F1technical.net

There is only 2 reasons that Michilen will return:

Reason 1: The front tyres are made 30mm wider, whitch will improve front end grip, and also allow teams to run a more frontal weight ballance, however it will mean that drivers will understeer less.

Reason 2: They want competition from another tyre manufacturer and also want a change to the tyre sporting and technichal rules.

Why?

Simply put they want tyres put more toward a 16 inch diamater wheel as to make the F1 rubber more road relevant. As for the sporting rules, they also want 7 sets of slicks per weekend, 3 prime and 4 option, a reduction on the current 11 sets avalable, and teams can use sets in whatever way they want over the weekend, no handing back 3 sets on a Friday and another 2 sets after FP3. This is to make tyre strategy key over the weekend, however they are willing to give a set of options for FP1 drivers, and if need be those drivers drivers will do development tyre runs so the driver whos car that usually is would have an advantage over his team mate after FP1.

This leaves a new tyre war, why do they want one, somply to produce the best posible tyres avalable in order to make F1 closer and beter. However the Tyre war they want is between 3 or more different manufacturers, not just 2 as Michilen have said they would like this as it would mean the rule would be that no one manufacurer would be able to supply more than 4 teams at any one time.

Michilen would be welcomed back, but they only want to spend €120m a year on F1 as they would have to reduce their LMP exposure as a result, however LMP could be going the way of F1 and limiting and standardising the compounds on LMP cars in order to recuce costs, however the ACO have still to approve this proposal.

Michilen would have to get F1 rules and LMP rules changed in order to return to F1.

WIll they come back, yes, will it be in 2014, i doubt it as the teams are wanting the present suspension rules and such untill the end of 2015, when the next sheduled major aerodynamic rule change is due for the start of 2016. Whitch by then Pirelli will return to F1. I think Pirelli will get a 2 year extention on their stewardship of the Tyre rules in F1.

F1 will have to work with the Pirellis till then. Untill then, i think there should be small tweaks of the rules, like one run only in Q3 on a set of the options that are specified for Q3. And that FP1 drivers get a extra set of options that are handed back after FP1 in order for them to have better development of their teams car and their personal knolege of the Pirellis, however the top 5 teams from the constructors table the year before cant run a FP1 driver. And drivers that fail toi get into Q2 also dont have to run the 2 compound rule. F1 tyre regulations only need a little gardening arround the edge of the garden, whitch my proposals would also do.

WilliamsF1 wrote:You think if we bolt the bridgestone tyres then we will have a different season? Bridgestone fronts were weak, massa, shumi were all crying, and felt perelli fronts were better but the rear was not so good. Then came the EBD of last year which kept the rear planted. EBD gone this year and all teams having trouble with the rears, so what is new?

Interesting observation. I think you may have forgotten about the c.g. changes required (particularly by ex-Michelin runners) to match the Bridgstone tyres.....

DaveW wrote:changes required (particularly by ex-Michelin runners) to match the Bridgstone tyres.....

One of the reasons Alonso and Kimi could not dominate their team mates

WilliamsF1 wrote:One of the reasons Alonso and Kimi could not dominate their team mates

Another thought-provoking observation.

Apologies, my comment was a bit short on detail. I meant to imply that the current self-imposed limit on c.g. position was a response to a solution that had been used to help solve past tyre problems. It might (just) have provided a solution to current problems....

Now..., why did ballast changes help some drivers more than their team-mates, given that ballast was "free" at the time...

I did not trim but did cut this up to make something a bit more manageable to answer your accusations and questions.

bhallg2k wrote:It's fallacy to assume that one would want to mandate anything at all simply because they don't like the brand of racing supplied by Pirelli tires.

Firstly, you cannot possibly deem this a fallacy with a straight face (or the online equivalent thereof).

This is at best ABSOLUTELY only your very subjective and personal opinion and not something you or anyone else could deem a fallacy! How can you possibly speak for anyone else or everyone else. So it is simply your opinion which you are absolutely entitled too.

It can only be your subjective opinion, as you cannot possibly say that no one would want to mandate anything simply because they don’t like the brand of racing. You cannot speak to others wants, likes or dislikes, only your own and those that are disclosed to you.

Secondly, my comment would not be a fallacy, it would be only an observation, be it incorrect, misguided or otherwise.

Regardless of all this, the history of F1 is full of differing mandates that were implemented not through logical reasoning, but simply and completely due to a particular individuals, group or single companies likes, dislikes and vested interests.

To try and argue this is not the case would absolutely be an exercise in folly as there are reams of documentary evidence to prove this has happened in the distant and not so distant past.

Regardless, my opinion which I am entitled to is in absolute opposition to yours in so much as given past precedents, having something mandated because a particular person does or does not like it (despite logical reasoning) can and has happened and will happen again. Its human nature and self interests that win out.

bhallg2k wrote: I read your statement to mean that you believe certain aspects to racing should always be a part of racing, even if they have to be propped up by novelties that others might consider artificial.

Then unfortunately you have read it wrong. Yes certain aspects of racing should always be part of racing, predominately the technicality of it. If you are referring to “artificial” items like DRS, then I think they are a means to an ends. Not totally undesirable but certainly not part of racing pure and I personally would rather it wasn’t used. However, items like sensitive tyre compounds is in my opinion not artificial and only adds to the absolutely technicality of the formula as you are required to build and work with the tyres, not just have something that is eventually a zero variable.

I read from your comment that you believe certain aspects to racing should always be a part of racing and nothing should ever interfere with those basic principals regardless of innovation or evolution as you are what is most commonly described as a racing purist, wanting only racing in its purist from.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where commercial concerns, costs and other considerations can be ignored. In a class such as F1 that is governed by rules, regulations and spending controls, then pure racing is never going to be the end result. When the regulations become so singular in their technicality (as F1's have become) the eventual end result will most commonly be a working to the same solution. Look at how aero has come to define F1 after engine technical regulations were tightened. The end result is everyone is working toward the most efficient package permissible under the regulations, so they will given enough time all end up with a variation on the same theme and theories. It is only when things are challenged and “artificial” devices used that the equilibrium can be upset.

Either way, this view is totally subjective as you indicated. KERS is a useful item for the commerciality of the sport as well as for technical innovation. DRS is not a purist innovation and is purely a result of the aero dominance in the rules which some feel required steps for commercial reasons.

I personally think that sensitive tyre compounds adds to the technicality of the class, other may not. In the end it is what it is and open to an individuals subjective opinion.

bhallg2k wrote: It should also be noted that the move to a single tire supplier was instituted precisely to de-emphasize the role of tires in F1. In that regard, Bridgestone's control tires were a phenomenal success.

I again 100% disagree with you. The single supplier was not to "de-emphasise" the effects of the tyres, it was initiated as a cost saving measure to remove the huge dollar investments required that was a result of an “arms race” between the have and have not’s that F1 and the teams funded. As is typical with F1 it was a decision motivated by $$$'s and the commercial concerns for the sport.

So what resulted was that the tyres were marginalised by a single supplier as they provided a tyre that removed any requirements from the teams to consider them in the setup and design of the car. In my opinion, Bridestone did F1 a HUGE dis-service with their tyre production as they were not suitable for a category that mandates tyre changes and ultimate performance. They were extremely long wearing and stabile over their performance envelope. Where then does this add to the technicality of the class when you don’t have to consider degradation, performance, longevity or strategy? If tyres are to be considered then make them something worth considering.

Other categories I have raced in mandate a high wearing "soft" tyre for exactly this reason. It makes the technical "doing" of racing much harder as you need to consider a greatly increased number of variables.

bhallg2k wrote: And is it fair for teams to be hampered by new tires that don't respond well to their old, regulation-frozen engines?

Yes, absolutely it is in my opinion. The teams are not “hampered” in anyway. They are able to perform certain “changes and upgrades” to the engines under the guise of increasing longevity. So in actuality, they are not frozen, simply incompletely thawed. Renault has managed to change the engine and mapping to suit the tyres. Ferrari seem to have got a handle on it. Mercedes AMG unfortunately seem to be still thinking of they are developing Ilmor Indy car engines and C63 Black Series engines for those that want the big loud shouty car. Despite what you read or believe, there is a great deal of flexibility for the engine providers, as long as the basic architecture remains in place.

Proof positive is the engine mapping that the FIA tried to pull Red Bull up for in Germany that reduced mid range torque which was post review deemed totally legal under the current rules.

bhallg2k wrote: This is all preference, one way or another. Some like it; others don't. But, there's absolutely no objective evidence to support either view.

It is absolutely personal preference. What does exist is a raft of evidence that is either subjective, coloured by personal preference as you rightly indicated or anecdotal. This is certainly not an absence of evidence. Anyone could try and argue either view with the evidence available however it will always be overridden by an individual’s subjective and very personal opinion as you are talking about what someone does and does not like. And that is as individual and subjective as it gets.

You could argue that there is some possibly objective evidence in the race results and current performances of the teams.

However this could be deemed by individuals as subjective to their point of view.

If one was want to argue they prefer the previous type of racing where the same established teams were virtually a fait accompli to win barring unforeseen events and acts of divine intervention it can be skewed that way.

On the other hand, if could argue the current results such as wins, podiums, fastest laps both during the race and the final fastest lap all point to the teams underestimating the effect of the tyres and slowly appreciating the effects on the cars and how to best adapt to them. Unfortunately you can argue this either way based on a subjective point of view but it does not remove the materiality of the results.

bhallg2k wrote: I see the Pirelli tires as being a return to the dynamics of a tire war without, you know, the tire war. I'd much rather see performance differentiation as the result of two companies slugging it out to make the best racing product, rather than as the result of one company deciding it knows best how to the supply the "exciting" racing teams and fans have demanded.

Again I think we will have to agree to disagree. IAs far as I can see there is certainly no tyre war as everyone gets the same tyres so the battlefield is level and very quiet. There is no arms race, no spiralling costs to develop the next latest, greatest compound to trump a competitor nor is there the situation of the have and have not’s between those running on the current quickest tyre and those on the also ran second tier product.

What we have is ONE manufacturer (Pirelli) producing a MANDATED (by the FIA) set of compounds that are the SAME for ALL teams (everyone gets the same tyres and same compounds) regardless of anything else. There is no de facto tyre war and certainly not the costs associated with one.

What we are definitely seeing currently is a technical evolution to a changed environment as teams adapt via innovation in developing the cars as a holistic package around a MANDATED set of tyre compounds that were requested to give disparity between their operation rather than have ultimate longevity as their primary characteristic.

Some teams have adapted and have learnt to fly. Others like Ferrari, Sauber, Lotus and Red Bull have evolved their packages around the new environment. Mercedes, McLaren & Williams are simply slower to adapt and evolve and as a result are still learning to fly. Of these it would seem McLaren have finally got a handle on things to some degree given their showing at Hockenheim.

ESPImperium wrote:There is only 2 reasons that Michilen will return:

Reason 1: The front tyres are made 30mm wider, whitch will improve front end grip, and also allow teams to run a more frontal weight ballance, however it will mean that drivers will understeer less.

Reason 2: They want competition from another tyre manufacturer and also want a change to the tyre sporting and technichal rules.

I still think Jean Todt's wet dream of a full French team (Renault/Michelin/Total/Grosjean) winning the constructors and drivers championship is a justifiable reason 3.

Maybe Jean Todt should change his name to Jean-Marie Balestre-Todt...

Just to add my two penneth:
I would certainly welcome another tyre war. What I think some people are missing in saying that Michelin produced better, "pro" F1 tyres, is that Pirelli are not making the best tyres they can make; quite the opposite. If they had been asked to produce the fastest tyre possible, I'm sure they would create something extremely quick and durable. They've been asked to provide tyres which, however consciously and therefore artificially, add interest to the spectable. So that's what they've done, like it or not.

In a competition with another tyre company, however, there is NO WAY they would want to produce anything that is worse in any way than their competitor. So they would be forced to produce the best tyres possible.

Therefore, the beauty of a tyre way would be that any drop off in performance is relative - that's the key point. A tyre wouldn't have to be completely lacking in grip to be "dropping off", it would only have to be losing grip relative to its competitor's tyre. Therefore, you would end up with tyres capable of being pushed to their limit more consistently, albiet with different characteristics than the other company's tyres, and therefore a time at which it would benefit a driver to change to new tyres which would be fresher and therefore stronger than the opposition's.

Interesting topic.

aussiegman wrote:It is the inconsistency of the teams ability to get up to speed and come to grips with how the new tyre performs.

If only it were as simple as, "well the teams just need to figure them out." Some problems cannot be solved or "figured out." You are stuck with them. Just as much as x+y = 4, solve for x. There's no point solution.

Pup wrote:What would you think of a baseball game where the ball had a random characteristic that might or might not play to one of the pitchers' strengths? What if the ball changed dramatically from one inning to the next? What if at some random pitch count the umpire heads to the mound and swaps out the baseball for a wiffle ball? What if each batter is randomly given a bat that might be corked, might be aluminum, or might be cracked?

Exciting? Maybe. Sport? Not a chance.

And it's not for me.

I rather like this analogy, particularly the random characteristic playing into one pitcher's strengths arbitrarily. Just because some teams have run well does not mean they have "figured out" the tires. Weekly inconsistency is a pretty good indication of this. Even at the pro motorsport level you can "luck" or stumble into setups or packages or drivers which happen to work well with what you have.

Entirely possible that you could ask engineers on a team that have "figured out" tires just what they're doing so much better than other teams and they might not have a clue.

ESPImperium wrote:Simply put they want tyres put more toward a 16 inch diamater wheel as to make the F1 rubber more road relevant.

Having worked in both consumer vehicle and motorsport applications, I completely disagree. Bead diameter hasn't much or any bearing on whether or not there's "road relevance" to begin with, and the requirements of each world are polar opposites. Low abrasion wear vs high abrasion wear... noise and ride being huge vs being nothing... on center feel vs limit performance... all season traction vs all out hot dry traction... etc etc. Even high performance cars there's a big limit to what you can do or what's relevant.

Why do Michelin want to go to larger bead diameter tires? Probably easier from a logistical standpoint if nothing else. If you have a bunch of build equipment for 16 or 18" bead race tires, having to tool up for 13" is a waste of money.

Which brings me to the next and most important point. Think about why Pirelli got the F1 contract to begin with. Why did Bridgestone leave? Why didn't Goodyear take it? Dunlop? Michelin? Big part I'd say is that it's prohibitively expensive. Development money, global shipping and travel, the contract cost itself, etc etc. I hate to use the "it's the economy!" line... but truth is OEM's and related suppliers aren't exactly rolling in cash they can frivolously throw around. Pretty easy to see Bridgestone's approach I think. They still spend a lot of money on visibility and advertising but it's in other sports. Golf, American football, etc.

Think then, of how few tire companies were interested in or could do F1 as a single supplier... which is outrageously expensive enough... the likelihood of a tire war with even higher costs is extremely low.

F1 these days just doesn't seem friendly for anyone to join - be it teams or suppliers. Too expensive for what you get out of it.

f1316 wrote:Just to add my two penneth:
I would certainly welcome another tyre war. What I think some people are missing in saying that Michelin produced better, "pro" F1 tyres, is that Pirelli are not making the best tyres they can make; quite the opposite. If they had been asked to produce the fastest tyre possible, I'm sure they would create something extremely quick and durable. They've been asked to provide tyres which, however consciously and therefore artificially, add interest to the spectable. So that's what they've done, like it or not.

Also don't entirely agree on this. Or let's think of it this way...

If the FIA or whoever asked Pirelli to bring tires which are consistent, high performance, driveable, and with minimal fall off so drivers can attack lap after lap after lap... do you think Pirelli could pull it off?

Jersey Tom wrote:If the FIA or whoever asked Pirelli to bring tires which are consistent, high performance, driveable, and with minimal fall off so drivers can attack lap after lap after lap... do you think Pirelli could pull it off?

Everything still points to Pirelli supplying varying quality tyres at each event, rather than exactly the same compounds which are just really hard to get right.

Pirelli claim they're all exactly the same batch after batch, it's their word against the teams and drivers who suspect otherwise.

My vote is no. Pirelli haven't demonstrated they can make a consistent tyre. Actions speak louder than words.

Cam wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:If the FIA or whoever asked Pirelli to bring tires which are consistent, high performance, driveable, and with minimal fall off so drivers can attack lap after lap after lap... do you think Pirelli could pull it off?

Everything still points to Pirelli supplying varying quality tyres at each event, rather than exactly the same compounds which are just really hard to get right.

Pirelli claim they're all exactly the same batch after batch, it's their word against the teams and drivers who suspect otherwise.

My vote is no. Pirelli haven't demonstrated they can make a consistent tyre. Actions speak louder than words.

I think Pirelli have more than enough experience in motor racing of the years to be able to produce tyres that fulfill that brief; would they be as good as Michelin's best F1 tyres? Who can say. They haven't produced competitive F1 tyres as recently as Michelin - I remember their 1980's era tyres being super fast in quali but too much deg in the race btw - but they would have far more data on the current F1 cars than Michelin. I think it would be a very interesting competition and, what's more, probably useful to the Pirelli brand in showing that they don't just make "buble gum" tyres.

Perhaps it's comparing apples with oranges, but I'd also add that their road car tyres can often be better performance tyres than other manufacturers'. I remember there was a comment on (UK) Top Gear recently that the Pirelli tyres on one ridiculously expensive car added some significant performance (a number of seconds) over the Bridgestones on another, similarly priced car. Doesn't prove anything, of course, but Pirelli are no slouches in providing top quality tyres when required, that's my point.

Even Goodyear which does a fantastic job of supplying racing tires admits to variations within the same compound.
Sometimes they made on Monday...sometimes Friday.

to get the compound the way he wanted it, Max Balchowsky took control of the curing process, shortening it

(this was quite easy with the retreads/remoulds/recaps that he used)


........ feel free to return to topic !

f1316 wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:If the FIA or whoever asked Pirelli to bring tires which are consistent, high performance, driveable, and with minimal fall off so drivers can attack lap after lap after lap... do you think Pirelli could pull it off?

I think Pirelli have more than enough experience in motor racing of the years to be able to produce tyres that fulfill that brief

In which racing series have Pirelli supplied tires with exceptional performance and consistency?

Jersey Tom wrote:

f1316 wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:If the FIA or whoever asked Pirelli to bring tires which are consistent, high performance, driveable, and with minimal fall off so drivers can attack lap after lap after lap... do you think Pirelli could pull it off?

I think Pirelli have more than enough experience in motor racing of the years to be able to produce tyres that fulfill that brief

In which racing series have Pirelli supplied tires with exceptional performance and consistency?

I can bet money that Bernie knew about Pirelli not being able yo produce two identical sets. But as in everything in life, the money was right.

from couple of races back, Ross was saying Schumacher had a misbehaving set of tyres, but quickly retracted to say maybe its track conditions and fuel load. Engineers should be understanding the tyres by now, or at least identify a pattern unless these sets are very inconsistent. I think its politics that stopping engineers and team bosses from discussing them in public.

this might sound like speculations, but it might explain some cars coming to life or dying in some stints with no reason what so ever.