THE TYRE WARS! A History of Tyre Manufacturer Competition in Formula One
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2023
- The Tyre War is usually applied to a period of F1 history between 2001 and 2006, but the reality is manufacture supremacy between tyre companies has been going on since the beginning, to the point where on a couple of occasions there would be SIX tyre companies on the grid.
Now, there's just one, and with F1 trying to do the new tender for the tyres, let's have a look at when the rubber did battle as much as the drivers and constructors.
Enjoy! And remember to like and subscribe for more!
Thumbnail image: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
------
Wikipedia images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Flickr images used under the following CC Licenses:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
F1 Store Affiliate Link: f1.pxf.io/n19my9
Business enquiries: amsimracing@gmail.com
Patreon: www.patreon.com/aidanmillward
Discord: / discord
Instagram: amillward67
Twitter: Aidan_Millward
Steam: AdmiralLaWind
----
CPU: Ryzen 5 5600 @3.7gHz
Motherboard: MSI B450 Mortar Micro ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 2x 8gb @ 3000mHz
GPU: nVidia GeForce RTX 3060
Editing Software: Sony Vegas 14 Steam Edition
Wheel: Simucube 2 Pro - Cube Controls Formula Pro Rim/DIY Ascher D Shape Rim
Pedals: Heusinkveld Sprints - กีฬา
Reverse the plies for the correct statement. 45° is radial.
This is a positive comment for the TH-cam algorithm
This is a positive sub comment for the TH-cam algorithm
@@rohitr.sekhar2195 and this is a positive answer to the positive subcomment
I accept the challenge and additionalize my comment
@@rohitr.sekhar2195 this is an announcement that I have liked your positive sub comment for the TH-cam algorithm.
Oh heck yes, it loves that stuff
Fun fact: Out of all the tyre manufacturers in F1, Avon is the only one that never won a championship, actually the only one that never won a race either. Their best results were a couple of 5th places in 1981 & 1982!
And now they make all the tyres for the historic cars running at Goodwood. 😅
I didnt even know they were a real tire brand. They have been in all the racing sims that ive played that didnt have brands like firestone, goodyear etc. I just assumed they were a fictional tire. lol
speed events,hot rods and motorbike sidecars have run Avon's for over 40 years
@@AidanMillward- but Forza Motorsport 2 said that Avon tires had the best grip!! Reeeeeeee 😋😋🤣
I bought my RCM WRX with Avons of some sort. When I melted them I changed to Toyo Proxies. Was like a very angry train then. And then it went to the menders in the sky.
Pretty wild that Goodyear was the dominant tire in F1 & IndyCar/CART/IRL, then withdrew from both around the same time.
To then become the dominant tire in NASCAR though with that they had been the dominant tire for a while ever since Hoosier pulled out of NASCAR in 1994.
Slapshoes did a great video on tyre wars in NASCAR, its worth a watch.
Ditto Nascarman History
Which included two of the worst races in the sport’s history…the 1988 Winston All-Star race and Coca-Cola 600.
Any slapshoes video is a good one.
@gamerzone0764 he does very good stuff, and I'm not exactly a NASCAR fan, but his style is very easy on the ear, same as Aidan, and Alec from Technology Connections.
I think one of the most recent tire wars is in the Japanese Super GT series, where 4 manufacturers battle against each other in both classes, namely Bridgestone, Michelin, Dunlop and Yokohama. Although this would change in 2024 with Michelin leaving at the end of 2023, leaving only 3 manufacturers, with Bridgestone dominating the field with 10 cars in the GT500 class.
Japan is a tyre mecca
Michelin will stay but only with the Studie BMW M4 GT300 IIRC
Well in any case each manufacturer wins at least once in a season so it's impressive. But then you rarely see the a car winning more than twice a season. So, impressive in all aspects. Best road racing series in the world.
I believe the reason for teams switching tires in 1981 was that Goodyear briefly withdrew from F1 at the beginning of the year before thinking better of it and re-entering the series later on in the season.
Your comment on Michelin skipping out on F1 to make the tire design they wanted in endurance racing is so on-point. Imho the ultra hard tires they made for IMSA (I don't follow WEC nearly as closely so I forget if it's the same) have produced some truly sublime, nail-biting finishes as teams gamble on strategy.
I'm not sure if they're using the same spec for IMSA as WEC, but we've absolutely seen the same thing with taking a while to get going. the Spa 6hrs was pretty egregious with this, and it caused a couple of major problems across the weekend too. the Goodyears on the LMP2s didn't seem to have the same problems, they could run full speed almost immediately while the hypercars and the GTEs had to take a couple of laps being cautious and gentle to get up to temperature and grip
There's also a great interview with Rory Byrne on the F2002 on TH-cam where he mentions working with Bridgestone and even states that there are some things he still cannot talk about to do with the design of the car around the characteristics of the tyres. I think it's all but confirmed. A good watch regardless and a good insight into the design philosophy and process of Ferrari at that time.
My recollection is the F2002 using different tyres to the 2001 car. The F2002 wasn't introduced until Brazil, and then there was only one chassis available, for Schumacher of course. I remember there being speculation on ITV's coverage about what would happen if Schumacher needed to switch to the spare car, as his tyre allocation for that race was for the F2002. Would he gain an unfair advantage (more new tyres) if he swapped to the spare car?
I miss tire wars. Hoosier vs Goodyear, Bridgestone vs Michelin, etc, adds alot more drama.
Hoosier vs Goodyear killed 2 drivers.
unnecessary drama that took the dynamic away from the asphalt
@@TheTotallyRealXiJinpingnot true. Orr crash was caused by a suspension failure and Bonnetts is thought to be the same.
The main reason given for switching to a single tyre supplier was to control costs. (The teams who could afford to spent massive amounts of time & money testing, and the majority of the testing was tyre related.) Now we finally have the budget cap, there's a strong case for removing the earlier restrictions introduced to try and limit spending and let the teams spent their limited budget freely.
It would be great to have multiple tyre suppliers again. And if they can introduce a budget cap for power unit suppliers (under the 2026 regulations) surely they could do the same for tyre suppliers.
But on the other hand if tyre suppliers start concentrating on one team again, as Bridgestone did with Ferrari, it will be massively unfair to the rest and deprive us of competition. We might get a two way title battle, but 3 or 4 teams fighting for the titles would be unlikely. (Having the sole tyre supplier as a neutral party has its advantages.)
And the lesser teams already suffer with the tyres currently. They have to be designed for the maximum loads the frontrunning teams can generate - otherwise they would be unsafe. But in some situations the slower teams (whose cars generate less downforce) can't put enough load into the tyres to get them into their peak operating window. Exaggerating the size of their performance deficit.
Since F1 has gone into a very savings-oriented direction, which makes sense (to an extent), I don't believe tyre wars should come back, although I'm certain that would rock the boat in entertaining fashion. What I'd love would be for the gimmicky tyres to GTFO. While I understand that "FoR ThE SHoW", there needs to be some concessions, this is too much...I feel the obligation to change tyres at least 1x/race is good enough and we needn't have more. In the same vein, DRS looks to me like an inferior version of Indycar's "push to pass(/defend)" system.
P2P is the way to go in my opinion, especially considering it uses more fuel, which forces teams and drivers to be a bit more cautious on when and where to use it.
I agree, tyre wars are a thing of the past, and should be. I think DRS had its place but it's no longer a necessary thing for F1, and yeah a push to pass system is a better idea
I agree we will never see tyre wars again.F1 wants the series with lots of spec parts to lower costs and tyres that make the races more exciting.
The problem is that the gimecky tyres don’t actually make the show better. All it will do is cause teams to be permanently in tyre management and thus never be properly pushing nor racing one another. It’s actually a brilliant example of a cobra effect.
Hi Aidan, thanks for the vid
You made an F1 "killer year's" and I was wondering if you could make the same video but from NASCAR's top tier series also from the 60's?
Whenever I think about this video I think Slapshoes' tire war trilogy. I amongst others did watch 3 videos in a playlist format.
Tyre wars are good and bad for racing. Single make series mean the cars are slower and often come down to which chassis can be made to work best on that tyre spec, then the series makes the spec change, and all the teams re-shuffle, but in general the top teams are going to be the top teams. When there are multiple companies there can at least be some shakeup.
I could see F1 having 2 tyre suppliers but either them supplying them for alternating races or on Tyre suppliers for slicks and one for wets and intermediate tyres.
The Pirelli wet-weather tires are terrible, but I think it makes more sense to focus on improving these tires than complicating things further by adding another tire supplier.
the '98 grooves were comedy.
In '93 (i think) they reduced the width of them in an attempt to slow the cars down, but Goodyear figured out how to get the same grip level, so the cornering speeds stayed the same, but due to reduced drag they were faster on the straights. The rules to slow them down sped them up, so next time they made them narrower while keeping them the same.
They reduced the width of the rear tyres in the early '90s - from memory, I think it was twice in 1991 & 1993. My understanding is this was done in response to the rapidly increasing engine power (thanks to Renault introducing pneumatic valves). This lead to the rear tyres on F1 cars being under specified for the loads they were subjected to (made worse with the 1998 gooved tyres). Which had a significant effect on chassis design for the next couple of decades (probably until the 2017 wide cars). To transfer as much load as possible onto the front tyres the designers shortened the wheelbase of the cars and moved the ballast as far forwards as possible. Which increased the advantage of smaller drivers like Fisichella over taller drivers like his team mate Wurz.
It's actually interesting. I think the NLS and 24h Nürburgring are the only fully open series/event where teams can run any tyre they want, to the point of entire teams being sponsored by tyre manufacturers - though both the NLS and 24 hours are sponsored by Falken Tyre, which also sponsor a team iirc.
But both Hypercar and GTE are Michelin exclusive while LMP2 is Goodyear exclusive, I don't know what IMSA does, nor all the various GT3 series that exist everywhere - besides the NLS as mentioned.
The few times in recent history where there were tire wars in NASCAR, the racing was dangerous to the drivers as tire companies push the envelope in favor of speed vs endurance. The drivers suffer in that equation with lots of blown tires and quick visits to the wall.
I think it's both interesting and weird that the advantage of slicks over grooved tires was discovered by accident. You would think that at least someone knew that a larger contact patch would mean more grip. That's why the Michelin tires expanded a bit during the race in the early-2000s. They had always behaved like that, but at the end of 2003 this suddenly became illegal. Bridgestone being Ferrari's private tire supplier pissed off pretty much all of the other teams. Michelin didn't seem to prioritize one team over the others and this may explain why they were so strong in 2005, when tire changes weren't allowed during the race. The Bridgestone tires were usually more durable at that time, so this rule change should have favored them, but instead they had a horrible season, as they failed to produce a tire that was both durable and fast. Ferrari were pretty much on their own at the time, while Michelin had plenty of competitive teams supplying them with data, which gave them a massive edge.
That's not strictly true as friction is based on weight and material. The advantage will come from removing the squirm from the tread, and increasing the strength of the tyre face
It was interesting watching the tyre factor at Bathurst over the years, and each brand had its "Ferrari", if you will, here in Australia. Dunlop mostly stayed loyal to Dick Johnson (and vice versa), while Peter Brock spent decades in bed with Bridgestone, for both good and ill. He lost the '79 championship because, being Bridgestones, they were very good for the first few laps but dropped off steeply after that, allowing Bob Morris to wear him down (it's probably also worth wondering how much of the infamous "Brock Crush" was just necessity given how Bridgestones work). In the late 80's the tyres to have came from Yokohama, but their day was already over by the mid-90's. A recent magazine article details a sneaky '94 tyre test at Catalina Park, disguised as a "ride day" for their star dealers - a mark of desperation if ever there was one...
@7:34. You’re welcome. You even narrated it as it sounded in my head😂
Lets have two manufacturers but each supplies provides tyres to each team for half the races. Half the pack gets one tyre, the other half get the other. The team last in the championship gets first choice, then working up the table, the leader gets whatever is left.
I didn't keep the most attention, but when there was a tyre war, they weren't dominating like redbull and mercedes does. Sure schumi is a point here, but i remember he not actually dominating but 2002-2004... But this was amplified witht he bridgestone was ferrari, and michelin was the average of the rest...
Hard subject, aswell because now when we have only pirelli, no refueling. Like bridgestones on a ferrari, worked when the michael had 30kg of fuel onboard, but then the michelin might have worked better from full load to empty.
Imagine pirelli, goodyear, michelin, and bridgestone all making 5 different compounds. But competition is key, every team can decide the tyres before every race? but have a dedicated sponsor space at the rear wing endplates, great topic could gamefy it all :)
F1‘s meddling with tire performance perfectly displays the issues that drove me away from it. The supposed pinnacle of motorsport not being open to fierce competition defeats the purpose, imo, as well as the fun.
I recently rewatched a few races from the Schumacher era - seeing those race cars flying across the track looked so much more spectacular, don’t even mention the noise… when the situation called for it, the top dogs would string qualifying laps after another to get an advantage. Preserving tires may have scored points, but putting the hammer down would get you wins.
I don’t get why F1 wants to regulate competition. Let the engineers do what they can within the budget. If they decide to spend it on bespoke tires that makes them rapid, let them do it!
Been binging this channel for about a week, I finally get the new vid in my feed. Let's goooo
nice video, in some ways it would be cool to have another tyre war, ingenuity being a posible example, but for other reaons one tyre supplier is enough as a tyre war would create more clickbate and online toxicity sadly
Lols...he got that sneaky pro wrestling line in.
Nostalgia talking for me to see grooves back. For me personally I think it's also dyspraxia/ASD talking; I grew up playing with toy cars, as you do, and wheels have grooves, real life cars have grooved tyres, therefore cars must have grooves. Therefore, I reflexively hate slicks. They don't have grooves, so they're not real cars. Something like that.
Early 2000s Bridgestone + Ferrari = 🗿🍷🔝
I miss early 2000s war between Bridgestone and Michelin...
F1 needs to have multiple tyre suppliers but instead of a war, all teams are supplied by all tyre suppliers.
With Pirelli & Bridgestone they bring a selection of tyre compounds to each race and after practice the teams select 1 race compound medium or hard from each supplier with both have to be used during race. A fixed selection of soft tyres from both suppliers available for qualy & race if desired.
If 3 or more tyre suppliers than the teams are pre-assigned 2 tyre suppliers per race either all teams having the same 2 tyre suppliers per race or different combination of tyre suppliers per team at a race
This will give the benefit of tyre war without the escalation in costs and different teams potentially having a performance advantage when on different tyres.
This is where the rubber really hits the algorithm
is funny that F1 tire rules go against the main point of selling that is reliability and so. If they changed some rules (like clearing teams to make 0 stops if they wish to do so) then Bridgestone would come up with one of their special soft rubber that could go to the end without loss of performance. But FIA just make manufacturers do silly tires that teams figure it out as late as round 3 in the championship
Thanks, that was of interest for me, you indeed did some educating on me, so I did the thing and now I'm doing the other thing.
I am a little bit torn here, because one one hand I think it's quiet nice, that they have the same rubber and well, just imagine what RB would do, if they would have tailor made tyres. On the other hand F1, for me, is like war of the engineers, it's a space race simulator, but with out all the stupid politics.
The real heroes of the sport, again, in my eyes, your mileage may differ, are the engineers. The "problem" isn't that there isn't a driver on Max' level, but that there isn't a Ross Brawn anymore, but there still is (well deserved) an Adrian Newey. Unchallenged for the unforeseen future. If Adrien would build a leg brace, Nikaita Mazepin would probably out run the competition. (this sounds, like I'm bashing on Max, I am really not, he does Gods work, nay, Adrians work, wich is even more impressive... good, now I pissed of the Netherlands and the Vatican)
But my point is, since engineers build the tyre, and I wan't to see engineers doing their thing, I kinda wouldn't hate it. Although I probably prefer to see engineers doing their thing to the car on equal rubber... It's a tough one, really.
Maybe everyone should have the same rubber, except for Adrians cars, they would probably win on flintstone tyres, the ones from the cartoon.... made of stone.
Adrian is that good.
How do you decide what to do a video on? You do enough that ive gotta think you're running out of ideas! 😂 Another good video my man. Cheers
By being awesome.
Positive vibes over !!!
If FIA and FOM were to give a base spec on size and let the tyre manufacturers do the job of designing the best tyre, AND allow the teams to pick and choose their manufacturer race by race, it could be interesting.
As it stands, having performance spec tyres as they do with Pirelli only works well with one manufacturer. If you add a second or third, you can all but guarantee there will be some underhanded shenanigans going on.
I was never keen on either Bridgestone/Michelin period. As I recall, the tyre manufacturer strongly affected the race results for each track, but teams were locked into their chosen manufacturer. The early days of multiple manufacturers, and the freedom to move between them made for a much more interesting system.
I know what im watching on my lunchbreak today!
It might have been the teams, not Michelin, who were primarily to blame for the 2005 US GP tyre failures. The teams were reportedly running the tyres below Michelin's minimum pressure, chasing more performance. The two tyre failures both happened to Toyota, who it is claimed were pushing the tyre pressures lower than anyone else. And unlike the other teams, didn't raise pressures again after the first failure (Zonta's?).
Well that's the theory...
I find that F1 is tricky to navigate when it comes down to performance vs the "show".
As a fan I want to see exciting, close racing, otherwise it can become a boring strategy race, which sometimes can be exciting as well but you don't really wanna be watching it every week.
But F1 is also supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport, pushing the boundaries of technology, so bringing in rules that limit teams creativity, I also find frustrating.
So I want the cars to be equal, so the drivers can show their difference in skill, while also driving the best cars that can be produced.
So on the one hand, I'm all for a tyre war but also rather see them all run equal tires, lol
What merch should I buy using your affiliate link?
Also, on Saturday, I drove a Ferrari 458 Challenge Evo, with Pirelli slicks and my god, the G-forces of slicks are incredible. Tire wars that led to tires being developed that are as grippy as they are today are a bad thing for my neck muscles.
Comment for algorithm. Also great video!
Cotton reinforcement was well obsolete by the 1950s. Before polyamide came along, F1 was almost certainly using high tenacity continuous filament viscose rayon (a manmade cellulose fibre), as the military had done since before WWII. It lasts a lot longer (a couple of thousand miles rather than a hundred or two). It was commonly used in the West on road vehicles until 1980, when steel radials came along and *poof!* went the market for it.
I rewatched, some time ago, a race from 1997 season (Monza), and I was surprised about how less they talked about tyres and pit stops: it was just racing and some talking about strategies, but not constantly insisting on this or that tyre compound, and really it made me think on what's wrong with today in F1. It shouldn't be all about tyres...of course they are very important, but only a piece in the overall puzzle of a car, not THE ONLY element to talk about.
Basically in the last 10-15 years, all has been standardized so much, that to generate something fun to watch, we have to rely almost only on tyres strategies, nobody talks about engines or mechanics anymore, which is very sad.
So in the end, talking about tyre war yes - tyre war no I think it's kinda misleading, because F1 shouldn't gravitate only around tyres, there are much much more important issues to fix to go back to some kind of sport again
I always get mad at people wishing for tyre wars. Saying that "Racing was better!".
Yet they forget Indianapolis 2005 and a whole lot of crazy things that the tyre wars did.
Chaos isnt always fun.
There's been instances in the past, where F1 teams would have been better off ignoring what the tyre manufacturers say, Williams in Adelaide in 1986 for example, regarding Mansell's car.........
I personally miss the tyre war between 2 companies.
I'd have two manufacturers that would each bring their best tyre to the race and the teams would have to use both, a bit like how they currently have to use two different compounds during the race. This would allow the tyre companies to compete directly with each other to produce their best combination of speed, endurance, cornering etc.
A third company could also supply the wet and intermediate tyres too.
Many folks think a tender is a pitch and a wad in a brown envelope changing hands on a golf course .
It is if you’re a Tory.
Your second and third reasons for not having a war don’t hold when you look at the solutions. #2 have a cost cap for tire manufacturers, #3 have the manufacturers build tires to the FIA’s specifications and not the teams to avoid the Bridgestone Ferrari favoritism. I think the biggest reason a tire war wouldn’t work on paper is the potential for one to be dominant while the other isn’t. For instance the only reason RB is dominate is bc they’d have Bridgestones while the rest have Pirelli.
If you want to point out subtly what Twats Pirelli are look into Petter Solberg with Subaru. Reff!
I can remember that awful early pirelli only period where the softs at china were blowing up at 5 laps.
Kimi in a Ferrari rings a bell.
All Coulthard would talk about from start to finish was tyre "Deg" and tyre management, dirty air 😤😤
At least they sounded good back then though eh 😊
I only want a tire war if all teams must use both suppliers in the race. Suppliers win based on usage and therefor visibility. None of the teams get stuck with bad tires
There won't be a tire war of course. You can't force a tire manufacturer to produce bad tires while competing with another manufacturer. Without restrictions, a Pirelli-Bridgestone tire war would be cool, although I'm afraid Pirelli would be massively out-competed (as they were by Goodyear in 1989-1991) and leave the sport. That would be a shame, as their tires look much better than the Bridgestones.
I watch and listen
I hear wrestling reference
I like 👍🏻 ✅
Probably Panis would have a chance in 1997 to win the Hungarian GP, without the accident in Canada.
Also potentially the Austrian GP that year as well
This war destroy the arrows,jordan,minardi, the big teams with huge budgets put so much money in testing and developing the tyres with chassis (2003) and this have result jordan who was 1 sec slower from ferrari/wilkiams/mclaren on start of 2003 ,after the middle of season the gap open to 3 secs,in f1 3 seconds need 2 years full developing to gap this time. Fia was the one who must blame
Tire Companies: "We want to make tires that show we're better than the competition!"
FIA: "You are required to use Play-Doh."
The first real tire war was the Goodyear-Bridgestone tire war in 1997-1998. Goodyear had to make their tires a lot faster to be able to compete with Bridgestone. The best illustration was the Argentine Grand Prix, where the pole time was a whopping 6 seconds faster than the year before. Along with this speed came a lot of tire wear, which gave the Bridgestone runners a clear edge on race day. Despite supplying the weaker teams, they came close to winning on several occasions. Goodyear then made a blunder to announce its withdrawal from the sport at the end of 1998, which allowed McLaren and Benetton to switch to Bridgestone. However, in 1998 the tire performances seemed much more balanced, so at Goodyear they were kicking themselves for leaving the sport.
All top tier motorsport series should have tyre competition; sadly F1, MotoGP & WRC have gone for a single supplier......all for ££££££
In the style of Jack Sparrow "mo clicky clicky!"
Im baffled how they did for the show makes me wonder what will be the gap to WEC and F1 if they let them do it what racecars meant to be
I remember that comment
Competition is always better, not only does it make it more interesting in the order but it also always pushes technology forwards, would love Bridgestone vs Michelin vs Pirelli. It will never happen, but I can in my head 😄
but as legendary motorcycle champion Kenny Roberts snr said, there are fans of drivers/rider, there are fans of teams and manufacturers but there aren't any fans of tyre manufacturers
@@NonFlyiingDutchman they have an impossible job, some do better than others…
The last tyre wars were pretty rubbish at the time.
@@fourutubez7294 yeah but that’s because the fia changed how they measured the tyres, taking away Michelins advantage in 2003 after Ferrari complained because it looked like schumi might not have been odds on for the title
@@Chucklingsaneman It was rubbish through the whole tyre war, not because of one incident.
USA GP at Indy was worse day of tires war
Ok now explain the Tire war in NASCAR.
Yeah, specifically the war between Goodyear and Hoosier
I suspect the Spanish Grand Prix slicks legend has some issues. Wikipedia claims, of the test:
"The tyres were introduced by Firestone, based on its experience in American open wheel racing series."
Firestone's website makes an oddly similar, yet significantly different claim:
"Just ask Mario Andretti, the first driver to use slick tires at the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway. It happened during a Firestone test in late 1960s when the racing legend didn’t want to sit around and wait for the engineers to carve thin slits called “sipes” into the rubber before he tried a new tire."
The IMS website gives at date, saying:
"As Andretti remembers, it was a Firestone tire test in December 1967 at IMS."
All that said, it's pretty clear Slicks did not replace treads at Indy completely until 1972, and I don't know if they were used ANYWHERE in USAC before 1972.
I think it's likely the legend has some combination of the truth. Firestone was cognizant of the possibility of the slicks (which were standard in Hot-rods and Drag Racing) but didn't develop it further. The Spanish Grand Prix test in 1971 was at least not based entirely on luck, if at all.
Tbf the first use at Indy and the first use in F1 are two separate things.
it's funny the Ickx slick tyre story I heard as Mario at Indy in 1967.
I heard it as Andretti too and that one of the engineers or tyre-techs said something like, just wait and see how fast these tyres are once we've cut some tread into them!
But the first time slicks were used at Indy was 72. Which is why “legends has it” was used. 😅
@@AidanMillward indeed, and why I said "it's funny" ... You should hear all the cheating legends passed around stock car racing here in the southern USA. You'd think some of these boys were time travelers.
I saw an interview with Eddie and he said that Bridgestone tyres were special for Ferrari which he agreed with as Ferrari had done all the testing, and Jordan got less well developed ( I guess older spec ) tyre's. Not sure how a better tyre would be worse on the other cars, not when they are all so similar wrt weight, power etc
Of course Firestone is a Bridgestone brand now...
1990's World Superbike was even worse, Michelin would overnight special one off tyres for the Ducati's.
Hey, if there is no thread on a tire yet, doesn't it make it dangerous to then use that tire before the thread is added? Or is it a different process with that kind of tire that you can still use it with no thread?
I wonder, who is the winningest tyre manufacturer if you only included wins when there was a competitors tyre to race against? So no single tyre manufacturer season wins counted.
Goodyear definitely I would say. Plus they were also winning tyre wars in Indycar and NASCAR in the 80s-90s
What abbaut video abbaut how good were pascal wherlain and Felipe nasr ,mika salo ,and nick haidfeld
Why not allow something similar to engine supply. Each team could choose the tyre supplier it wanted. The tyres would need to meet certain regulatory standards, but beyond that, the teams get a free choice. If one supplier has a tyre that is slower, but more durable, that might better suit a car that would burn through faster but less durable tyres, and vice versa. Let's say one team struggles to get their tyres up to temperature, they might choose a supplier of less durable but quicker to warm up tyres.
Let's be honest. Each team builds their own car. There are strict requirements but each are different. Why should they be confined to a one size fits all approach to tyres?
would like to know how much money was burned in the development during the tire wars. In comparison, the one manufacturer should save enough money. How many series are there still where a tire war takes place? VLN, Super GT... ? How does it look there cost technically?
They should just allow Pirelli to make the perfect tire... It has become exceedingly obvious that FOM and FIA have no bloody clue what makes for a good viewer sport...
We want story of 2003 tyre controversy.
He made it one year ago. Look up "the other Michelin tyre controversy".
Hankook wanted to step in for the 2018 season
Aidan. You are no longer allowed to say Clickbait. You must now forever use the term “clicky clicky”. Lol.
Cost cap for tire manufacturers. Simple.
If F1 wanted a tire war, could they not allocate a fixed number of each tire compound over the full year and let the teams pick which of the allocation they want at the track for any specific race weekend?
So with one supplier and the same cost base, could they not give the choice back to the teams and improve “the show” without having the cost impact of an actual tire supplier war?
Teams would end up picking all the same ones eventually cos they know what to pick for each track.
To your point about different compounds benefiting different designs of car during the last tire wars and then overlaying the further complexity of different tracks favouring different compounds … I think it’ll add another dimension to the strategy that they will need to plan for before the start of the weekend.
The other thing is that all the cars are designed around the current status quo … what if the teams started doing things like saying we have a great car concept for high speed high deg tracks, what if we dial that up to 11 and go for the win at Monza etc meanwhile another team may chose to dial in their car for Monaco.
I don’t really know what would happen but, I think it adds a lot more potential game theory elements to the strategy side that we used to see more prior to the sole tyre supplier era. Ultimately this game theory element is something that was in the “golden era” of F1 had that the modern era doesn’t. You’d know the team A has a fast high speed car but poor tire deg than team B.
Particularly in the mid-field battle optimising for the car for a track and a tyre compound that is optimal for that track could net you enough points to move yourself up from the back of the midfield to the middle or front … yeah Red Bull would still be rinsing the competition but, overall things may be a little more interesting … ???
@@AidanMillward
Maybe, but it would be better F1 and Pirelli picking them.
I wonder if the grooved tires had in reality the same contact size than pure slick tires, because grooved tires had more width in total than slick tires, anybody can tell something about this?
I did the maths in a video about putting slicks on the F2004 in Assetto Corsa years ago. Can’t remember the exact figures tho.
I worked for BS during the 2000’s and what I can tell you is difference in philosophy existed.
Bridgestone, being Japanese, designed tyre profiles to the letter of the rules whereas Michelin designed profiles to the spirit of the rules.
This meant the M sidewall curved over onto the tread surface in a smooth and uniform manner until the inside most groove was reached.
B sidewall curved over and then ‘stepped up’ onto the tread pattern.
This had the effect of giving M runners a much wider contact patch early on during tyre wear than the B runners.
This is why M cars always looked like the tyres were wider when viewed from head on.
Basically the Boys in Yellow and Blue had found a way to quietly cheat.
Well done to them
@@andygreener3130 and they were able to do this all through 2001, 2 and most of three before Ferrari decided it was illegal and got it banned.
@@AidanMillward Michelin also had a indented step where the tyre beed met the rim.
It made it look like there was a small gap at the bottom of the side wall where it met the rim edge.
This allowed for more effective dampening over kerbs.
The gap would get squashed to zero as the sidewall compressed.
I think the key to the grooved tyres was that the tread blocks moved and flexed, resulting in inconsistent grip across the contact area and sapping driver confidence.
I don't know how the contact patch overall compared, but combined with the narrow track, the cars at the start of that era were super twitchy.
You could spot a team struggling on its tyres by how hard the driver was working to keep it together in heavy braking zones.
For those clamoring for a tire war, clearly don't remember or don't know how awful they can be.
I have always hated this tyre nonsense that FOM have been pushing for a good while now, it makes a mockery of the concept of tyre development imo and have seen it confusing new fans/casual fans so many times too. I honestly believe that the sport would be more entertaining and more genuine if they let these things be developed properly and more naturally instead of all this fOr ThE sHoW nonsense but unfortunately it looks like every aspect of F1 is going that way.
Extremely unlikely but I'd love to see a breakaway series start to draw some of the money and attention away from F1 and pay more attention to the purity and history
Algorithm something gomething engagement something
Tire wars are the worst parts of bad tire strategies on crack. You need only look at NASCAR's tire wars for why a series monopoly is better than publicly traded companies trying not to spend money but still gain performance.
The only benefit for fans is something else to bitch about that isn't their team's planning and the driver's skills.
The tyre wars were awful. "Why did you win?"; "Tyre x was better at this track"; "Yay -_- ". At least with one tyre supplier everyone has the same, knows how they work, and nobody has an unfair advantage at certain circuits.
It was all for Crapmocker and Ferrari.
Now days Ferrari are running mid pack at best and Crapmocker is a mindless mute. Yep karma will find you.
Yer da sells Avon... tyres
He’s from the Beechdale he nicks em.
This is a negative comment for the TH-cam algorithm
don’t get me wrong Aidan, love your content; been subbed for a couple years now… but wheres all the sim racing content gone?.. as in you never upload anything from rF2/AC anymore
Did a sim video a month ago, the What if Bridge Corner was Sitll Used one.
Rig's been sort of packed up because we were moving, so I'm hoping to use it a bit more now I'm in my new place.