Yeah, but it would be contrived randomness. And besides for 2011 nobody would be crazy enough to go up against Michelin who are the only ones to have worked with F1 cars in the last 10 years and have a tire already ready.

Why wouldn't somebody want to go up against Michelin? The fact that Gooodyear had been the only supplier in F1 for years never stopped B'stone from coming in in the late 90es, or Michelin a bit after for that matter. in both cases, the latter overcame the predecessor. Anyway, the tire data that Michelin has in hand is quite different from the new data with slicks plus a completely different Formula, unless of course B'stone cooperates by forwarding them data, I'm sure teams will, but also, they would with any other incoming supplier.

Of course this is the Sports Car version, but they could easily make a single-seater out of it.


They want cost savings? Those babies aren't wearing out anytime soon. They'll last years.

How about taking this opportunity to make it cheaper, get rid of tyres altogether?? F1 cars could then run on rails like a train, oh wait they already do.

Now seriously, I wouldn't mind a tyre war too much. Yeah it's sometimes unfair to the teams that picked the wrong tyre contract, and it might make the grid less close to each others, and it's costly. But it introduces some nice performance variables that mix the racing. And it's pure competition just like the good old days. And if they have any bit of common sense and finally get rid of whatever aero is ruining the racing, allowing a tyre war of slick tyres is a good way to claim some laptime back.

ooh yeah

Cheng Shin

On the other hand, it allows tyre companies to develop their equipment to suit each car. And I think a competition between some clearly different-handling, different-tyred racing cars is something spectators want to see. It's certainly something the equipment manufacturers want to see, and they pay the bills for F1 too.

But does anyone remember in 1995 when the Kobe earthquake levelled much of Dunlop's motorcycle programme? In one stroke Team Roberts's claim to be the biggest and best Grand Prix team was finished.

Fixed that for you ;) Bit them on the arse in the end though, didn't it.

$120m? That makes the total cost per tyre...

11 sets * 19 races * 26 cars * 4 tyres = 21736

and some for testing

18 days of testing at say 5 sets per day * 13 teams * 4 tyres = 4680

26416 so

$4543/tyre

I wonder what IRL and GP2 cost to supply, it can't be anywhere near $4.5m/car. Either Bridgestone are spending far more then it needs to as a single supplier or the $120m figure is made up.

Geez, I can sell these honeys for $50,000/tire and you only need two all year.

Yeah let's do that, the most experienced tyre manufacturer will hook-up exclusively with the biggest name in F1 (Ferrari) again and presto Fernando is a 7 time WDC too.

Not that I would really mind, but I just can't believe some of the silly posts here, either some of you never watched F1 before 2007 or some have the attention span of a 3 y/o and went all panicky because of 1 race in Bahrain.

I WAS TRYING TO BE DIPLOMATIC. Anyhow, it was the introduction of a control tyre that sent the MSMA teams (minus Ducati) fleeing from World Superbike in 2003. They didn't like the idea of having to remould their own Superbikes around some low-grade Pirelli rubber, when there were guys at Michelin and Dunlop who were willing to supply tyres to suit their GSX-R750s or VTR-1000s.

Wonder what would happen if they couldn't find anyone.

Personally I'd be ok if they did have more than 1 supplier, however it would need to be more than 2.

What will be interesting is that there will be no testing for the supplier until next years winter testing. It will be entertaining to say the least.

I'm sure Stefan GP could give them a hand with testing!

They could use the USF1 car too....er ahh ....forget it.

Well, what's to stop them from doing that right now? or next year?

If a single tire supplier wants to do that, they clearly can make a tire to suit the Ferrari over any other car, they did it in the MS era when the B'stones were built for the Ferraris, everybody else on B'stones was along for the ride, that didn't stop the Michelin cars in 05 and 06, did it?

Honestly, if it means Ferrari winning every race and Fernando to be 7 time champ, heck, I'd rather have that than the spec tire crap with gimmicky rules on mandated 2 stops, or 2 compound per race rule. Manufacturers hook up with one another, it's part of racing. Before the inpound era in Karting, Jarno Truli won the World Karting Championship in an "All Kart" chassis when he was young because he was the main B'stone driver that year, Nicola Gianniberti won everything Japan, European championship, and WC in 93 cus he was the main Vega driver, everybody else on Vegas those years stank, but he kicked but. It happens...

BTW I agree it's only one race, but the issues discussed are the same as the last 10, to 15 years. And for the record, I'm all for the re-fueling ban, always have, always will. I think these prima donna drivers need to stop the whining and get on with the job, learn to drive hard while preserving, Prost was the master of it, but Senna for all his agresiveness was still extremely good at it, and the races were classics.

The ICS pays for tires, around US$1800/set last I heard. NASCAR touring series pay US$1750/set this season. (actually both series lease, not buy the tires) Locally we pay about US$500/set for sportsman class hard tires, just under US$700 for the feature class soft tires. (we buy and own those tires) Why is it so expensive for the big guys? First off, the amount of race support is non trivial. The tire techs mount and balance each tire then dismount them to freight them back. There are engineers trackside supporting the teams and the cost and logistics of getting the tires, techs and pit equipment from race to race. And we haven't even factored in R&D and any sponsorship and marketing activation costs. Those are likely in that figure. The tires compounds are specific to each circuit based on previous data. They aren't making them for sale to the general public and as such the limited market dictates a much higher price. The demands of the F1 car are very specific and they are making them for only 24 cars and the R&D and manufacturing are not cheap.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough interest at this moment for multiple suppliers, but depending on how 2010 shows itself that may change. But it's very late in the game already for a rubber firm to decide they're gonna get in on the job....

If you were the manager of a F1 team whose tires would you choose? Michelin, who also have an endurance tire and have all the facilities and technicians already ready to produce F1 tires or someone like Goodyear who don't even make any single seater tires and will likely have to start over by hiring the left over guys from BS and Michelin and invest in new tire machines?

Keep in mind that your job as a manager is to win races not improve the show.

If this man was in charge of F1, we'd have no problems and a great show!



lol now let me hear you say NOOO! Haha!

Ehh that's Vince McMahon the chairman of WWE lol

I don't understand the enthusiasm for a tyre war.

(a) I just don't care if one brand of tyre is faster than another. It's not interesting.

(b) If McLaren beat Ferrari (for example) I want it to be because McLaren designed the car better and raced it better.

© There's a big risk that one brand will dominate and spoil the racing. Compare 2004,5 & 6 with 2007,8,& 9.

No, Ferrari fans thought it was dumb in 05 because bridgestone made a shit single race tyre but most of the seasons were great, especially 2003 when Michelin first started to make tyres that could match the bridgestones. I thought it added an extra dimension when the tyres were even but had different characteristics such as the Michelin shod Williams and McLarens were great in qual and Bridgestone Ferraris were great in the race. It was also great in 97/98 when the bridgestone McLarens fought with the goodyear ferraris. I distinctly remember the super slo-mos as the cars went over the kerbs at the final chicane, the BS were really rigid sidewalls and the goodyears in the ferraris were wobbling all over the place.

The thing that made it crap was when there wasn't an even spread of teams between the two manufacturers like the years when only Ferrari were on bridgestone (and maybe a back marker team). And when Michelin brought the wrong tyres to Indy in 05.

We've had 3 great seasons since Bridgestone became single supplier but the tyres are much more critical this year with no refuelling. A different approach maybe needed if after 3 races we've got a similar situation to Bahrain where the teams are so close in performance we need another varying factor to spice things up. The teams need more tyre options either by compound or supplier IMO. Melbourne 09 was awesome because the soft tyre was fast then fell apart. I know its bad publicity for the tyre company but super consistent low performance tyres are bad for the sport and us!

"Avon. Their tyres are rock hard and the lap times would increase by 3 seconds"

All of you that want more fun and overtaking, this is what the F1 need. Maybe the old times comeback.

One reason for going to a single source tyre provider was to reduce costs. The tyre war meant that teams were doing lots of tyre testing during the season to try and gain an advantage. Removing the tyre war reduced costs as all teams used the same tyres.

In these financially uncertain times for F1 I cannot see them doing something which will increase costs again.

I cannot see Bridgestone changing their mind. Japanese business culture means that once a decision has been made, they tend to stick with it. Having decided to withdraw and then confirm that decision, I can't see any possibility on them backtracking on that now.

Entering F1 would definitely be attractive to some of the far eastern tyre companies who don't have a high profile worldwide. I know people who've used Kumho's in competition and who rate them highly for grip and VFM (value for money). They have supplied F3 Euroseries and recorded a class win in LMP2 at Le Mans last year. How much of a step up from LMP2 to F1? I can't aswer that. Certainly any company wishing to supply tyres to F1 would need to start on the tyre designs now and start investing in the tooling very soon after, with the aim of conduting first tests on F1 cars in 6-8 months from now. They can't afford to lose their shirts in supplying F1, so I'd say FOM would probably have to stump up a good sum of money to take the risk out of it for them.

Edit: correction, it was a 2007 they had a class win at Le Mans

I'm not sure that I follow the logic of competition being a "contrived randomness"...

That's an excellent point. F1 appears to have backed itself into a deep corner and I'm very skeptical that they can extract themselves without shelling out a large sum of money for tires in 2011.

Shouldn't tyre testing have begun already? Bridgestone spent a full season in 1996 preparing its slick tyres; Firestone had an entire racing team follow the CART circus in 1994 prior to their entry (incidentally the team raced the following year and was in contention for victories throughout ).

Rest easy. Peter Windsor and Ken Anderson are putting together a tire (wtf is a tyre? ) company to supply tires to F1 teams.

That's the problem as I see it. Given the substantial capital, personnel, and R&D costs associated with this undertaking, it's not something that can be quickly slapped together within the 10-11 month time frame that F1 has forced upon itself. Worse, by the time this gets sorted out there will likely be, what?, 9 months max to pull this off? Bridgestone is increasingly looking like the only viable option, and that will not come cheaply, if at all.

I'll echo this... Tire wars are stupid, a waste and plain unfair to anyone but the supported topteam. I'd really hate to have a new one ever again...

i am sorry but i dont see the difference between the so called contrived randomness of tire brands resulting the outcome of a race and the choice of engines?!? where would brawn without the mercedes engine last year... what if he could only have gotten the renault or god forbid the cosworth... now.. lets say michellin and pirelli and goodyear all provide tires to f1... isn't that tantamount to wether a team uses a ferrari engine, or a mercedes engine, or a cosworth, etc... all of them different, all of them providing a different possible outcome in differing circumstances. that is how i see it. you may disagree with me all you want but a component that is not made by the team but is purchased buy them is pretty much up to chance anyway. same with brakes, you pick what works best for your team and go with it... ok i ramble...but i believe my arguement is valid.

From Wikipedia
"A tyre is a ring-shaped covering that fits around a wheel to protect it and enable better vehicle performance by providing a flexible cushion that absorbs shock while keeping the wheel in close contact with the ground."

I tire of your questions!

The other answer would be to get Michelin to supply a single compound of it's 2005 spec tyre for all races. Give cars 5 sets a weekend (1 for each session) and allow them to be used however they choose (including removing the stupid qualifying rules).

Maybe make them one of the softer compounds so at some races you can either drive hard on 2+ sets in the race or nurse one set the whole distance. You could use 1 set for all practice and then throw 3 at quali and run one set in the race as scrubs.

The tech already exists and is up to F1 speeds and we know they can make full race distance but gave a boost in qualifying. Costs would be low due to using less tyres and being the same compound.

Just not sure Michelin would be up for it.

Whatever happens less sets of harder tyres with less development will be the way to go. If speeds drop they can always be brought back up with a return to 19k rpm or when the new engine regs come in for 2013

The 2005 tires were grooved though.

Kimi + Red Bull + Michelin = Me likey

Yeah but if the choice is that or some unknown untested newcomer and savings of $50+/year then I could live with groves.

From wikipedia:
Tyre is an ancient Phoenician city.

and
A tire (or tyre in British English) is a ring-shaped covering that fits around a wheel.

surely they could use the same compounds they did in 2005 but with a different shaped mould so the tyres would be slick !

That gets you into tooling costs and that is neither cheap nor quick to pull off. Provided they still have their '05 tooling laying around somewhere, this is a really interesting idea, FonzCam.

WAR CRY!!!!!!!

Isnt it amazing how Bridgestone was with Mclaren before Ferrari, and goodyear was with Ferrari yet bridgestone made Ferrari thier partner, so to speak, and Macca had to go to Michelins. I think i'm right

the Answer!!!

Why NOT??


They would not even need to be slicks, just stuff already made that fit corvettes and similar stuff....

Never understood any real need for ROAD RACING tires that were not road worthy....

Because then F1 cars would be slower than most feeder series and the cars would look real stupid with such skinny tires

You seen the back of a ZR1 or a Viper? they aren't skinny.

The tires should also have much lower profile (sidewall) mounted on large diameter rims.
Current 13" wheels look like they were made in the the 80's.

ive heard the 13" rims are to control the size of the brake discs/brake system... mind you that was on nascar.

about 90% of suspension of a f1 car is in the tyre isnt it?

Wouldn't the rules control the brake disc size? "11.3.2 All discs must have a maximum thickness of 28mm and a maximum outside diameter of 278mm." Page 34

guess micheal waltrip was wrong

My local tyre yard has got some old Indian remolds they might let em have cheap.....

I'd like to see a tyre war between Kumho and Hankook.

Why? F1 cars need a higher profile tyre as a lot of the suspension movement is in the tyre.