Pirelli will take Bridgestone's place after 2010

[timbo]

Can anybody tell how Goodyear monopoly worked. Haven't heard anything about teams purchasing the tyres, but there were quite a lot teams back then (at least @ 92, after which it dropped off quickly)/

[WhiteBlue]

The FiA hasn't much to do with the tyre supplier choice this time. It really comes down to the teams who have commissioned Bernie to do their bidding.

The comments I have seen all point to low cost as the first priority and that includes no tyre war. The teams will obviously accept 18 inch wheels if that is a condition. They are not willing to pay for avoiding those.

It looks to me as if Avon will not make any conditions that will have to bought off and therefore is coming out with the lowest price. But they also have not much experience (F Atlantic, A1GP) and so the teams may feel that the level is inappropriate for F1. Bernie seems to be busy to close the gap between the various offers.

[timbo]

Umm, WB did you post this in reply for my post?
Because I agree with your comment on current status of tyre deal, but I seek for historical info -- did teams paid for tyres during Goodyear monopoly days?
And it seems Goodyear still have Eagle F1 tyre in their range

[Jersey Tom]

Beyond that, believe it or not, you WANT the marbles.

Is that more like tire designers want the marbles, but maybe drivers and fans don't?

Meaning for the tire to work well you want the marbles, but for a cleaner track and potentially better racing you dont?

Or am I off base here?

You kinda are.

Tires are going to wear. Inescapable truth. You could put compounds on them that are as hard as a bowling ball, in which case the cars will be completely un-drivable and un-raceable. You don't want that.

You could have tires that turn to dust and wear out in a handful of laps without putting any rubber down on the track. Also has the potential of getting in radiators and ruining them. You don't want.

The marbles aren't going to go away. They've been around for decades in racing. They're no excuse for not being able to overtake.

[xpensive]

But why would you want smalll needle rolers between your tracks and the surface, that's what I don't get?

[Jersey Tom]

But why would you want smalll needle rolers between your tracks and the surface, that's what I don't get?

The alternative is getting 5 laps out of your tires and then being to cords. Take your pick. Life is all about trade-offs.

[Chaparral]

(Bump) - its a logical answer but WhiteBlue cant seem to get his head around such a simple solution - Timbo dont expect an answer to your Goodyear question anytime soon from Gunther - he will pontificate on an issue till the cows come home and he works a spin on it

You're making the assumption that hard compounds don't make marbles.

Perhaps you can explain how to achieve good grip without marbles and lots of rubber on the racing line.

Easy - hard tyres = (dust not marbles) + ground effects - that should solve the problem quite easily

[xpensive]

But why would you want smalll needle rolers between your tracks and the surface, that's what I don't get?

The alternative is getting 5 laps out of your tires and then being to cords. Take your pick. Life is all about trade-offs.

And there's nothing in between I guess?

[Jersey Tom]

Bottom line is that tires wear. The rubber has to go somewhere. Means it gets sheared off and lays around on the track. Can be dusty or marbles. Either way it's going to be there. After the NASCAR Indy 2008 race.. trust me.. you don't want dust.

[WhiteBlue]

I guess there are different ingredients to make tyres sticky, grippy and soft. If the tyre manufacturers are aware of the problem from the fan's perspective they can probably find a good compromise solution. If they are pushed for maximum performance regardless of other objectives they will not pay any attention to the problem.

A good example are energy saving tyres. The manufacturers now use a lot more silica instead of carbon black to strengthen the polymer network. It saves considerable energy. They could have done this before but they never had the objective to save energy. Same could apply to a soft compound that does not use chemical stickiness but mechanical grip only.

[Jersey Tom]

Still. Tires wear. Wear debris is going to be off the racing line regardless of anything.

Or you use compounds that are so insanely hard and wear-resistant that it's like driving on ice.

Plus, all this argument hinges on the assumption that wear debris is what's killing the overtaking opportunities. I don't believe that. Most of the time the cars aren't even close to each other, and have a hard time getting close. When they do, we've seen plenty of passes made on the inside or outside of someone.

[theblackangus]

Beyond that, believe it or not, you WANT the marbles.

Is that more like tire designers want the marbles, but maybe drivers and fans don't?

Meaning for the tire to work well you want the marbles, but for a cleaner track and potentially better racing you dont?

Or am I off base here?

You kinda are.

Tires are going to wear. Inescapable truth. You could put compounds on them that are as hard as a bowling ball, in which case the cars will be completely un-drivable and un-raceable. You don't want that.

You could have tires that turn to dust and wear out in a handful of laps without putting any rubber down on the track. Also has the potential of getting in radiators and ruining them. You don't want.

The marbles aren't going to go away. They've been around for decades in racing. They're no excuse for not being able to overtake.

That's the spirit of what I'm saying. Tire designers choose marbles as the lesser of evils because tires are going to wear. Drivers and Fans don't care about physics, just want good racing, so they would prefer no marbles.

Not of course saying they are an excuse for the overtaking issue, I don't believe that either. (Couple of exceptions over the years, there are times where there looks to be so much rubber offline that you could speedboat through it. But these are the exceptions not the rule.)

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49268.html

The German magazine AMuS reports that the teams are close to signing Michelin as the tyre supplier for three years from 2011-2013. The initial price of 3 mil € per team has been dropped to 1,5 mil €. Michelin still insist on extensive branding on drivers overall and on the cars. The demand for competition apparently has been dropped and the 18 inch wheel spec has been put back to 2013 when a new formula will be introduced.

Further changes reported is the reduction to half the tyre sets currently in use by the teams per weekend and free choice of the three compounds that will be supplied at all races. It is thought that this will spice up the show.

If this is true it is a good compromise as the tyres will cost significantly less than the engines will. Still the teams will cough up almost 20 mil € which isn't pocket change in this age of cost cutting. At least the ghost of a tyre war is averted for now and the teams will not have to change the suspension for next year.

[ISLAMATRON]

Some sensible comprimises there, but it still seems the teams are paying too much if Michilen will be getting so much branding all over the tracks, cars & drivers.

I like the 3 tire option, and the reduction in tires used, I hope they also get rid of the useless tire warmers. They should also force the teams to start the race on the same spec of tire that they qual on... but not the same exact tires. And they have to space out the tire performance, like tires that can last no more than 25%, 33% & 50% of race distance under extreme use.

Switch to 18's in 2013 is sensible

Thanks for the update.

[bill shoe]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 49268.html

The German magazine AMuS reports that the teams are close to signing Michelin as the tyre supplier for three years from 2011-2013. The initial price of 3 mil € per team has been dropped to 1,5 mil €. Michelin still insist on extensive branding on drivers overall and on the cars. The demand for competition apparently has been dropped and the 18 inch wheel spec has been put back to 2013 when a new formula will be introduced.

Further changes reported is the reduction to half the tyre sets currently in use by the teams per weekend and free choice of the three compounds that will be supplied at all races. It is thought that this will spice up the show.

If this is true it is a good compromise as the tyres will cost significantly less than the engines will. Still the teams will cough up almost 20 mil € which isn't pocket change in this age of cost cutting. At least the ghost of a tyre war is averted for now and the teams will not have to change the suspension for next year.

Yea, sensible is a good description for this plan.

I think it's incredible that Michelin can demand that F1 pay them (and give free advertising). If they can get away with this demand then more power to them. In hindsight I think Bridgestone must have been doing a weak job negotiating since I think they gave tires away for ~free. It's OK if they want to leave the sport now, but they could at least have been getting more money the past few years. At the extreme crappy end of the negotiating spectrum is Goodyear who actually pays money to NASCAR for using Goodyear tires. I respect their NASCAR tires as technical products, but the new Michelin F1 deal doesn't put Goodyear's corporate business judgement in a good light.

It's still an open question if dry race weekends in 2010 will be able to create interesting races. If the 2010 dry races are boring then will people be comfortable with teams having "free choice" of three compounds in 2011? I assume this means there will be no requirement to run two different compounds during each race. I think the current two-compound requirement is kind of artificial, but sometimes it's the only thing that puts any suspense in the race. Improved reliability and the premium on track position could easily lead to 2011 races where the top 5 cars never leave the track or change position after the first corner.