Reintroducing tyre competition in an alternative way?

[Taxi645]

I wanted to share an idea on reintroducing tyre competition to F1 and see how you guys feel.


In the past we had tyre competition, but it had some drawbacks, mainly:

1 The top teams of each brand were able to optimize their cars for their brand of tyre and therefore created a performance gap to the other teams which in light of the desire for a close field was far from ideal.
2 If one tyre manufacturer is superior, half the field is screwed.

Now what if they would allow tyre competition but instead of splitting the field between tyre manufacturers they split the races between tyre manufacturers? So all teams run the two brands of tyres alternating between races.

In my view this has a couple of advantages:
1 You don’t have tops teams specializing as much because they have to run both brands of tyre.
2 Half the field is not screwed if one brand is weaker, because over the year everyone has to run the same tyres eventually.
3 You do have a competition between tyres manufacturers because the drivers will be very vocal about their tyre preferences and the differences will also be clearly be visible to the press and tech savvy viewers.
4 The races will become more unpredictable because the tyre brand switch up each weekend.

5 The total cost for each manufacturer is lower.


You could also choose to run all teams on a single brand during a single GP weekend or split the field and then alternate for the next. Both approaches would have different consequences with pro’s and con’s.

What do you guys reckon?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I wanted to share an idea on reintroducing tyre competition to F1 and see how you guys feel.


In the past we had tyre competition, but it had some drawbacks, mainly:

1 The top teams of each brand were able to optimize their cars for their brand of tyre and therefore created a performance gap to the other teams which in light of the desire for a close field was far from ideal.
2 If one tyre manufacturer is superior, half the field is screwed.

Now what if they would allow tyre competition but instead of splitting the field between tyre manufacturers they split the races between tyre manufacturers? So all teams run the two brands of tyres alternating between races.

In my view this has a couple of advantages:
1 You don’t have tops teams specializing as much because they have to run both brands of tyre.
2 Half the field is not screwed if one brand is weaker, because over the year everyone has to run the same tyres eventually.
3 You do have a competition between tyres manufacturers because the drivers will be very vocal about their tyre preferences and the differences will also be clearly be visible to the press and tech savvy viewers.
4 The races will become more unpredictable because the tyre brand switch up each weekend.

5 The total cost for each manufacturer is lower.


You could also choose to run all teams on a single brand during a single GP weekend or split the field and then alternate for the next. Both approaches would have different consequences with pro’s and con’s.

What do you guys reckon?

This is an interesting idea and could, I suppose, shake things up a little, but I don't think it would make the differences that it used to.
Back in the day when there were competing tyre companies don't forget that there was also unlimited testing. This then allowed (for example) Ferrari to wind round & round Fiorano no doubt with Bridgestone engineers also in attendance fine-tuning the car to the tyres, and vice-versa.
Now that testing is strictly limited this can't of course happen, and so some random teams may 'drop lucky' and find that their car just happens to work amazingly better on one make of tyre, but there won't be the endless fine-tuning opportunities.

[Mike Harte]

I don't necessarily think that it would be much cheaper cheaper, if at all. It would mean two companies having to run R & D which is costly, and then run manufacturing of only half the tyres,

I would imagine that production would not necessarily be the highest costs that the manufacturers have to absorb, whilst at the same time they would both have to employ a full team of tyre engineers to go around the world to service the teams.

[chillibowl]

question...would the mandate/primary focus for the tire manus be to make the best possible racing tire or to make a tire that best serves the needs of the show?

if the motivation remains the latter, what would that look like with two tire manus...rather would success be measured by whose tires experienced the steepest decline in performance at predetermined intervals?

[Richard C]

To what purpose would this be done? As called out above, is it to provide a better tire with competition between multiple suppliers, or is it meant to add some additional randomness to the events?

I think if the organizers wanted improved performance, they could just ask Pirelli to do that. I think we all know that Pirelli is not allowed to make the best tires they can make, but rather tires that have very limited performance windows to introduce variable performance over the duration of their use. Again, this is to introduce a level of increased performance variability, and by extension difficulty for teams and by further extension an additional factor to shake up the usual pecking order and/or create some level of additional on track action.

If you have multiple suppliers (let say two) then you will have a problem in which each will try to out-do the other, even if FIA/FOM wants them to produce “hobbled” tires with performance parity. It is likely that one supplier is going to be inherently better than the other. So why provide tires if you are beaten up by fans and press providing negative comparison of your solution to the other provider while at the same time FIA/FOM is holding you back. Pirelli currently updates their formulations over time and I would expect the same to happen for anyone who is providing tires. FIA/FOM may try to ensure similar performance, but that is always a moving target. Each providers will try to ensure their tire is the better of the two even if they are not raced at the same time.

Last, it would be quite expensive. As already mentioned, the R&D cost would be the same even if you are producing tires for ½ of the season. So it would be double the R&D, manufacturing and on-track staffing/support overhead. Teams would need to understand the tire data for twice as many compounds as they do now. So extra work for the teams that they would not care to spend money on. In short, I think if there was a need to “spice things up”, other and less expensive solutions probably exist.

Richard

[bathurst77]

I cant see it as a cost saving. As the major cost is RnD and tooling up etc. Once the design work testing and hardware is paid for, squeezing some steel and chemicals into shape is cheap and are how the get some of the money back.

By having 2 makers, you now have 2 lots of R/D etc, but each maker only able to sell half the product. (yes the tyres are probably provided free or at a loss.. but the profitis in the advertising then) So doubling the cost of expensive stuff and the same number of tyres for the whole field per season.

If the races were alternating Pirelli 1 race... dunlop the next..theres no "competition". No different to C1 on one week and c4 the next.

If it was open that any team can sign a contract and you have mixed tyres on same race like the 80s and earlier, it would add a new interest for the purists and anoraks (us mob) and could shake things up.

but if that lead to a tyre development war with new tyre upgrades back and forth all year r&d testing and tooling costs would sky rocket and thus total cost per tyre go up.

The solution would be freezes or caps on upgrades during a season. Or tyre maker budget caps. And what if 1 make is noticably worse than the other but they are forbidden to change the tyre? Half the field immediately nobbled for a whole year....

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I cant see it as a cost saving. As the major cost is RnD and tooling up etc. Once the design work testing and hardware is paid for, squeezing some steel and chemicals into shape is cheap and are how the get some of the money back.

By having 2 makers, you now have 2 lots of R/D etc, but each maker only able to sell half the product. (yes the tyres are probably provided free or at a loss.. but the profitis in the advertising then) So doubling the cost of expensive stuff and the same number of tyres for the whole field per season.

If the races were alternating Pirelli 1 race... dunlop the next..theres no "competition". No different to C1 on one week and c4 the next.

If it was open that any team can sign a contract and you have mixed tyres on same race like the 80s and earlier, it would add a new interest for the purists and anoraks (us mob) and could shake things up.

but if that lead to a tyre development war with new tyre upgrades back and forth all year r&d testing and tooling costs would sky rocket and thus total cost per tyre go up.

The solution would be freezes or caps on upgrades during a season. Or tyre maker budget caps. And what if 1 make is noticably worse than the other but they are forbidden to change the tyre? Half the field immediately nobbled for a whole year....

Yeah. I agree with this. We don't need a tyre war or extreme development anymore.
Major concerns now are cost and if we are actually trying to slow cars down on corners, deliberately trying to cause degradation to stimulate interesting racing, then there is no purpose or point in creating competition in the tyre area.
It's a dead issue and only a marketing tool for tyre companies.
So, tendering for one supplier is the most cost-effective way to manage it.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

By having 2 makers, you now have 2 lots of R/D etc, but each maker only able to sell half the product. (yes the tyres are probably provided free or at a loss.. but the profitis in the advertising then) So doubling the cost of expensive stuff and the same number of tyres for the whole field per season.

Going back a few years and now up to today, all teams have to pay for their tyres. Supposedly, this arrangement is meant to be on a cost plus a reasonable financial return basis for Pirelli.

It follows than that if two manufacturers are involved in supplying all the teams, that would then cost all teams twice as much for tyres with absolutely no benefit to them.

[Taxi645]

Thanks for everyone responding. I will not quote every post, but I think my response will address most questions and remarks.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

question...would the mandate/primary focus for the tire manus be to make the best possible racing tire or to make a tire that best serves the needs of the show?

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if the motivation remains the latter, what would that look like with two tire manus...rather would success be measured by whose tires experienced the steepest decline in performance at predetermined intervals?

That is the nice thing with this approach, it provides an opportunity to see which tyre behaviour provides the best racing. Currently we only have Pirelli. The performance of the Pirelli tyre are determined by the goals set by F1 (controlled drop off being a mayor requirement) and the trade-off Pirelli chose within the financial return realities that were agreed. We don't know if another manufacturer would do a better job within those constrains or if the goals itself should be tweaked because we have nothing to compare.

Now say there was a second manufacturer. One could then see which of the two tyres produces the best racing (as judged by F1). This then put's pressure on the other manufacturer to come up with a better product as well as giving F1 a better picture to see if the goals they set the tyre manufacturer are still the best possible option. Say for instance one manufacturers leans a bit more towards a controlled drop off and the other more towards a tyre that can be raced harder. F1 would then get a better picture what actually provides better racing, the controlled drop off tyre that forces pit stops and greater tyre life off sets or the tyre that can be raced harder and perhaps provide more intense battles on the track. At the moment we just don’t know.

So to summarize one has mainly three variables:
- The tyre goals set by F1
- The trade-off the manufacturer(s) choose between controlled-drop off and tyres that can be raced harder
- The actual quality/performance of the tyre within that frame work.

So I don’t agree a tyre competition would serve no purpose within the current tyre approach. A tyre competition as proposed would allow to be better judge and improve upon the above three factors without the most severe drawbacks of the previous implementation of a tyre competition.


On cost:
- The goal of this proposal is not to cut costs. I think a slight increase in cost would be the result (increased R&D partly offset by a downward price pressure as a result from competition). If the benefits of the proposal would outweigh a certain cost increase this could still be a good idea.
- Cost are set by contract, if the tyre manufacturer wants to go berserk with R&D, they are welcome as long as they supply the required amount of tyres at the agreed price.
- The cost would not double, because the manufacturers don’t have to send tyre engineers to all races and you only have to produce and ship for half the races.
- Cheaper than the way previous tyres competition was organised (you needed to supply and ship more tyres per manufacturers and had to have track side tyre engineers at each event).
- For instance Bridgestone could propose to run the same spec on Super Formula to share cost over multiple championship. Pirelli could probably share with F2.

Another benefit could be that each manufacturer could target the markets that they are most interested in. Each manufacturer would want to supply their home race(s) probably. The other races would be negotiated based on what markets they would like their marketing focus on.

Also it would reintroduce a whole PR story back into F1; the tyre battle! Take the season we’re having now. Completely dominated by Red Bull/Verstappen. A tyre battle would give the press something exiting to write about and give F1 additional publicity.

[Mike Harte]

Taxi, you need to revise your thinking about costs, because two manufacturers having to produce tyres , but for only half the season, would double the costs for tyres for the simple reason that each manufacturer would have exactly the same overheads as Pirelli currently have now; in fact, by halving their supply, their fixed costs would increase the price for each tyre they produce. I would suggest that you are not inputting a true manufacturing scenario; the more that you produce, the cheaper the product; halving production increases cost overheads which are fixed regardless of how many you produce. I know this from managing production facilities around half the globe for 25 odd years.

What are those two manufacturers supposed to do with their tyre technicians when they are not travelling to half of the races, or do you propose that they only have contracts to attend their allotted races? I can't see that going down too well when they are sat at home twiddling their thumbs unpaid.

About comparing how good or better races are with one tyre as opposed to the other make, that could only be done if you compared them at the same circuit, as no two circuits are the same. So that would be an unfair comparison.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

...That is the nice thing with this approach, it provides an opportunity to see which tyre behaviour provides the best racing....

in fairness, and not to be dismissive of the idea, but i guess im not really interested in having that opportunity.

i suppose its more of a balance issue for me in that i want the focus to be on the cars, their designs, and the drivers rather than the narrative focusing on tires and/or the differing marking agendas for various tire manus.

i didnt think i would like it when FOM/Pirelli opted to just label the tires Soft/Medium/Hard and stop focusing, less publicly at least, where exactly those tires fit in Pirelli's compound range...but as it turns out im actually happier with less talk during the broadcasts about tires overall.

that of course could just be a defense mechanism and that i have forgotten how much i used to enjoy the Bridgestone v Michelin debates back in the day!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Taxi, you need to revise your thinking about costs, because two manufacturers having to produce tyres , but for only half the season, would double the costs for tyres for the simple reason that each manufacturer would have exactly the same overheads as Pirelli currently have now; in fact, by halving their supply, their fixed costs would increase the price for each tyre they produce. I would suggest that you are not inputting a true manufacturing scenario; the more that you produce, the cheaper the product; halving production increases cost overheads which are fixed regardless of how many you produce. I know this from managing production facilities around half the globe for 25 odd years.

I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm acknowledging that it would more expensive than it is now. What I'm also saying is that it would be cheaper than when manufacturers are competing head to head with each event like before.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

What are those two manufacturers supposed to do with their tyre technicians when they are not travelling to half of the races, or do you propose that they only have contracts to attend their allotted races? I can't see that going down too well when they are sat at home twiddling their thumbs unpaid.

Or have them back at the factory providing feedback to the R&D team.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

About comparing how good or better races are with one tyre as opposed to the other make, that could only be done if you compared them at the same circuit, as no two circuits are the same. So that would be an unfair comparison.

I think over time the difference would become clear enough, but you could possibly address it further by swapping which tyre is run year on year at what event.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness, and not to be dismissive of the idea, but i guess im not really interested in having that opportunity.

i suppose its more of a balance issue for me in that i want the focus to be on the cars, their designs, and the drivers rather than the narrative focusing on tires and/or the differing marking agendas for various tire manus.

i didnt think i would like it when FOM/Pirelli opted to just label the tires Soft/Medium/Hard and stop focusing, less publicly at least, where exactly those tires fit in Pirelli's compound range...but as it turns out im actually happier with less talk during the broadcasts about tires overall.

that of course could just be a defense mechanism and that i have forgotten how much i used to enjoy the Bridgestone v Michelin debates back in the day!

Fair enough. I myself was not really convinced of the cries by some to reintroduce tyre competition in the way it was done up to now for the reasons mentioned. The idea was just pitched to tackle the most severe drawbacks of that approach. I'm also not sure if it would be worth all the hassle. However if a tyre competition were to be reintroduced I would strongly prefer this approach rather than splitting the field between tyres.

[Mike Harte]

Taxi, Oh I understand completely and I also believe that you initially said it would be cheaper, but the reality is that it will cost the teams, for little or no benefit, at least double what they are currently paying for the teams. There is no upside to that, and in fact it will possibly make it more difficult for the teams because thy will probably need to make considerable setup changes when changing between the two tyre suppliers.

Feedback from the, at least, twenty tyre technicians plus the truckies and other personnel involved in attending the races will not take 3 or 4 months, minimum, to provide feedback. But if the manufacturers value them, they will in reality have to keep paying them whilst they were not attending race meetings. Plus of course, the 2nd tyre suppliers would also be required to purchase and fit out a new fleet of trucks to service the teams' requirements.

I really see no upside to this idea.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Taxi, Oh I understand completely and I also believe that you initially said it would be cheaper, but the reality is that it will cost the teams, for little or no benefit, at least double what they are currently paying for the teams. There is no upside to that, and in fact it will possibly make it more difficult for the teams because thy will probably need to make considerable setup changes when changing between the two tyre suppliers.

I don't mind the latter, it would give greater diversity and unpredictability to the race weekends.

Feedback from the, at least, twenty tyre technicians plus the truckies and other personnel involved in attending the races will not take 3 or 4 months, minimum, to provide feedback. But if the manufacturers value them, they will in reality have to keep paying them whilst they were not attending race meetings.

Providing feedback was just an example, they can also use rotate them in and out of their R&D programs for the road. Motorsport is also a way for companies to keep top level engineers loyal to their company and to introduce more junior engineers to advanced knowledge and processes to benefit the companies road programs. I'm not saying it would be cheaper than it is now. It won't. What I'm saying is it would be cheaper than having two tyre manufacturers head to head at each event.

I really see no upside to this idea.

I think saying there is no upside is cutting the corner a bit short (I did describe the benefits above which one of course can disagree with). I think saying the benefits do not outweigh drawback is a more reasonable stance.

[S griffin]

I think it's unlikely we will see a tyre war return. However I would be in favour of a return. For sure it has it's drawbacks, but it does offer variety, which is what you need for exciting racing. And you would see surprises. Damon Hill in an Arrows in Hungary comes to mind. That is one example. It's fine as long as both tyre companies are close enough in performance, so one doesn't completely dominate the other. Easier said than done though. Of course some teams might struggle if their tyre isn't up for it on a particular weekend. But then some teams have struggled because they haven't had the right engine, so where do you draw the line?