I only started following F1 back in 2007, so forgive me if this has been covered in the past...why not simply allow multiple tire manufacturers? Wouldn't that allow for more variance and competition - especially in the constructors area?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2010 Formula One Thread
- Thread starter RaceTripper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We used to have that, but in the interests of "safety" (dueling tire manufacturers meant significant advances in tire design and construction resulting in higher cornering speeds) they went to a single manufacturer.
It was mainly a cost issue that brought in the single manufacturer. The amount the tyre manufacturers were having to spend to improve on their competitors was silly.
I prefer having a single manufacturer for tyres, as it was frustrating to see a team's performance affected by things outside of their control if they'd unknowingly chosen the wrong brand.
Yes, cost was an issue, but this is F1. 
Michellin wanted the teams to pay more for tires in their bid proposal, as I recall, which might have helped Pirelli win the contract.
As to choosing the wrong tire, in a way I see it as no different than choosing the wrong engine or choosing (designing) the wrong aerodynamic package. Clearly Bridgestone's closeness with Ferrari created a tire tailor-made for their chassis, but the other major team choosing Michellin somewhat put themselves in a bind. If McLaren or Renault had chosen Bridgestone, as well, they probably had the clout to force Bridgestone to work with them to develop a more "balanced" tire in terms of chassis support.
Michellin wanted the teams to pay more for tires in their bid proposal, as I recall, which might have helped Pirelli win the contract.
As to choosing the wrong tire, in a way I see it as no different than choosing the wrong engine or choosing (designing) the wrong aerodynamic package. Clearly Bridgestone's closeness with Ferrari created a tire tailor-made for their chassis, but the other major team choosing Michellin somewhat put themselves in a bind. If McLaren or Renault had chosen Bridgestone, as well, they probably had the clout to force Bridgestone to work with them to develop a more "balanced" tire in terms of chassis support.
Yes, cost was an issue, but this is F1.
Michellin wanted the teams to pay more for tires in their bid proposal, as I recall, which might have helped Pirelli win the contract.
As to choosing the wrong tire, in a way I see it as no different than choosing the wrong engine or choosing (designing) the wrong aerodynamic package. Clearly Bridgestone's closeness with Ferrari created a tire tailor-made for their chassis, but the other major team choosing Michellin somewhat put themselves in a bind. If McLaren or Renault had chosen Bridgestone, as well, they probably had the clout to force Bridgestone to work with them to develop a more "balanced" tire in terms of chassis support.
It should be remembered though that Ferrari's relationship with Bridgestone was in fact similar to that enjoyed by Renault and Michelin.
I suspect that Michelin's petulant antics at Indy in 2005 didn't help their case either, even half a decade later.
Amusing comments during SPEED's FP2 coverage noting that HRT is in such internal conflict that there is no money being released so the only upgrade for the team at Silverstone will be Bruno Senna's iPhone 4.
I think Pirelli still want 18" tyres. I think pretty much all of them want it on the cars (it is notable how many companies went for it once Michelin said they wanted 18" tyres) - it just won't happen until 2012 at least. Pirrelli won because they would pay more money - apparently Mclaren and Ferrari (amongst others) wanted Michelin.
I think they all want 18" rims because then the technology will translate more readily to road going cars. What they have now has little technical relevance (although that's a pretty good desciption of F1 in general).
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
I really don't like the idea of 18 inchers....ugh. I like the look of days gone by. Curious what the rotational weight difference would be between the current 13incher with rubber and an 18incher with rubber.....
Remember how the tires looked in the mid 1970s? Big fat gumball tires. Those were great. I think the design of the F1 car, it's width and tires optimum, peaked in 1991-92. The Williams FW-14 was beautiful.
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
Unfortunately I was not born till the early 80s, but I do know what you speak of. Absolutely stunning. Maybe its time that the F1 rules were completely randomized for the dimensions of the car and tires. I seriously want to see another 6 wheeled car with massive rubber, and another turbine car :-D
The width/length/height of so many components now are too regulated so all the cars are all to similar once again. (IMO) Really, fubar the the car design rules. Start from scratch! Now that would be cool IMO, but then that would bring back gaps of seconds between cars for years to come till the overall package would be similar among all teams once again.
Neat piece of marshalls and the blown diffuser concept - will be interesting to see how McLaren implement it at Silverstone.
Going for Webber to win this. I think his head is much more with it than Vettel - I mean, going for the fastest lap with a dodgy gearbox??? He needs to sit down and just get a solid race under his belt. I'd like the McLarens to do well, but I don't think they can.
Going for Webber to win this. I think his head is much more with it than Vettel - I mean, going for the fastest lap with a dodgy gearbox??? He needs to sit down and just get a solid race under his belt. I'd like the McLarens to do well, but I don't think they can.
I think Lewis can get on the podium. Probably not a win though. Not sure if both Red Bulls will reach the end...
Ugh The race is being carried on Fox in the USA today instead of Speed. It's being televised on a four hour delay. I guess I need to stay away from the internets this morning.
The race is being carried on Fox in the USA today instead of Speed. It's being televised on a four hour delay. I guess I need to stay away from the internets this morning.
Not sure why the BBC commentators are suggesting the slower teams should not defend track position. If there is a track where McLaren/Red Bull/Ferrari are slower than the other fast cars should they just jump out of the way of their championship rivals
Interesting on twitter: Mike Gascoyne "Heikki defended his line and braked at his normal point, looks like webber missed his braking point"
Interesting on twitter: Mike Gascoyne "Heikki defended his line and braked at his normal point, looks like webber missed his braking point"
Not sure why the BBC commentators are suggesting the slower teams should not defend track position. If there is a track where McLaren/Red Bull/Ferrari are slower than the other fast cars should they just jump out of the way of their championship rivals
Interesting on twitter: Mike Gascoyne "Heikki defended his line and braked at his normal point, looks like webber missed his braking point"
Having seen several repeats it does look more Webber's fault than Heikki's. His car has the performance to just drive passed the Lotus, why did he need to get that close?
If the twitter comment is accurate he missed his braking point which would be a simple mistake. Not impressed with the comments that "slower" cars should just let the faster ones past for position. It's racing. If you want a position you have to go get it.
Sorry, "Fault" was the wrong word. "Issue" would be a better one.
Endurance racing is racing but that have a gentleman's agreement that slower cars will move out of the way of the faster ones. I know there are difference classes but even within class they follow it.
I agree. How much of a speed difference is "too much"? Button was saying he was 4km/h faster on the straights - does that mean the Saubers should just let him through? Please let it mean the Saubers just let him through.
I agree. How much of a speed difference is "too much"? Button was saying he was 4km/h faster on the straights - does that mean the Saubers should just let him through? Please let it mean the Saubers just let him through.
No idea but Kobayashi is clearly holding up Button. No-one is suggesting he just get out of the way.
Re: bartelby: that's fair enough. There is no such agreement in F1 so no-one should be expecting a free pass.
Silly Hamilton getting a drive-through. There goes my prediction
Silly Hamilton getting a drive-through. There goes my prediction
Came out in 2nd!
Nice job Lewis!
I bet Alonso is fuming now!!
No idea but Kobayashi is clearly holding up Button. No-one is suggesting he just get out of the way.
Re: bartelby: that's fair enough. There is no such agreement in F1 so no-one should be expecting a free pass.
Silly Hamilton getting a drive-through. There goes my prediction
I wasn't suggesting Kobayashi should move over - just a joke as Button appears to have lucked into a third place. The problem is that the Lotuses almost outqualified the Saubers in Canada, so such an agreement to let faster cars pass would be a devil to implement.
He is. Bwa-ha-ha!
There is talk of bringing the 107% qualifying rule back. Of course at least 4 of the new cars would have qualified for every race under that with all 6 making it in some cases.
Also good to see Ferrari are still devious whinging gits!
EDIT: Lewis is my driver of the day, purely for that bit of Ferrari bating!