For those who don’t follow WEC, they’ve recently ditched tyre-warmers for this season. The first thing that drivers immediately asked for was at least an extra formation lap. Plus, they had the same concerns about more out-lap crashing. The drivers’ concerns in F1 are 100% valid.
Yea, it's like taking an electric taxi to get your flight to Bali from Europe, after which you go inland in 4x4 cars and spend most of the rest of the time eating heavy meat dinners. I think the simple act of grouping the races on the different continents would save a factor 1 million in CO2 emissions compared to the tire warmers
Absolutely one of the worst concerns by f1 😂. They fly planes to multiple countries and they burn through tons of tires. It’s motor sports, there no way to make it better other than getting rid of it. But might as well get rid of things that people see so they forget what’s in the background.
I would almost go as far as to say their marketing around this is greenwashing. They are focusing on minuscule issues and ignoring the fact they have hundreds of planes pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every week.
Indycar use Firestone (Bridgestone) tires and those cars are just as heavy as current F1 cars (720 kg) and they are able to race really well. They also hand an average of 3 tire changes per race. Indycar also don’t use tire warmers and they have no issues.
Indy car is not formula 1 there aren’t enough similarities to justify a switch . Formula 1 cars behave far differently to Indy cars, they faster , take higher corner speeds , the demands on the tyres are different
@@kabelotshita4510 Indy cars spend long periods of time between 320 and 350 kph on ovals, that’s far more stress on the tires than F1 cars. Sure the speed and cornering force on road courses is lower, but I would contend that Indycar tires have to work over a much wider range of conditions.
@aimanazrie8944 You're right, the stress is not the same. It's usually much greater when racing on an oval. It's why there was the Michelin tire debacle at the USGP in 2005. The Michelin tires could not handle the stress of the banked oval turns without coming apart. Pirelli also announced how it had to strengthen it's tires when Zandvoort was added back to the calendar. Specifically because of the new steeply banked corners. In general Indycars run much less downforce but that allows for much higher speeds. The banked oval corners allow them to keep high speeds through the corner which loads up the tires tremendously. The stresses on the Firestone Indy tires can absolutely be compared to the stresses on Pirelli F1 tires. There are differences, but there are many more similarities.
The Bridgestone spec tire in MotoGP was amazing. Then they switched to Michelin and the number of front end crashes jumped. There's a reason why riders called the Bridgestone's front tire a "miracle." Those Japanese know how to make stuff.
@@kabelotshita4510 not the point. Point is Bridgestone has a storied history of being at the pinnacle of racing. They've run out the likes of Michelin. F1, Indy, MotoGP, karting, everywhere they've been they've found success. Pilots and drivers alike have enjoyed their performance. Most people don't remember the last time Bridgestone performed in F1 (2011 ish). The most recent foray at the height of motorsports was MotoGP, leaving around 2015. As I said in my previous comment, Bridgestone know how to make great tires. In my time racing, I've been loyal to Bridgestone as I always found their tires to be consistent and predictable.
For the record, Bridgestone(Firestone) already makes multi-compound blanket-less tires for Indycar, who has 2 compounds each race (primary and alternate, both are required for at least one stint) and has banned tire blankets. I would still personally prefer 3 compounds, but instead of requiring 2 compounds, only require 2 sets per race. It would open up strategy a lot more similar to what we see at 2 stop tracks where some teams so MHH and some go MMH. If we open it up, one stop races could see MM or MH and some tire savvy drivers could even show off on normal SM tracks with SS strategies.
I’m all for Bridgestone coming back. I find that their tires one represent a vast majority of cars on the road for one that will translate into more effective tires for road going cars. Perelli on the other hand are only in high-end cars and vast. Majority of people do not have Pirelli‘s on their car they usually come with Bridgestone Michelin‘s and even more so recently Falken tires(performance, division of Sumitomo). That’s just my consumer argument. I also find that the Japanese always put more of an effort into something you’re paying for. The Italian mentality trickles down to Perrelli. They’re very full of themselves. Can’t even admit that their tires are not hitting the targets truly that the drivers and teams want. I do miss the days of dedicated tires developed for the car and the team. We got that during the tire war era. You honestly over a weekend would see the teams truly makes steps with changing their tire choices and compounds over the season. Dreams
Something about Japanese craftsmanship and engineering is just different. Honda, Bridgestone, Yamaha, and also the new Toyota under Akio Toyoda’s leadership. If you give them encouragement and a reason of determination, they will deliver master pieces.
In that sense, cars should also be standardized because then cars could be the deciding factor. And there should not be multiple teams either because teams like Ferrari ruin their drivers' chances themselves. So there should just be multiple drivers with multiple instances of the same car and AI robot race engineers and pit crew.
@@mramaz1ngarry728What happened in the 2005 US GP was Michelin's own fault because of their short-sightedness. They made tires for that race based only on simulation data and no real testing. On the other hand, Bridgestone owns Firestone, IndyCar's tire supplier. They had not only simulation data, but actual testing in the way of the Indy 500 race.
It would be good to have a bigger time delta between different tyres, so pushing like a madman on softs was as viable a strategy as going long on hards, a la early-mid 2000s Ferrari.
Pirelli nixing the chance for Chinese majority ownership is an indicator they are making a serious push to stay as F1’s primary supplier imo. Let’s not forget they are also Italian and like it or not, F1 often shows deference to Italian companies.
Honestly the era in general is about nursing and it's not only on tyres. It was funny watching the 2005 race and having them talk about an engine lasting two races and it being a big deal being on an engine that's already done one race when now engines have to go much much longer. Pirelli or Bridgestone won't matter if the basic rules don't change. Refueling leaving also meant there was less point in going on an aggressive tyre strategy because the car weighs the same either way. Refuelling could return if there were checks and balances put in place for it but really the whole 'nursing' era needs to go. I mean I get cost saving and all that but I think there's a happy medium somewhere.
Agreed. The early 2000s were tricky cars to pass in but pitstop strategy was critical. You'd see drivers going purple 3+ laps in a row trying to undercut/overcut their rivals and we really don't see that anymore. The Pirellis have been chronically plagued with overheating, and once they overheat, the tyre is gone. Rarely we see anyone pushing flat out lap after lap either closing a gap or battling with another driver. Its always "I need to keep the tyres in the window" and drive conservative Eliminating refuelling got rid of the banzai laps to create a gap as now everyone just covers each other's pitstops within a lap. One shot qualy is something I'd like to see on Sprint weekends too, spice up the stakes a little and see who bins it on a single flying lap.
Refuelling and a tyre war would bring so much back to the sport. It would also be a cure to the present weight problem of the cars. It would be a wonder to see these cars being pushed from lights to flag!
They used the old 'safety' argument to remove refuelling during a pit stop because of the number of incidents of cars being released with the fuel hose still attached and injuring/damaging what was in its way. But, I would like to see the refuelling brought back in and the battery removed from the car, with no rules, but a cost cap in place to manage the expenses and the investments coming
I don't get it though. In 2021 the complaint was that it was all about tyre management. Nobody could push because it would chew up their tyres so it was all about saving. Then they make the tyres better and the complaint is that they last too long? Seriously, what do people even want? I for one prefer more sturdy tyres. I want it to be about racing, not saving rubber.
Two tires that are a little different will just mean at the beginning of each weekend it'll be "Ohh, the runners on X tire are favored in these conditions". The tires are fine, bring back refueling if you want to mix up the strategies. Every other series has refueling, even the good ol NASCAR boys not only refuel but they do it by hoisting a jug over the concrete wall. With the huge weight difference, that will also stimulate non DRS passes, since cars on different fuel strategies will have such a huge speed differential.
I've never minded the Pirelli era, because I think they lend themselves to interesting racecraft. But that's true of a lot of underperforming components.
Michelin recently came out and said they have no interest in making tires for f1 because they don't like the idea of making tires that have to wear out in purpose. They said they could make high performance tires that could last an entire race.
Pirelli tyres have fundamentally contributed to the anti-racing nature of the series we've seen over the last decade. Since the abandonment of the prime/option system (still used in IndyCar) instead of "Formula One" we now have "Formula Tyre Management". Drivers are no longer encouraged to go as fast as they can, instead they are encouraged to sandbag as much as they can.
So let me get this straight. Teams moves 750+ employees and 500 tonnes of stuff all around the world using cargo planes, ships and up to 300 transports truck to and from each race but they are going to ban tire blankets for environmental reasons? So messed up.
0:20 As I say on every F1 tyre video and is wonderfully demonstrated here, F1 epically did a number on Pirelli on the desirability front. Totally matches the low profile space saver in the boot! I’ll be sure not to use Pirelli rubber on my spare… it falls apart you know!
4:05 Bridgestone dominated? I mean, that car in 02 was built specifically for that kind of racing with the supplier in mind. That’s not even close to representative if you’re trying to paint a narrative to suggest they could be viable today. Aside from 2002, was it common for Michelin to have more pts on aggregate by representation or Bridgestone? There’s a reason why more teams chose Michelin. Yes, I’m a known pirelli shill but idk how anyone could think this has anything to do with the suppliers. It’s a physics problem. Bridgestone are not capable of producing something that doesn’t exist or getting results like a low deg wheel (or high depending on what year you ask) that allows cars to also follow close and be predictable. But another supplier offers variation. But it’s a customer system. I mean all we’re really talking here given the relationships on the grid is what Red Bull would do vs Ferrari vs Mercedes. That’s it. In an era of frozen regs, good luck beating out a tyre with a decade more of institutional knowledge. Unless Bridgestone hits the ground running, why would any team take the risk ? And it’s not financial feasible in this model splitting duties. So imagine if a swap was made. What happens when Bridgestone is the sole supplier and has learning pains? Bc they will of course. In seasons where margins are tiny and damage to the car is impossibly expensive.
Two tire suppliers would be good but what happened in 2004 Indianapolis Grand Prix should not be repeated. Safety should be the main consideration whichever manufacturer F1 chooses.
If F1 really that concerned with their environmental impact, they should develop a long distance tyre that last the whole weekend. So teams have to prioritise practice, qualifying or race distance. Also less used tyres to dispose of.
Tires won't matter much if there still will be 100 kg of juice in tank at start. Have some with 60, 40 or heck, even 20. Mix that with 3 different compounds. And you actually will have some racing going. Decrease fuel flow (previously one needed 12 l/s, now could easily go with 6l/s and add same amount of laps per second) during pitstop for safety reasons but otherwise there is no simple reason why re-fueling can't be brought back into next ruleset. Some drivers finally might again do 60 lap Q-pace. Just saying.
I remember that Mercedes fix the tyre temperature problem with their wheels rim design which get banned. F1 maybe could look into that solution to make Pirelli tyre works better.
So the drivers in WEC AND F1 are inferior to IMSA and INDYCAR correct? If F1 and WEC can’t do it due to a lack of talent then keep them otherwise stop crying for built in advantages and race And I am a lifelong F1 and WEC fan but I live I the us and love IMSA and INDYCAR too so hearing all those crying about safety feels like complete BS
I knew nothing about Pirelli when it came into F1 and I know nothing about them now except that they build garbage tires. But they build garbage tires in large part because they're asked to do so, and if Bridgestone comes into F1 again, that's exactly what they'll be asked to do as well. If I were Bridgestone, I'd be staying as far away from F1 as possible until that request changes, because otherwise, assuming they win this bid, newer fans will know nothing about Bridgestone except that they, too, "build garbage tires."
We need competition between tyre makes to drive development, innovation, tyre quality and thus performance between brands. Now with the cost cap, it won’t be like last time. Bring on a tyre war!
@@Ariespradana13 who would not want competition? Competition is the nature of racing. Different tyre suppliers will invariably offer us different levels of optimum performance and characteristics between tyres. Racing is diminished without such a dynamic, it may as well just become a spec series…
I keep making this point, but if sustainability is a goal, then the number of tyres used over a weekend needs to be reduced. I think the three compounds need to go, and you have to carry over tyres between sessions. Maybe have four tyres per weekend, with a mandatory stop during the race. Do you use a tyre for all your practices, one for quali and two for the race? Or do you save three for the race? What about sprint weekends? What if you can carry a tyre over to the next weekend if it’s not used? There’s still ways to have pit stops and strategy without using a ridiculous amount of rubber over the weekend, and I hope that whatever supplier gets the contract makes improvements in sustainability a priority.
Indy car which uses Firestone which is the same umbrella as Bridgestone seem to have good wear behaviour over there. No warmers but seem to fire them up and then not dying of heat, just hitting a step down in speed way into the stint. I think if f1 tires get similar it will be good. Wrc switched from Michelin to Pirelli recently and they suddenly got the same heat runaway issue there too which I never heard before from drivers. For me it hurt Pirelli’s brand, I won’t ever trust a Pirelli on my car at least.
just a wacky suggestion.. maybe layered tyres can be manufactured.. wherein the top half of the tread is made of softer rubber that is more susceptible to temperature changes which would require the drivers to manage the pace in the early part of the stints.. and as the top layers gradually degrade, the layers beneath are made of harder rubber which could help the drivers to push and maintain their pace in the dying part of the stint... thus, the initial phase of the stint would reward drivers with expert tyre management skills who can use the soft rubber pace to their advantage (eg Perez, Hamilton), whilst during the latter part of the stint drivers who are better at pushing will be rewarded who are able to extract race pace even when the tyres are at their limit (eg Leclerc, Verstappen)...
F1 should go ahead with the ban on tire warmers. These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world and dealing with tire warm up is part of the challenge. If they crash out it's because they went over the limit no different than any other on track incident.
I think tire warmers are a European thing. None of major racing series use them in North America. I know WEC banned tire warmers and one of the Ferraris crashed at Spa on its way out of the pits but IMSA drivers in comparable cars don’t seem to have a problem on cold tires.
I really hope we get competition there. Pirelli doesnt deliver at all for non heated tyres so far. Competition allways pushes the development. Also I hope 2026 Tyres are way more degrading. I want 2+ Stop races and not the current 1 stop era. Also I hope the FIA does push for rules in this direction. Maybe even a rule where you have to use all 3 tyres in 1 reason.
It has a simple solution. Anyway teams has to use at least two sets of tyres in a race. So have two tyre manufacturers and mandate to use at least one time in a race.
We need Michelin tires lasting for one GP, starting at FP1 to the end of the sunday. And Flat Out races. But Michelin did not want to build an obviously bad tire, this is why they declined the offer... And Pirelli got it.
If you're asking about compound: nope If you're asking about supplier: I guess there'll be a poll from F1 for the teams, but the final call still falls on FIA
The energy required to run the tire warmers is bad for the environment, unlike transporting the entire F1 show from city to city 22 times a year, that's perfectly fine. - FIA
F1 should focus on the transportation cost going from race to race throughout the season and make it more logical instead of crisscrossing the planet 23 times a season.
@@MangoIsLove55 they are a smart and great tyre company and they realized the dramas involved with making an f1 tyre were not worth it. As someone on here already commented people in f1 always seem to complain if tyres either A) heat and degrade too quickly thus not allowing drivers to go flat out and race fast and hard because they need to manage tyre heat or B) tyres are stronger and can be driven harder but then there are less pit stops and strategy with managing tyres and fans then complain about less strategy with tyre changing. Essentially these are two conflicting things that f1 expects to both have happen. Michelin knew this and said they have no desire to try and create a tyre which intentionally overheats and wears down which f1 wants.
@@the1stmetalhead really it's just dumb f1 politics more than anything and Michelin are smart to not get involved. To have to pay f1 loads of money so that your tyre can be used and them have to spend even more money to create and manufacture the right tyre just so f1 can end up finding some way to complain about the tyre because it doesn't suit what they want in f1 is always going to be a losing battle. Michelin is already one of the biggest and most well respected tyre brands and they don't need the marketing/advertising of f1 to help promote their company. In f1 the top teams and the fia and the top people in f1/corporate are all ruthless sharks trying to grab/steal/use companies to further make them more money. Just look at how all the top f1 teams reacted in disgust when they found out their might be new teams added to the grid and their sadness that they might have to split a small percent of their earnings with an extra team.
I was watching along, wondering about another manufacturer returning, thinking of how amazing that would be, then you showed Stefano...he wont let it happen.
I agree they need to increase degradation and reduce thermal degradation but I would like to see an emphasis put on a greater delta between compounds. You don't see enough strategy on compounds. Softs aren't typically used in a race because they aren't enough faster to compensate for how quickly they wear out. And we also have seen at several tracks hards are faster than mediums, that should absolutely never be the case.
The Tyre Management era would go away with a wave of the FIA pen. They created this era. Pirelli blames them and their 'spec' for these 'tricky tyres'.
WEC banned tyre warmers and they're doing okay. Sure we seen some outlap crashes and spins because the tyres are too cold but the drivers' will just have to suck it up and get used to it. It will include greater skill to get those tyres up to temperature as fast as they can without crashing and all teams will be affected by this rule change though I don't know how its gonna perform in colder temperatures where there will be literally no grip and will take forever to get the tyres up to temperature.
This idea of F1 being ecologically friendly is simply nonsense. Really? The energy the tire warmers use? How about all the people that fly to each GP to watch it? Or just the cost in resources and polution of the 20 teams going around the world? Once again, politics stays in the way of common sense.
F1 should just make 3 stops mandatory and let the manufacturer produce the best tires they could. Drivers would push every single set to the absolute limit since they'd have to stop anyway.
I think there's a strong argument for bringing back refuelling. The main reason the tyres need to degrade so fast is to provide more reasons to pit, which wouldn't be as important if cars were mandated to have smaller fuel tanks. Instead of going to distance on one tank, put a cap on maximum fuel usage over a weekend and have drivers start the race with the fuel load they qualified with. This would encourage strategy variety as teams have to balance tyre characteristics against fuel load but keeps pit stops necessary, with the benefit of making the cars smaller.
I think the teams who are way off down the points order last season should be allowed a bigger spending budget to help them catch up to the top teams. Today it is almost impossible to think Williams will every catch up to the top 3 teams. Common sense.
@bruhbruhhh6592 I know the extra tech stuff but I am talking about allowing the same scale for the actual team budget to be larger than the best teams in the championships. It's one thing to figure out how to make your car better only to not have the ability to spend on those developments in season. Look at the Mercedes team when it designed that car it was with endless money, then the FIA instituted issued a major development freeze to like only 2 major parts of the cars. Mercedes benefited from the lack of cost cap when they developed the Is turbo hybrid car, it was then locked in benefiting from the other teams not being able to fix their cars in just 1 season.
make it a tyre war again, but make the teams choose the tyre company for the season based on running both offers during preseason testing, after that season is over the losing tye company (or any other tyre company that wants to try) gets another chance to win the battle. At least we'd be forcing the tyre makers to offer their best and we'd all know they aren't just phoning it in.
The amount of energy saved from no blankets can't even be .1% of the energy burned flying the whole show round trip over the Atlantic 5 times a year. That decision comes down to F1 accommodating organizers so every city gets their race at a time that works for them. People with money want to have things work smoothly and the circus hops oceans for them. Drivers want tires to work without crawling around for 3 laps and F1 says to get over it. Pathetic
After listening to your F1 podcast on a tyre war. Below or a variant could be simple solution. EACH TYRE MANUFACTURER TO BE THE SOLE SUPPLIER FOR ALTERNATE RACES. The outcome benefits could be endless. 1) fair competition 2) doesn't pit each manufacturer directly against each other. New manufacturer may need to pay entry fee for dilution just like a new F1 team wants to join the party 3) teams are not locked in to any supplier. 4) teams need to adapt to more possibilities, leading to more unpredictable racing 5) logistically better for the manufacturers as they have more time ship tyres to alternate races. 6) If the new supplier is not up to standard in any form such as safety or quality, the incumbent can take over that race. Vice versa. USA F1 GP is an example 7) teams are neutral regardless of the tyre construction methodology or philosophy 8) this will not be limited to 2 the manufacturers. It can work with as many manufacturers that are interested in joining F1. Removing the single supplier risk
Refuelling will not come back. It’s not sustainable to lug all that extra equipment around the world. It diminishes safety, as we saw in 1994 (Verstappen), 2008 (Massa). It also reduced on track overtaking. F1 did a study on this a couple of years ago, the stats proved it. I remember races in the late 90s / early 00s and overtaking was typically done in the pits, like how Schumacher passed Mika Hak’ for his 2000 Suzuka 1st Ferrari championship.
Nothing to do with the video, sorry, but HOW BEAUTIFUL 1997, 1998, and 1999 cars were. I would love to see those types of F1 cars running today. Not only for aesthetic reasons but also because of racing: they could follow closer, push the whole race, etcetera.
Why not focus ALL on the drivers’ abilities? Ditch DRS , KERS and tire warmers. Keep the ban of starting aid , anti-spin and other electronic aids controlled from the pitwall. Keep 2 compounds rule. Ad refuelling as an extra possibility for tactics.
Having 2 or 3 year contracts for tire suppliers would be great. If the supplier messes up, boot 'em. Having 2+ tire suppliers would cause issues outside of racing and once Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin made "the best" tire, everyone would just go to that anyway.
Pirellj will find themselves on the backside in the future of tire supply if the FIA will have it's way... Brisgestone has no Warner experience by way of sister brand Firestone at the IndyCar series... Goodyear by way of WEC also has the same experience... I say bring back the tire Wars by eliminating the sole tire supplier altogether since F1 has majority of factory teams on the grid. .
Honestly, I always feel like the Pirelli criticism regarding the quality of racing is a big smoke cloud to hide that the regulations are not producing the change that they claimed to produce. And that's not to criticize F1's plan or Pirelli, it's just physics and the reality of F1: with aero development and technology, F1 will never produce cars that follow as close as people want, because it's become virtually impossible. The current cars are an improvement but that's about it. On the subject of tyres, degradation was brought in to make the races have more stops and stategy calls. Now, people want cars to be driven more "flat-out". People need to know that engineering is a compromise, you won't have a tyre that degradates and can be pushed around without consequence.
There simply is no silver bullet for this situation. Formula One races on 23 different circuits across 4 continents at various times of the year, in heatwaves, downpours and everything in-between. It can't build twenty-three sets of race tyres for each individual circuit, as the costs would be astronomical and it's surely not good for F1's Net Zero by 2030 image. It's a near-impossible task and its results won't please everyone.
Single season tire war in 2025, that decides the spec tire manufacturer for 2026-2030. Tire manufactures get points the same way the teams do, position at the end of the sprint and full race. Teams can switch tire manufacturers whenever except during a race/qualifying/sprint. We may end up with everyone running one manufacturer in Monaco and then all using a different one in Monza or Silverstone, but I imagine one manufacturer will prove to be best across more of the races.
The original ground effectcars of the late '70's were shorter, lighter and driven flat out. Not only this, but racing was closer, more competitive and much more exciting. There was also multiple tyre manufacturers - Dunlop, Good Year, Firestone, Bridgestone and Pirelli if I am not mistaken. I really think we need to return to this format to really make the new regulations valid.
I dont envy Pirelli. They have to design a high quality tire designed to fail after a certain amount of usage. Given all of the variables in F1 races, its insane they have manged this far. I don't think any tire maker could do better. Its why Michelin quit F1. They were asked to create a tire designed to fail and Michelin said HELL NO.
F1 never takes responsibility for the poor racing...it is always somebody else's fault. They are alway happy to spend megabucks chasing the goal, but it never materialises. One look at IndyCars shows that it is possible to have close racing with a modern open wheel race car, but for F1 to acknowledge that is a sign of failure.
Sorry if someone already commented the same. Pirelli, F1 How much easier would all of it be if you mandate 2 stops! Minimum, period! Build from that. It has to bring an advantage to all parties! Why not?
For the folks at the Race, just a quick bit of feedback on audio mixing, my subwoofer is activating during naration specially with the Ps, Bs and Ds. I don't notice the same on other channel videos which I watch one after another. Just highlighting in case anyone else is experiencing the same.
The discussion should be easy (around tyres and tyre warmers) 1st criterion: security 2nd criterion: environment 3rd criterion: the rest. Keep the tyre warmers, have the most predictable (=safe) tyre possible, invest in renewables to power those warmers, and choose the manufacturers accordingly.
Hmm, history... There was a time when F1 tires were incredibly hard and lasted pretty much forever - any tire changes during a race were virtually unheard of and yet the racing was really very good. What was the difference? The cars were about half the size and weight and beyond the introduction of a simple front and rear wing aerodynamic downforce was virtually unheard of. These 'tire issues' aren't issues at all, but a symptom of F1's refusal to tackle the real problems: The cars are way too big and more crucially aerodynamic downforce beyond a simple front and rear wing needs to be banned..
Always felt it was a bit of a poison chalice for Pirelli "We want you to be our sole tyre supplier" "Great! A chance to show people how efficient and reliable our tyres are!" "...And we'd like you to design them specifically to degrade halfway through the race"
Making racing exciting by insisting the tyres are subpar is totally against the spirit of F1. I also think a lot of this “logic” is pure speculation. Putting everyone on bad tyres affects everyone roughly the same. I want to see drivers pushing as hard as they can, not tiptoeing around because the FIA asked for their tyres to be lousy. Come on. Better racing will come by insisting tracks are built wide enough and/or limiting the size of the cars.
I think a tyre war in this era of F1 could work well. There is no testing, which was one of the biggest criticisms of the previous era with poor ol Luca Badoer bombing around Fiorano for days on end, because Bridgestone made special tyres for Ferrari. This can't happen now. A lot of the work will be via simulation. Sure some teams may suit their tyres better and some costs may go up a bit, however on thr whole, I say we may get better racing.
Just do a survey and you'll find every F1 fans wants a tire war. With tire competitions from manufacturers, you don't need an artificially degrading tires to entertain the audience. it will be a tire tech race which will push for more grip and durability. This is where things get interesting, because you can't have both grip and durability so it is down to which manufacturer can have an edge. That's way more unpredictable than the FIA pre-scribing how much a tire should degrade.
Their reasons to remove tire blanket to reduce energy usage is practically useless. Without the blanket drivers need to do 2 3 extra laps to get the right temperature, and in process burning more fuel... Waste of fuel/energy... plus increase carbon footprint emissions of F1...
There is no valid argument for any kind of tyre warmers. Let us see some driving skills by the drivers. Pirelli have been an outstanding success with no significant failures. They have raised the bar from previous circumstances and demonstrated high competence in all aspects of their mandate. The only way I would support a different tyre manufacturer is competition. 2 or 3 manufacturers spices things up. There could be mandates from F1 to supply reverse championship order with last place having first pick of tyres etc.
Just make the damn thing more interesting... It should be a great sport but they now have to spice it up with fake drama because it's so dull. Pit stops and pushing hard create race result uncertainty. There is more chance of a mistake. I'd like to see tyres you can spank for 15 laps maximum or drive slower and get a few more laps but not too much. Get rid of the 3 compounds per race weekend. Run just one.
Comparison with performance the last time Bridgestone were in F1 is completely irrelevant - so long ago and completely and utterly different cars and regs. Bridgestone and Pirelli have the same capability as companies. There is no reason either one of them can't provide a decent tyre suitable for the series, so in that regard, it's irrelevant which supplier wins. The only difference would be that if Pirelli are ditched and Bridgestone comes in, they'd be starting from scratch, which would lead to a very painful public development cycle of what is likely to be a problematic product at the start - and with limited testing available these days, it will be a slow process. The series will get bogged down in talking about the tyre problem again, instead of just getting on with the racing. Waste of time.
What everyone always misses is that the genesis of F1’s tyre issues is the ban on refuelling. In 2010, the same tyres were used as in 2009, but the races became dull and predictable because there was no fuel strategy. The reason the 2010 Canadian GP became the blueprint for a tyre that degraded by design was because it was the only race that year where there were multi pit stops and so diverging strategy - something that had not been an issue in 2009 because refuelling already ensured this. It’s a fallacy that refuelling negatively affects the racing - the aerodynamics negatively affect the racing and removing refuelling only compounded the issue by forcing the creation of tyres that would artificially generate multiple pit stops and so could not be races flat out.
A choice can be that associate more reliabilty penalties at front and allow number of pit stops as a penalty pass when made at top 10 positions. This would favour folks to stop more and reduce cost runoffs from frontend teams (unless we get a 2020 ferrari). Even if they solve tires , reliability and puballocation will come out next.
F1 loves to make sustainability as an excuse, yet the calendar jumps around the world on who pays more. If bridgestone will pay more to be the sole provider, then F1 will jump to it regardless of how it performs
The fact they are acting like tire warmers are anywhere near the largest source of F1s carbon footprint is ridiculous. Especially since they do nothing optimize the travel for races. Also WEC has been a mess without tire warmer. Ask Ferrari how Spa was for them this year....
Never understood the criticism towards Pirelli. They make the tires the FIA asked for. One thing they can do is make more durable tires, but use less during the whole season. For example instead of allocating a specific number of tires per race, why not allocate a specific number of tires per season? Like they do with engine parts? Then it's up to the teams to choose how much they want to use the tires in a specific race, knowing they must use a used tire on the next one. If they no longer have tires after a number of races, then they get penalties because of it. Of course out of this countdown are tires that are lost due errors not by the team or their drivers (like being crashed into or end up having punctures because they went over somebody else's debris and etc). I think this could be interesting because teams would still need to manage their tires, but in a different way. And they would reduce the amount of tires used, which would save money. If they don't like this idea, then just make a good tire that the drivers can push like crazy and use the good old rule of "you must use two or three different compounds per race blah blah blah", there, simple, easy to understand and the drivers don't need to manage tire degradation (they would still do tire management, but not to the extent of current racing).
For all those thinking Domenicalli will stay loyal to Pirelli because they're an Italian brand, think again. Stefano is a businessman first and is aggressively pushing the scope of Formula 1 in America and beyond. The guy has basically said Monaco and other classic circuits can get axed if they don't adapt. I think Bridgestone may be closer to be green lighted, for the simple reason Bridgestone has years of development and fine tuning for race tyres without blankets for IndyCar. The logical choice would be Bridgestone if the FIA/F1 is dead set on getting rid of blanket warmers. Bridgestone being a Japanese company are ruthlessly efficient and advanced in racing tyres. If F1 wants tyre "heritage" and a nod to Italy, go with Pirelli, if they want racing tyre perfection, go with Bridgestone.
Pirelli tyres are not great but a big part of it´s failures are due to the F1 managment (asking to do a tyre that can be pushed all the time but degrade enough to force the teams to stop it´s nearly impossible) and the fact as years go on testing has been more and more limited with teams exceding the downforce they "think" they will gain from year yo year. Any tyre supplier than joins F1 will have the same problems than Pirelli, the only manufacturer that have the experience in top motorsport is Michelin but they dont want to join since F1 wants tyre degradation.
For those who don’t follow WEC, they’ve recently ditched tyre-warmers for this season. The first thing that drivers immediately asked for was at least an extra formation lap. Plus, they had the same concerns about more out-lap crashing. The drivers’ concerns in F1 are 100% valid.
Yeah watching how long it took the Ferrari to fire up their tiers in spa was a concern
If they crash out on the out lap it's because they went over the limit on cold tires, it's no different than any other on track incident.
@@acegarcia3719 Crashing at 40mph, it's a joke. The tyres at low temps are like plastic, zero grip at all. NONE.
@@acegarcia3719The problem comes when the tyres are so cold they feel like ice, not the ordinary cold but driveable
IndyCar can handle it with less down force. Drivers just have to adapt.
The tyre warmer discussion is so rediculous in a championship that ships such a large amount of people and gear all around the world
Yes, particularly when they have done Europe race - Miami - Europe races - Canada - Europe races
Yea, it's like taking an electric taxi to get your flight to Bali from Europe, after which you go inland in 4x4 cars and spend most of the rest of the time eating heavy meat dinners.
I think the simple act of grouping the races on the different continents would save a factor 1 million in CO2 emissions compared to the tire warmers
Absolutely one of the worst concerns by f1 😂. They fly planes to multiple countries and they burn through tons of tires. It’s motor sports, there no way to make it better other than getting rid of it. But might as well get rid of things that people see so they forget what’s in the background.
They want that sustainability token. That's very important in politically correct world
I would almost go as far as to say their marketing around this is greenwashing. They are focusing on minuscule issues and ignoring the fact they have hundreds of planes pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every week.
Indycar use Firestone (Bridgestone) tires and those cars are just as heavy as current F1 cars (720 kg) and they are able to race really well. They also hand an average of 3 tire changes per race. Indycar also don’t use tire warmers and they have no issues.
Indy car is not formula 1 there aren’t enough similarities to justify a switch . Formula 1 cars behave far differently to Indy cars, they faster , take higher corner speeds , the demands on the tyres are different
@@kabelotshita4510 Indy cars spend long periods of time between 320 and 350 kph on ovals, that’s far more stress on the tires than F1 cars. Sure the speed and cornering force on road courses is lower, but I would contend that Indycar tires have to work over a much wider range of conditions.
@aimanazrie8944 It's no less extreme, just different.
@aimanazrie8944 You're right, the stress is not the same. It's usually much greater when racing on an oval. It's why there was the Michelin tire debacle at the USGP in 2005. The Michelin tires could not handle the stress of the banked oval turns without coming apart. Pirelli also announced how it had to strengthen it's tires when Zandvoort was added back to the calendar. Specifically because of the new steeply banked corners.
In general Indycars run much less downforce but that allows for much higher speeds. The banked oval corners allow them to keep high speeds through the corner which loads up the tires tremendously. The stresses on the Firestone Indy tires can absolutely be compared to the stresses on Pirelli F1 tires. There are differences, but there are many more similarities.
Not to mention Indy car runs smaller tires than F1, which would helps the Bridgestone argument
The Bridgestone spec tire in MotoGP was amazing. Then they switched to Michelin and the number of front end crashes jumped. There's a reason why riders called the Bridgestone's front tire a "miracle." Those Japanese know how to make stuff.
Moto Gp isn’t formula 1
@@kabelotshita4510 not the point. Point is Bridgestone has a storied history of being at the pinnacle of racing. They've run out the likes of Michelin. F1, Indy, MotoGP, karting, everywhere they've been they've found success. Pilots and drivers alike have enjoyed their performance. Most people don't remember the last time Bridgestone performed in F1 (2011 ish). The most recent foray at the height of motorsports was MotoGP, leaving around 2015. As I said in my previous comment, Bridgestone know how to make great tires. In my time racing, I've been loyal to Bridgestone as I always found their tires to be consistent and predictable.
@@sooperman1212 years ago... Well thats more like yesterday.
@@sooperman12 If Ferrari had their dominance era with Bridgestone, I trust em
Yes like Honda I have seen them lose grip in front and crash many times
Pirelli were used by Brabham (when owned by Ecclestone) - 1989 - 1991 - good for qualifying, rubbish for racing.
For the record, Bridgestone(Firestone) already makes multi-compound blanket-less tires for Indycar, who has 2 compounds each race (primary and alternate, both are required for at least one stint) and has banned tire blankets.
I would still personally prefer 3 compounds, but instead of requiring 2 compounds, only require 2 sets per race. It would open up strategy a lot more similar to what we see at 2 stop tracks where some teams so MHH and some go MMH. If we open it up, one stop races could see MM or MH and some tire savvy drivers could even show off on normal SM tracks with SS strategies.
I’m all for Bridgestone coming back. I find that their tires one represent a vast majority of cars on the road for one that will translate into more effective tires for road going cars. Perelli on the other hand are only in high-end cars and vast. Majority of people do not have Pirelli‘s on their car they usually come with Bridgestone Michelin‘s and even more so recently Falken tires(performance, division of Sumitomo). That’s just my consumer argument.
I also find that the Japanese always put more of an effort into something you’re paying for. The Italian mentality trickles down to Perrelli. They’re very full of themselves. Can’t even admit that their tires are not hitting the targets truly that the drivers and teams want.
I do miss the days of dedicated tires developed for the car and the team. We got that during the tire war era. You honestly over a weekend would see the teams truly makes steps with changing their tire choices and compounds over the season. Dreams
Something about Japanese craftsmanship and engineering is just different. Honda, Bridgestone, Yamaha, and also the new Toyota under Akio Toyoda’s leadership. If you give them encouragement and a reason of determination, they will deliver master pieces.
would love to see multiple tire manufacturers come in again. Gives the races extra strategic tension.
No. Tyres need to be standardised otherwise tyres could be deciding factor.
Want to see the worst of tyre war race's. Watch US GP 05. And tell me if that was a strategic race of entertainment. Just 6 cars ran the race.
In that sense, cars should also be standardized because then cars could be the deciding factor. And there should not be multiple teams either because teams like Ferrari ruin their drivers' chances themselves. So there should just be multiple drivers with multiple instances of the same car and AI robot race engineers and pit crew.
@@mramaz1ngarry728What happened in the 2005 US GP was Michelin's own fault because of their short-sightedness.
They made tires for that race based only on simulation data and no real testing. On the other hand, Bridgestone owns Firestone, IndyCar's tire supplier. They had not only simulation data, but actual testing in the way of the Indy 500 race.
So much Dts fans thinking tyre war was any good
I want to see what happens if pirelli is asked to make the best tyre it could possibly make.
probably a soft tyre that lasts most of a race or something
It would be good to have a bigger time delta between different tyres, so pushing like a madman on softs was as viable a strategy as going long on hards, a la early-mid 2000s Ferrari.
Pirelli nixing the chance for Chinese majority ownership is an indicator they are making a serious push to stay as F1’s primary supplier imo. Let’s not forget they are also Italian and like it or not, F1 often shows deference to Italian companies.
And with domenicali being the F1 CEO, he will continue to push for Pirelli being the primary suppliers
@@pranav_jhyup
Honestly the era in general is about nursing and it's not only on tyres. It was funny watching the 2005 race and having them talk about an engine lasting two races and it being a big deal being on an engine that's already done one race when now engines have to go much much longer. Pirelli or Bridgestone won't matter if the basic rules don't change. Refueling leaving also meant there was less point in going on an aggressive tyre strategy because the car weighs the same either way. Refuelling could return if there were checks and balances put in place for it but really the whole 'nursing' era needs to go. I mean I get cost saving and all that but I think there's a happy medium somewhere.
Agreed, they have to carry all the refuelling rigs anyway so wouldnt be hard to adapt and further safeproof it.
Agreed. The early 2000s were tricky cars to pass in but pitstop strategy was critical. You'd see drivers going purple 3+ laps in a row trying to undercut/overcut their rivals and we really don't see that anymore. The Pirellis have been chronically plagued with overheating, and once they overheat, the tyre is gone. Rarely we see anyone pushing flat out lap after lap either closing a gap or battling with another driver. Its always "I need to keep the tyres in the window" and drive conservative
Eliminating refuelling got rid of the banzai laps to create a gap as now everyone just covers each other's pitstops within a lap.
One shot qualy is something I'd like to see on Sprint weekends too, spice up the stakes a little and see who bins it on a single flying lap.
Refuelling and a tyre war would bring so much back to the sport. It would also be a cure to the present weight problem of the cars. It would be a wonder to see these cars being pushed from lights to flag!
They used the old 'safety' argument to remove refuelling during a pit stop because of the number of incidents of cars being released with the fuel hose still attached and injuring/damaging what was in its way. But, I would like to see the refuelling brought back in and the battery removed from the car, with no rules, but a cost cap in place to manage the expenses and the investments coming
Refuelling lead to less on track overtakes
Stop crying for it when more people hated it back then. Such a new fanboy riding on nostalgia
I don't get it though. In 2021 the complaint was that it was all about tyre management. Nobody could push because it would chew up their tyres so it was all about saving. Then they make the tyres better and the complaint is that they last too long? Seriously, what do people even want? I for one prefer more sturdy tyres. I want it to be about racing, not saving rubber.
It's very human right? To want what you currently don't have, then whine about it when you get it
@@chlcrk 100% absolutely in agreement
I think however Pirelli go about making their tyres, the one thing they absolutely need to eliminate is overheating.
@@XiphactinusI want lighter cars so the drivers can push harder
They asked for the better tires to push but then teams concluded that's just better to save them and do 1 stoppers.
Two tires that are a little different will just mean at the beginning of each weekend it'll be "Ohh, the runners on X tire are favored in these conditions". The tires are fine, bring back refueling if you want to mix up the strategies. Every other series has refueling, even the good ol NASCAR boys not only refuel but they do it by hoisting a jug over the concrete wall. With the huge weight difference, that will also stimulate non DRS passes, since cars on different fuel strategies will have such a huge speed differential.
I've never minded the Pirelli era, because I think they lend themselves to interesting racecraft. But that's true of a lot of underperforming components.
Michelin recently came out and said they have no interest in making tires for f1 because they don't like the idea of making tires that have to wear out in purpose. They said they could make high performance tires that could last an entire race.
Pirelli tyres have fundamentally contributed to the anti-racing nature of the series we've seen over the last decade. Since the abandonment of the prime/option system (still used in IndyCar) instead of "Formula One" we now have "Formula Tyre Management". Drivers are no longer encouraged to go as fast as they can, instead they are encouraged to sandbag as much as they can.
So let me get this straight. Teams moves 750+ employees and 500 tonnes of stuff all around the world using cargo planes, ships and up to 300 transports truck to and from each race but they are going to ban tire blankets for environmental reasons? So messed up.
0:20 As I say on every F1 tyre video and is wonderfully demonstrated here, F1 epically did a number on Pirelli on the desirability front. Totally matches the low profile space saver in the boot! I’ll be sure not to use Pirelli rubber on my spare… it falls apart you know!
4:05 Bridgestone dominated? I mean, that car in 02 was built specifically for that kind of racing with the supplier in mind. That’s not even close to representative if you’re trying to paint a narrative to suggest they could be viable today. Aside from 2002, was it common for Michelin to have more pts on aggregate by representation or Bridgestone? There’s a reason why more teams chose Michelin.
Yes, I’m a known pirelli shill but idk how anyone could think this has anything to do with the suppliers. It’s a physics problem. Bridgestone are not capable of producing something that doesn’t exist or getting results like a low deg wheel (or high depending on what year you ask) that allows cars to also follow close and be predictable. But another supplier offers variation. But it’s a customer system. I mean all we’re really talking here given the relationships on the grid is what Red Bull would do vs Ferrari vs Mercedes. That’s it. In an era of frozen regs, good luck beating out a tyre with a decade more of institutional knowledge. Unless Bridgestone hits the ground running, why would any team take the risk ? And it’s not financial feasible in this model splitting duties. So imagine if a swap was made. What happens when Bridgestone is the sole supplier and has learning pains? Bc they will of course. In seasons where margins are tiny and damage to the car is impossibly expensive.
Virtue signaling nonsense. F1 flies back and forth between continents every round, but the TIRE BLANKETS are gonna solve global warming! Hahaha
We are going to get 6 PU suppliers, this itself wild to think! Two tire suppliers will be even more wild!
No, just one (Bridgestone 🤲🙏)
@@Ariespradana13👍
Two tire suppliers would be good but what happened in 2004 Indianapolis Grand Prix should not be repeated. Safety should be the main consideration whichever manufacturer F1 chooses.
I'd like to see Bridgestone, Goodyear, and Michelin or just Bridgestone.
@@cosmikyogi2514 *2005 Indianapolis
If F1 really that concerned with their environmental impact, they should develop a long distance tyre that last the whole weekend. So teams have to prioritise practice, qualifying or race distance. Also less used tyres to dispose of.
Tires won't matter much if there still will be 100 kg of juice in tank at start. Have some with 60, 40 or heck, even 20. Mix that with 3 different compounds. And you actually will have some racing going. Decrease fuel flow (previously one needed 12 l/s, now could easily go with 6l/s and add same amount of laps per second) during pitstop for safety reasons but otherwise there is no simple reason why re-fueling can't be brought back into next ruleset. Some drivers finally might again do 60 lap Q-pace. Just saying.
I don't care which one, just as long as it's only one. I want a controlled tire so no one team or group of teams gets an advantage.
That is except the team that has already mastered the standard tyres.
@@CGIPadawan Change it up for everyone, so they all get a chance to master it. But only one control tire
Bridgestone has decades of sustained open wheel spec tire experience due to IndyCar.
I remember that Mercedes fix the tyre temperature problem with their wheels rim design which get banned. F1 maybe could look into that solution to make Pirelli tyre works better.
Mandatory DAS for every car!
@@The666opal111 I think they're talking about late 2018 when Mercedes introduced the blown rims, not about DAS
Bridgestone 🤲🙏
So the drivers in WEC AND F1 are inferior to IMSA and INDYCAR correct? If F1 and WEC can’t do it due to a lack of talent then keep them otherwise stop crying for built in advantages and race
And I am a lifelong F1 and WEC fan but I live I the us and love IMSA and INDYCAR too so hearing all those crying about safety feels like complete BS
I knew nothing about Pirelli when it came into F1 and I know nothing about them now except that they build garbage tires. But they build garbage tires in large part because they're asked to do so, and if Bridgestone comes into F1 again, that's exactly what they'll be asked to do as well. If I were Bridgestone, I'd be staying as far away from F1 as possible until that request changes, because otherwise, assuming they win this bid, newer fans will know nothing about Bridgestone except that they, too, "build garbage tires."
We need competition between tyre makes to drive development, innovation, tyre quality and thus performance between brands. Now with the cost cap, it won’t be like last time. Bring on a tyre war!
No tyre war 🤮
@@Ariespradana13 who would not want competition? Competition is the nature of racing. Different tyre suppliers will invariably offer us different levels of optimum performance and characteristics between tyres. Racing is diminished without such a dynamic, it may as well just become a spec series…
I keep making this point, but if sustainability is a goal, then the number of tyres used over a weekend needs to be reduced. I think the three compounds need to go, and you have to carry over tyres between sessions. Maybe have four tyres per weekend, with a mandatory stop during the race. Do you use a tyre for all your practices, one for quali and two for the race? Or do you save three for the race? What about sprint weekends? What if you can carry a tyre over to the next weekend if it’s not used? There’s still ways to have pit stops and strategy without using a ridiculous amount of rubber over the weekend, and I hope that whatever supplier gets the contract makes improvements in sustainability a priority.
Keep warmers. Lets get 3 or 4+ tire brands.
Indy car which uses Firestone which is the same umbrella as Bridgestone seem to have good wear behaviour over there. No warmers but seem to fire them up and then not dying of heat, just hitting a step down in speed way into the stint. I think if f1 tires get similar it will be good.
Wrc switched from Michelin to Pirelli recently and they suddenly got the same heat runaway issue there too which I never heard before from drivers. For me it hurt Pirelli’s brand, I won’t ever trust a Pirelli on my car at least.
So, F1 gets everything FREE from Pirelli... then complains about it?
just a wacky suggestion.. maybe layered tyres can be manufactured.. wherein the top half of the tread is made of softer rubber that is more susceptible to temperature changes which would require the drivers to manage the pace in the early part of the stints.. and as the top layers gradually degrade, the layers beneath are made of harder rubber which could help the drivers to push and maintain their pace in the dying part of the stint...
thus, the initial phase of the stint would reward drivers with expert tyre management skills who can use the soft rubber pace to their advantage (eg Perez, Hamilton), whilst during the latter part of the stint drivers who are better at pushing will be rewarded who are able to extract race pace even when the tyres are at their limit (eg Leclerc, Verstappen)...
In a Sport where competition is everything, pirelli is a monopoly. A another supplier would be great for invention.
I put wangkang tyres forward for f1 supplier. They can easily do 70 laps of any track on my fiesta
F1 should go ahead with the ban on tire warmers. These are supposed to be the best drivers in the world and dealing with tire warm up is part of the challenge. If they crash out it's because they went over the limit no different than any other on track incident.
I think tire warmers are a European thing. None of major racing series use them in North America. I know WEC banned tire warmers and one of the Ferraris crashed at Spa on its way out of the pits but IMSA drivers in comparable cars don’t seem to have a problem on cold tires.
I really hope we get competition there. Pirelli doesnt deliver at all for non heated tyres so far. Competition allways pushes the development.
Also I hope 2026 Tyres are way more degrading. I want 2+ Stop races and not the current 1 stop era. Also I hope the FIA does push for rules in this direction. Maybe even a rule where you have to use all 3 tyres in 1 reason.
if tyres will be more degradable it will just cause drivers to save them more to and create more dull racing
So now people are blaming the tires again for the lack of racing?
What happened to the areo being the issue?
Of course George is the type of guy to be the grand prix driver's association director lol
It has a simple solution. Anyway teams has to use at least two sets of tyres in a race. So have two tyre manufacturers and mandate to use at least one time in a race.
Man we really need bridgestone to return
Wait pirelli pays f1? Is that correct or did he just misspeak?
We need Michelin tires lasting for one GP, starting at FP1 to the end of the sunday. And Flat Out races. But Michelin did not want to build an obviously bad tire, this is why they declined the offer... And Pirelli got it.
if ur're worried about tire warmers then think about the drivers risking their lives
Question: Do F1 teams have a say on which tires they should run?
If you're asking about compound: nope
If you're asking about supplier: I guess there'll be a poll from F1 for the teams, but the final call still falls on FIA
@@Karozy4869 thanks
The energy required to run the tire warmers is bad for the environment, unlike transporting the entire F1 show from city to city 22 times a year, that's perfectly fine. - FIA
Yeah and all football and other sports stadiums should all be knocked down to create much needed green space near the middle of big cities.
F1 should focus on the transportation cost going from race to race throughout the season and make it more logical instead of crisscrossing the planet 23 times a season.
I love F1, but Michelin was smart to stay out
Can you explain?
@@MangoIsLove55 they are a smart and great tyre company and they realized the dramas involved with making an f1 tyre were not worth it. As someone on here already commented people in f1 always seem to complain if tyres either A) heat and degrade too quickly thus not allowing drivers to go flat out and race fast and hard because they need to manage tyre heat or B) tyres are stronger and can be driven harder but then there are less pit stops and strategy with managing tyres and fans then complain about less strategy with tyre changing. Essentially these are two conflicting things that f1 expects to both have happen. Michelin knew this and said they have no desire to try and create a tyre which intentionally overheats and wears down which f1 wants.
@@adamdavis4928 hmm, so they don’t wanna create an artificial tyre. Pretty smart of them.
@@the1stmetalhead really it's just dumb f1 politics more than anything and Michelin are smart to not get involved. To have to pay f1 loads of money so that your tyre can be used and them have to spend even more money to create and manufacture the right tyre just so f1 can end up finding some way to complain about the tyre because it doesn't suit what they want in f1 is always going to be a losing battle. Michelin is already one of the biggest and most well respected tyre brands and they don't need the marketing/advertising of f1 to help promote their company. In f1 the top teams and the fia and the top people in f1/corporate are all ruthless sharks trying to grab/steal/use companies to further make them more money. Just look at how all the top f1 teams reacted in disgust when they found out their might be new teams added to the grid and their sadness that they might have to split a small percent of their earnings with an extra team.
Yep, Michelin already dominates Le Mans and sportscar racing.
I was watching along, wondering about another manufacturer returning, thinking of how amazing that would be, then you showed Stefano...he wont let it happen.
I agree they need to increase degradation and reduce thermal degradation but I would like to see an emphasis put on a greater delta between compounds. You don't see enough strategy on compounds. Softs aren't typically used in a race because they aren't enough faster to compensate for how quickly they wear out. And we also have seen at several tracks hards are faster than mediums, that should absolutely never be the case.
if Bridgestone coming back finally means the end of the "Formula Tyre Management" era then I don't see much of an issue.
The Tyre Management era would go away with a wave of the FIA pen. They created this era. Pirelli blames them and their 'spec' for these 'tricky tyres'.
WEC banned tyre warmers and they're doing okay. Sure we seen some outlap crashes and spins because the tyres are too cold but the drivers' will just have to suck it up and get used to it. It will include greater skill to get those tyres up to temperature as fast as they can without crashing and all teams will be affected by this rule change though I don't know how its gonna perform in colder temperatures where there will be literally no grip and will take forever to get the tyres up to temperature.
This idea of F1 being ecologically friendly is simply nonsense.
Really? The energy the tire warmers use? How about all the people that fly to each GP to watch it? Or just the cost in resources and polution of the 20 teams going around the world?
Once again, politics stays in the way of common sense.
F1 should just make 3 stops mandatory and let the manufacturer produce the best tires they could. Drivers would push every single set to the absolute limit since they'd have to stop anyway.
I think there's a strong argument for bringing back refuelling. The main reason the tyres need to degrade so fast is to provide more reasons to pit, which wouldn't be as important if cars were mandated to have smaller fuel tanks. Instead of going to distance on one tank, put a cap on maximum fuel usage over a weekend and have drivers start the race with the fuel load they qualified with. This would encourage strategy variety as teams have to balance tyre characteristics against fuel load but keeps pit stops necessary, with the benefit of making the cars smaller.
I wish they'd let everyone choose their own tires.
I think the teams who are way off down the points order last season should be allowed a bigger spending budget to help them catch up to the top teams.
Today it is almost impossible to think Williams will every catch up to the top 3 teams.
Common sense.
That's basically how it works bud, especially with wind tunnel testing time
@bruhbruhhh6592 I know the extra tech stuff but I am talking about allowing the same scale for the actual team budget to be larger than the best teams in the championships.
It's one thing to figure out how to make your car better only to not have the ability to spend on those developments in season.
Look at the Mercedes team when it designed that car it was with endless money, then the FIA instituted issued a major development freeze to like only 2 major parts of the cars.
Mercedes benefited from the lack of cost cap when they developed the Is turbo hybrid car, it was then locked in benefiting from the other teams not being able to fix their cars in just 1 season.
I miss the day's when F1 had testosterone
Net zero is killing this sport.
Net zero is killing mankind.
Net Zero makes more exciting 🤩
make it a tyre war again, but make the teams choose the tyre company for the season based on running both offers during preseason testing, after that season is over the losing tye company (or any other tyre company that wants to try) gets another chance to win the battle.
At least we'd be forcing the tyre makers to offer their best and we'd all know they aren't just phoning it in.
The amount of energy saved from no blankets can't even be .1% of the energy burned flying the whole show round trip over the Atlantic 5 times a year. That decision comes down to F1 accommodating organizers so every city gets their race at a time that works for them. People with money want to have things work smoothly and the circus hops oceans for them. Drivers want tires to work without crawling around for 3 laps and F1 says to get over it. Pathetic
We need durable tyres with a larger operating window. Regardless of the supplier imo
After listening to your F1 podcast on a tyre war. Below or a variant could be simple solution.
EACH TYRE MANUFACTURER TO BE THE SOLE SUPPLIER FOR ALTERNATE RACES.
The outcome benefits could be endless.
1) fair competition
2) doesn't pit each manufacturer directly against each other. New manufacturer may need to pay entry fee for dilution just like a new F1 team wants to join the party
3) teams are not locked in to any supplier.
4) teams need to adapt to more possibilities, leading to more unpredictable racing
5) logistically better for the manufacturers as they have more time ship tyres to alternate races.
6) If the new supplier is not up to standard in any form such as safety or quality, the incumbent can take over that race. Vice versa. USA F1 GP is an example
7) teams are neutral regardless of the tyre construction methodology or philosophy
8) this will not be limited to 2 the manufacturers. It can work with as many manufacturers that are interested in joining F1. Removing the single supplier risk
Seems like F1 loves to remove the tyre warmer.
Refuelling will not come back.
It’s not sustainable to lug all that extra equipment around the world.
It diminishes safety, as we saw in 1994 (Verstappen), 2008 (Massa).
It also reduced on track overtaking. F1 did a study on this a couple of years ago, the stats proved it.
I remember races in the late 90s / early 00s and overtaking was typically done in the pits, like how Schumacher passed Mika Hak’ for his 2000 Suzuka 1st Ferrari championship.
Nothing to do with the video, sorry, but HOW BEAUTIFUL 1997, 1998, and 1999 cars were. I would love to see those types of F1 cars running today. Not only for aesthetic reasons but also because of racing: they could follow closer, push the whole race, etcetera.
Why not focus ALL on the drivers’ abilities? Ditch DRS , KERS and tire warmers. Keep the ban of starting aid , anti-spin and other electronic aids controlled from the pitwall. Keep 2 compounds rule. Ad refuelling as an extra possibility for tactics.
Having 2 or 3 year contracts for tire suppliers would be great. If the supplier messes up, boot 'em.
Having 2+ tire suppliers would cause issues outside of racing and once Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin made "the best" tire, everyone would just go to that anyway.
Pirellj will find themselves on the backside in the future of tire supply if the FIA will have it's way... Brisgestone has no Warner experience by way of sister brand Firestone at the IndyCar series... Goodyear by way of WEC also has the same experience... I say bring back the tire Wars by eliminating the sole tire supplier altogether since F1 has majority of factory teams on the grid. .
Honestly, I always feel like the Pirelli criticism regarding the quality of racing is a big smoke cloud to hide that the regulations are not producing the change that they claimed to produce. And that's not to criticize F1's plan or Pirelli, it's just physics and the reality of F1: with aero development and technology, F1 will never produce cars that follow as close as people want, because it's become virtually impossible. The current cars are an improvement but that's about it.
On the subject of tyres, degradation was brought in to make the races have more stops and stategy calls. Now, people want cars to be driven more "flat-out". People need to know that engineering is a compromise, you won't have a tyre that degradates and can be pushed around without consequence.
There simply is no silver bullet for this situation. Formula One races on 23 different circuits across 4 continents at various times of the year, in heatwaves, downpours and everything in-between. It can't build twenty-three sets of race tyres for each individual circuit, as the costs would be astronomical and it's surely not good for F1's Net Zero by 2030 image. It's a near-impossible task and its results won't please everyone.
Single season tire war in 2025, that decides the spec tire manufacturer for 2026-2030. Tire manufactures get points the same way the teams do, position at the end of the sprint and full race. Teams can switch tire manufacturers whenever except during a race/qualifying/sprint.
We may end up with everyone running one manufacturer in Monaco and then all using a different one in Monza or Silverstone, but I imagine one manufacturer will prove to be best across more of the races.
The original ground effectcars of the late '70's were shorter, lighter and driven flat out. Not only this, but racing was closer, more competitive and much more exciting. There was also multiple tyre manufacturers - Dunlop, Good Year, Firestone, Bridgestone and Pirelli if I am not mistaken. I really think we need to return to this format to really make the new regulations valid.
lets stop this right hear , just bring BACK in race refuelling !!! better tactics ,faster cars more over takeing, JUST BETTER
I dont envy Pirelli. They have to design a high quality tire designed to fail after a certain amount of usage. Given all of the variables in F1 races, its insane they have manged this far. I don't think any tire maker could do better. Its why Michelin quit F1. They were asked to create a tire designed to fail and Michelin said HELL NO.
F1 never takes responsibility for the poor racing...it is always somebody else's fault. They are alway happy to spend megabucks chasing the goal, but it never materialises. One look at IndyCars shows that it is possible to have close racing with a modern open wheel race car, but for F1 to acknowledge that is a sign of failure.
Sorry if someone already commented the same. Pirelli, F1
How much easier would all of it be if you mandate 2 stops! Minimum, period! Build from that. It has to bring an advantage to all parties! Why not?
For the folks at the Race, just a quick bit of feedback on audio mixing, my subwoofer is activating during naration specially with the Ps, Bs and Ds. I don't notice the same on other channel videos which I watch one after another. Just highlighting in case anyone else is experiencing the same.
The discussion should be easy (around tyres and tyre warmers)
1st criterion: security
2nd criterion: environment
3rd criterion: the rest.
Keep the tyre warmers, have the most predictable (=safe) tyre possible, invest in renewables to power those warmers, and choose the manufacturers accordingly.
Hmm, history... There was a time when F1 tires were incredibly hard and lasted pretty much forever - any tire changes during a race were virtually unheard of and yet the racing was really very good. What was the difference? The cars were about half the size and weight and beyond the introduction of a simple front and rear wing aerodynamic downforce was virtually unheard of. These 'tire issues' aren't issues at all, but a symptom of F1's refusal to tackle the real problems: The cars are way too big and more crucially aerodynamic downforce beyond a simple front and rear wing needs to be banned..
Always felt it was a bit of a poison chalice for Pirelli
"We want you to be our sole tyre supplier"
"Great! A chance to show people how efficient and reliable our tyres are!"
"...And we'd like you to design them specifically to degrade halfway through the race"
Making racing exciting by insisting the tyres are subpar is totally against the spirit of F1. I also think a lot of this “logic” is pure speculation. Putting everyone on bad tyres affects everyone roughly the same. I want to see drivers pushing as hard as they can, not tiptoeing around because the FIA asked for their tyres to be lousy. Come on.
Better racing will come by insisting tracks are built wide enough and/or limiting the size of the cars.
I think a tyre war in this era of F1 could work well. There is no testing, which was one of the biggest criticisms of the previous era with poor ol Luca Badoer bombing around Fiorano for days on end, because Bridgestone made special tyres for Ferrari.
This can't happen now. A lot of the work will be via simulation. Sure some teams may suit their tyres better and some costs may go up a bit, however on thr whole, I say we may get better racing.
Just do a survey and you'll find every F1 fans wants a tire war. With tire competitions from manufacturers, you don't need an artificially degrading tires to entertain the audience. it will be a tire tech race which will push for more grip and durability. This is where things get interesting, because you can't have both grip and durability so it is down to which manufacturer can have an edge. That's way more unpredictable than the FIA pre-scribing how much a tire should degrade.
Their reasons to remove tire blanket to reduce energy usage is practically useless.
Without the blanket drivers need to do 2 3 extra laps to get the right temperature, and in process burning more fuel... Waste of fuel/energy... plus increase carbon footprint emissions of F1...
There is no valid argument for any kind of tyre warmers. Let us see some driving skills by the drivers.
Pirelli have been an outstanding success with no significant failures. They have raised the bar from previous circumstances and demonstrated high competence in all aspects of their mandate. The only way I would support a different tyre manufacturer is competition. 2 or 3 manufacturers spices things up. There could be mandates from F1 to supply reverse championship order with last place having first pick of tyres etc.
Just make the damn thing more interesting... It should be a great sport but they now have to spice it up with fake drama because it's so dull.
Pit stops and pushing hard create race result uncertainty. There is more chance of a mistake. I'd like to see tyres you can spank for 15 laps maximum or drive slower and get a few more laps but not too much. Get rid of the 3 compounds per race weekend. Run just one.
Bring back the tyre war with two or more brands of tyre. And bring back refueling
Comparison with performance the last time Bridgestone were in F1 is completely irrelevant - so long ago and completely and utterly different cars and regs.
Bridgestone and Pirelli have the same capability as companies. There is no reason either one of them can't provide a decent tyre suitable for the series, so in that regard, it's irrelevant which supplier wins.
The only difference would be that if Pirelli are ditched and Bridgestone comes in, they'd be starting from scratch, which would lead to a very painful public development cycle of what is likely to be a problematic product at the start - and with limited testing available these days, it will be a slow process. The series will get bogged down in talking about the tyre problem again, instead of just getting on with the racing. Waste of time.
What everyone always misses is that the genesis of F1’s tyre issues is the ban on refuelling. In 2010, the same tyres were used as in 2009, but the races became dull and predictable because there was no fuel strategy. The reason the 2010 Canadian GP became the blueprint for a tyre that degraded by design was because it was the only race that year where there were multi pit stops and so diverging strategy - something that had not been an issue in 2009 because refuelling already ensured this. It’s a fallacy that refuelling negatively affects the racing - the aerodynamics negatively affect the racing and removing refuelling only compounded the issue by forcing the creation of tyres that would artificially generate multiple pit stops and so could not be races flat out.
I was hoping this would be about Aston Martin hopefully cutting the boss’s son
A choice can be that associate more reliabilty penalties at front and allow number of pit stops as a penalty pass when made at top 10 positions.
This would favour folks to stop more and reduce cost runoffs from frontend teams (unless we get a 2020 ferrari).
Even if they solve tires , reliability and puballocation will come out next.
F1 loves to make sustainability as an excuse, yet the calendar jumps around the world on who pays more. If bridgestone will pay more to be the sole provider, then F1 will jump to it regardless of how it performs
The fact they are acting like tire warmers are anywhere near the largest source of F1s carbon footprint is ridiculous. Especially since they do nothing optimize the travel for races. Also WEC has been a mess without tire warmer. Ask Ferrari how Spa was for them this year....
I am not convinced the current Pirelli's performance is Pirelli's fault. I lay the blame firmly on F1 for "the show"
Never understood the criticism towards Pirelli. They make the tires the FIA asked for.
One thing they can do is make more durable tires, but use less during the whole season. For example instead of allocating a specific number of tires per race, why not allocate a specific number of tires per season? Like they do with engine parts? Then it's up to the teams to choose how much they want to use the tires in a specific race, knowing they must use a used tire on the next one. If they no longer have tires after a number of races, then they get penalties because of it. Of course out of this countdown are tires that are lost due errors not by the team or their drivers (like being crashed into or end up having punctures because they went over somebody else's debris and etc).
I think this could be interesting because teams would still need to manage their tires, but in a different way. And they would reduce the amount of tires used, which would save money.
If they don't like this idea, then just make a good tire that the drivers can push like crazy and use the good old rule of "you must use two or three different compounds per race blah blah blah", there, simple, easy to understand and the drivers don't need to manage tire degradation (they would still do tire management, but not to the extent of current racing).
As DTS convert this increases my distrust of F1 as a racing series. Michelin has made some unflattering comments about F1 and this story didn't help.
For all those thinking Domenicalli will stay loyal to Pirelli because they're an Italian brand, think again. Stefano is a businessman first and is aggressively pushing the scope of Formula 1 in America and beyond. The guy has basically said Monaco and other classic circuits can get axed if they don't adapt. I think Bridgestone may be closer to be green lighted, for the simple reason Bridgestone has years of development and fine tuning for race tyres without blankets for IndyCar. The logical choice would be Bridgestone if the FIA/F1 is dead set on getting rid of blanket warmers. Bridgestone being a Japanese company are ruthlessly efficient and advanced in racing tyres. If F1 wants tyre "heritage" and a nod to Italy, go with Pirelli, if they want racing tyre perfection, go with Bridgestone.
Pirelli tyres are not great but a big part of it´s failures are due to the F1 managment (asking to do a tyre that can be pushed all the time but degrade enough to force the teams to stop it´s nearly impossible) and the fact as years go on testing has been more and more limited with teams exceding the downforce they "think" they will gain from year yo year.
Any tyre supplier than joins F1 will have the same problems than Pirelli, the only manufacturer that have the experience in top motorsport is Michelin but they dont want to join since F1 wants tyre degradation.