F1's tyre supplier for the upcoming year is back to work as it carries out another test session in a Toyota TF109 at France's Paul Ricard Circuit. Nick Heidfeld had the opportunity to run the test circuits high speed configuration, and was greeted by nice 28 degree weather.
bill shoe wrote:Yea, sensible is a good description for this plan.WhiteBlue wrote: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.
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.
The above quote nicely shows the internal factions in FOTA. Lets assume that they will not be able to massively beat down Michelin and that Bridgestone will not be cheaper if they agree to supply unbranded tyres at all. In that situation the most likely outcome will be Bernie going in there as a go between and offer teams different costs according to their budgetary capabilities. The minnows will get the tyres for close to nothing and the elite teams will pay the difference.Martin Whitmarsh wrote:We have got to try and balance the different philosophies. Some of the bigger teams want the lowest technical risk and some of the smaller teams are prepared to accept technical risk in exchange for a substantially better commercial deal.
The teams are trying to be sensible and mature and balanced about that but we can't hide the fact that there are those who are fighting for survival that just want tyres for free or whatever and will live with the risks.
The established teams are prepared to pay perhaps a little bit more of a premium.
Hahaha. I doubt that will happen.WhiteBlue wrote:Sam Michael is concerned that 2011 tyres must be very similar to the 2010 Bridgestones because the 2011 cars are specified for 2010 tyres by default due to lack of tyre data.
Do you think that the new supplier will be able to produce test tyres until Monza if they make the decision in the next 10 days? What are the typical lead times?Jersey Tom wrote:Hahaha. I doubt that will happen.WhiteBlue wrote:Sam Michael is concerned that 2011 tyres must be very similar to the 2010 Bridgestones because the 2011 cars are specified for 2010 tyres by default due to lack of tyre data.
You don't listen to what the teams want, do you?barricadas wrote:I realy hope to see a new competition Michelin / Good year. This should be great. Both of them have been truely involved in this for years.
ISLAMATRON wrote:Still no tire supplier in place for 2011forward... but definetly no tire war
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83659
Adam Parr wrote:Nobody in F1 wants that (a tyre war). We would all recognise that that tyre supplier is more than capable of conducting a tyre war, but there is no appetite or potential for a tyre war now. It is not just about money, it is about the show. When we have a tyre war the pressure to increase testing will go up. You can also get it hugely wrong in a tyre war. If someone is given a two second per lap tyre advantage you would never see them. That would kill the sport.
I can't say.WhiteBlue wrote:Do you think that the new supplier will be able to produce test tyres until Monza if they make the decision in the next 10 days? What are the typical lead times?Jersey Tom wrote:Hahaha. I doubt that will happen.WhiteBlue wrote:Sam Michael is concerned that 2011 tyres must be very similar to the 2010 Bridgestones because the 2011 cars are specified for 2010 tyres by default due to lack of tyre data.
