WhiteBlue wrote:So ditching the high performance tyres will never hurt the show or the business.

Until the tires provided...

...have an un-necessarily high failure rate, ruining races or injuring drivers.
...drive like crap, promoting no driver confidence for overtaking.
...have no wet grip and make rain races a joke.
...have poor engineering support and leave the teams in the dark.

Etc, etc.

The old saying is. "It is the same for all".

As long as this is true, nobody will care about the sticky round, black thingies.

Completely untrue. Trust me on this one.

If you don't. Look at NASCAR.

I was always of the thinking that your race car is only as good as the tires you put on it.

If you have bad tyres in F1. All the Hightech stuff will be useless cus it wont be able to be applyed to the ground properly.

When i think Slicks i think Good year.

Sawtooth-spike wrote: When i think Slicks i think Good year.

I guess we're a lot alike .. when I think "crappy inconsistent race tires I think Goodyear too!

How soon we forgot about terms like 'blistering' once Goodyear left the sport. I think tires were more about a constant back then, as opposed to a variable.

Remember when they first started talking about slicks, they were talking about going to a more traditional race tire, with more wheel and less rubber sidewall with a lower profile.

If they decide to go this route, it could mean that more companies would be capable of making the tires for F1.

Giblet wrote:How soon we forgot about terms like 'blistering' once Goodyear left the sport.

You may want to review your history. Tires blistered at.. one race? In 1997? After a repave?

Giblet wrote:Remember when they first started talking about slicks, they were talking about going to a more traditional race tire, with more wheel and less rubber sidewall with a lower profile.

If they decide to go this route, it could mean that more companies would be capable of making the tires for F1.

Don't think so. I'd go so far as to say it has nothin to do with it.

Jersey Tom wrote:

Giblet wrote:Remember when they first started talking about slicks, they were talking about going to a more traditional race tire, with more wheel and less rubber sidewall with a lower profile.

If they decide to go this route, it could mean that more companies would be capable of making the tires for F1.

Don't think so. I'd go so far as to say it has nothin to do with it.

There were some talks about changing the rim diameter from 13 to 15 inches. I heard a comment saying how stupid that was, because a change to a 15 inch rim would defeat all the slowing measures taken the last few years. I recall mentioning almost a 2s/lap gain, although that might have been coupled with the slicks. There could be some truth to this. In that case, I can't see how the FIA would allow such a rule change.

BTW, thanks for your answer yesterday, Jersy Tom.

Sorry if this is controversial, but a drop in tyre performance would be good for the sport. Then cars or drivers who abuse their tyres would suffer, better designed cars and more nimble drivers would rise to the top.

Everything is too perfect at the moment, it needs mixing up.

Miguel wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:

Giblet wrote:Remember when they first started talking about slicks, they were talking about going to a more traditional race tire, with more wheel and less rubber sidewall with a lower profile.

If they decide to go this route, it could mean that more companies would be capable of making the tires for F1.

Don't think so. I'd go so far as to say it has nothin to do with it.

There were some talks about changing the rim diameter from 13 to 15 inches. I heard a comment saying how stupid that was, because a change to a 15 inch rim would defeat all the slowing measures taken the last few years. I recall mentioning almost a 2s/lap gain

Total BS, IMO, at least from tire and wheel alone.

Brakes getting bigger may change things.

The real reason to increase rim diameter is to increase rotor size, IE braking performance and longevity. Next year will be a year where brakes especially come to the fore in race setup. They will be lugging around a lot more weight for a race distance and brakes will suffer for it.

But of course, we're not talking about changes for 2010 here. As I remember it Williams, in particular was against changing wheels size when this was brought up on the thought that they were still going to use a Kers flywheel, which would add some braking capacity to their car. Who knows how anyone feels about this now.

Of course any tire mfr can make whatever sizes are specified. The questions is who will step into Bridgestone's shoes? I find it interesting that the official F1 site titles "new formula 1 tyre supplier" about Bridgestone's announcement, instead of Bridgestone leaving Formula 1. Of course there is no mention of a new Formula 1 tyre supplier in the article.

Whoever it is, I hope it's not Pirelli. Be a shame.

But, until we know more, it's all speculation.

Jersey Tom wrote:Whoever it is, I hope it's not Pirelli.

No problem there Tom. This article says Michelin, Goodyear, and Pirelli all not interested. http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/091104092611.shtml

And with no Japanese involvement in the sport now, I wonder if the Korean companies (Kumho, Hankook, others) would be interested? I just don't see them being able to do it. This will be a very serious problem for the sport which cannot be solved in a month or two. I would say it would easily take a year to begin from scratch. And the teams, in order to begin designing the 2011 cars would have to know a LOT by April/May of 2010.

Wouldn't it be fitting/telling if they had to pay Bridgestone to stay in?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL414181020091104
Pirelli are saying they're not going for the new tender.

"Pirelli's previous position on F1 hasn't changed. Pirelli prefers to develop tyres for racing that will also be used on the road."

Are Colway in the frame?