations. FOM + FOTA should come to the commercial agreement with the supplier(s).

The French Connection

Michelin <-> Todt

I´m ok with that

It was quite a Max-esque thing for Todt to say, you're right

Why is a tyre war not being considered?

It doesn't do anything to improve the show. When you have multiple tyre suppliers, there is too much emphasis on which tyre the drivers have. You also open the door to situations like Michelin developing tyres in conjunction with one of the teams.

The problem with a tyre war is cost, pure and simple. Not recommended since the economy isn't exactly stable yet.

Yep... I wouldn't have a problem with it if the FIA didn't basically let the teams settle on Pirelli, before doing a Mosley and create a fight out of nowhere...

A good end can be that there will finally be a official supplier under the mandate of FOM/FIA.

Teams up until now went up and down have not made decisions. Certainly due to its decision making mechanism?

if it becomes Michelin and./or the Michelin option to use tires with larger rims...
I wonder if thst will be at the expense of overtaking yet again.

Larger rims: offer more room for larger brakes: and thus improved brake capacities and even shorter brake areas required.
Will that improve or bother overtaking?
I fear the latter....


henri

Um, that appears to be entirely Michelin's doing. The teams liked the Pirelli option and were about to settle on it, and then Michelin came along with an offer that they felt was better and the teams obviously felt it was worth discussing and so delayed the Pirelli deal.

I fail to see what the FIA has to do with it.

FIA want to set tyre regulations and determine who's the supplier and holds the contract. After Indy 2005 the FiA, couldn't ask Michelin for recomponsation, because the tyre manufacturor was being considered an supplier to the teams. The FiA couldn't make teams bleed either, so Max took control. And Todt would be fool to put the FiA into a similar situation like in 2005. If the FiA wouldn't put up a tender, then some folks would call the FiA biased, not transparent. Those opposing a tender have their gfield day now, but the FiA IMO is correct to not put themselves at the mercy of a tyre war gone too far again.

And if they're late that can IMO only be good for the first few races, until everybody figures out the tyres properly. More testing, what's the point?

There are regulations to the size of brakes, discs, etc. Why would the FiA want to change that? Teams, maybe want to play with it, but as long as the FiA is unimpressed with those requests..

On the balance I don't see much benefits anyway.

I do hope they don't go the Michelin way, as I wouldn't like the aestethics of it. And where would they put the Michelin name on the tyre wall?

Why would Micheling want to rock the F1 boat? There are some good reasons, and few if none have to do with Indy 2005. It's IMO more that Michelin supplies other series which might benefit from a fallout in F1..

It has nothing to do with wanting to rock the boat. Indy 2005 is compeltely unrelated to my post. If Michelin wants in, it's for business reasons.

Here's a recap:

1) All the tyre suppliers made their respective bids.
2) FOTA sat down and discussed what they liked.
3) In the end, they settled on a choice between Pirelli and Michelin.
4) Pirelli was reported to be the favoured one.
5) But Michelin made a last-minute bid, one that grabbed the attention of the teams.
6) So we're now back to a deadlock between the two while FOTA decide.

What I was questioning in the post you quoted is Slowinfastout's statement that the tyre arrangement was nearly in place until the FIA threw a spanner in the works with Michelin when the FIA have clearly been separate from this process. While the FIA get the final say on who the tyre contractor will be, no doubt they want input from the teams on which supplier and which arrangement is best. They have nothng to do with Michelin making an eleventh-hour bid.

I think Michelin was the FIA's (Todt) preferred choice all along... hence the FIA sending out a friendly reminder that even though FOTA had settled on Pirelli, they and Bernie still needs to sign on the dotted line...

Afterall this amounts to a regulation change, so everyone needs to be on the same page.. but:

-The FIA is going to issue a tender process, telling what they want... (some green-related nonsense, etc..)

-The FIA selects winner of the tender process. (Michelin)

-At this point it's too late for further debate so everyone signs on dotted line. (Fake smiles and stuff..)

This is a bit weird. FOTA have been active in recent rule making, banning trick diffusers; and banning then agreeing to bring back KERS. But although the FIA seem happy to cede control of technical regulations to the teams, when it comes to which tyre company the teams want to work with, that's suddenly not on. The teams are doing the governing body's work for it, and the governing body seems equally happy to run the teams' commercial and design offices for them.

I disagree.

2003 was the best season I've watched since I began watching F1 in 1992. 1997 was the second best season.

Back before, there were only 3 or 4 teams who had any real potential, now I'd say that's increased to 6 or 7 so you wouldn't get team dominated politics from a specific tyre supplier.

The problem with a control tyre is they lack mechanical grip reducing overtaking and they are far too durable.

Then fix the makeup of the actual tyre.

Good thread.

The timing when Todt made his statement give an impression that he supports the last bid. Yet he promotes the tender instead of naming his preference. If he puts in open tender then there is space enough to guard FIA's risks while demanding the technical quality that teams want to fix as soon as possible. I am assuming that the tire company will produce what is required in the tender quality wise as well as quantity.

So this sounds good, transparent (Still to be seen), clean and sort huge process in one go.

JRobertsF1: Reports are emerging that Pirelli will be confirmed as the new F1 tyre supplier soon.

According to Brawn, teams have agreed to design to the same weight distribution next year.
So no one will have a weight distribution advantage, whichever tyre is selected for next year.

You are kidding, right? It often does exactly that.

The more variables the better I say, screw Max and his homogenized F1.

Nice to see the Toad is finally showing how rubbish he will be, Max II only not quite so loony.

No, if you introduce two tyre suppliers, too much of qualifying and race results are going to depend on which tyre a team and driver are running. It happened back around 2005, when Michelin developed their tyres specifically for Renault to use. Everyone else running on Michelins had to put up with whatever they were given.

What kind of b*llsh*t is that? If a teams wants to take a gamble on a the weight distribution, let them

They can gamble if they want, but the agreement means that all the teams have agreed on the design spec that the manufacturer will be given, and that means the tyres will be designed around the given weight distribution. If they didn't do something like this then no one would be able to start the work on next years car.

I hope you guys can vote on the poll I created.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=130909

I would like to carry on with the pole I don't mind if they merge both threads though.

I don't want to nit pick but Jean Todt said that it was not up to the teams to say what they get next year. He said that the FIA and Bernie were the ones making the decision, and it seems that the FIA have not put out the tender yet.
Is this, perhaps, another destabilising move so that if you get it wrong at the start of the year you can pretty much wave goodbye to the rest of the season.
On a slightly different topic,If I were Mr Bridgestone [and I hadn't decided to go], yesterdays race would have made up my mind, it is hard to quantify the cost of such bad publicity. "The tyres are far worse than the teams thought, they are graining, they have no grip, they don't last" to name just a few remarks from the BBC lot. Does the new supplier know what they are letting themselves in for?
Watching Le Mans, despite the numerous punctures, no one was blaming Michelin.

Several insiders have said they expect a decision on next year's tyre supplier before the end of the month.
This decision was critical 2 months ago and is now almost too late.

There was a short news item on Nick Heidfeld's web site that has now disappeared.
It talked about Nick being engaged by Pirelli to test the tyres "for all teams" using the Toyota chassis, and sharing the data with everyone.
Seemed to make some sense to me since Heidfeld (and Alesi) were the last Formula1 drivers to use Pirelli tyres (while at Prost).
Anybody else have more news on this?

Relevant to the matter:
- http://f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_conte...&Itemid=157
- http://f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_conte...&Itemid=157
- http://f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_conte...&Itemid=157

Thank's...
This part seems to indicate a split.

There is still no official announcement about the Formula 1 tyre supplier next year and it is clear that there is a difference of opinion between the various parties regarding the best choice for Formula 1. The problem appears to be one of finance with both Michelin and Pirelli bidding for a deal. The biggest teams, a group which is believed to include Ferrari, McLaren and Renault, are in favour of a Michelin deal, a path that the FIA is also keen on taking, despite the fact that the deals would cost teams more money. Those seeking a less expensive deal seem to be supporting Pirelli. The big teams argue that in the end the costs must be seen as part of a bigger picture as a switch to Pirelli will likely require major changes to the cars, whereas Michelin will be able to produce tyres that suit the current generation of machinery immediately.

Everyone agrees that unless there is a rapid solution to the problem then teams will be having to produce B versions of the 2011 cars early next year once they discover the characteristics of the new tyres. This will, of course, add to the cost and make a deal with Michelin the logical thing to do the longer the indecision continues.

There are reports that Pirelli is looking at acquiring one of the Toyota TF110 chassis to do the tyre development work necessary and the suggestion is that Nick Heidfeld would act as test driver. We have also heard that the likelihood is that all the teams would stay on in Abu Dhabi after this year’s race and complete a four-day test to get used to the tyres.

What is clear now is that Bridgestone and Avon are both out of the picture.

You're welcomed!

Would be a huge stretch to think that Mercedes is the one pushing for Pirelli?

Big teams

Just get Pirelli in there please, it's not like it'll hurt any of the bigger teams.

I suspect that info is incorrect. This sounds like a far more realistic assessment of what's going on to me...

http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/

This decision has been left so late that it would be wise for a 'new' tire supplier (like Pirreli) to bail out.
Or else make such a conservative tire that GP2 cars will be quicker than F1 at many tracks. Oh, that should be good.

Huh? Pirelli's last season in F1 was 1991.

Good blog. Finally the Napoleon Toad 'I'm so powerful' quote makes a bit of sense.

Website I checked said Prost used Pirelli.
Goes to show, can't trust the internet.

Bridgestone was the sole supplier when Heidfeld drove for Prost in 2000, and they switched to Michelin in 2001.

I think the FIA have an ulterior motive in delaying the decision for the 2011 tyres. They don't want teams to develop cars for next year so early into the current season. This will force the teams to put their resources into the current cars while awaiting further information about next years specs. Ultimately this will have the effect of keeping the title battle as tight as it currently is.

Thoughts?

Teams are already working on next years car.

If true, it's certainly not a bad thing.

FIA is Michelin's best friend?

and I thought we were getting close.
NOW it looks like it is about to blow up in FOTA's face.
Seems the FIA (Todt like Max) still has ego problems.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84678

Pirelli confirmed as F1 tyre supplier for 2011

3 year deal and sole supplier