Tire Competition

[Chamoo]

Would you like to see a tire competition in the IRL to go along with multiple engine manufacturers, and hopefully multiple chassis manufacturers in 2011? I know that the IRL stated they want one chassis and one tire, but is that something the fans want right now, or just the league?

I know personally, I'd love to see two tire manufacturers, three engine manufacturers and atleast three chassis manufacturers. That's 18 different possible tire/engine/car combinations. I think that would help bring back some credibility to AOWR, seeing multiple manufacturer names on the series, and also help create passing at all tracks when some cars would be slower/faster in parts of the course others aren't.

But, the main question here is, do you want to see multiple tire providers in 2011 (or before), or are you happy with the way it is now?

[SarahFan]

Would you like to see a tire competition in the IRL to go along with multiple engine manufacturers, and hopefully multiple chassis manufacturers in 2011? I know that the IRL stated they want one chassis and one tire, but is that something the fans want right now, or just the league?

I know personally, I'd love to see two tire manufacturers, three engine manufacturers and atleast three chassis manufacturers. That's 18 different possible tire/engine/car combinations. I think that would help bring back some credibility to AOWR, seeing multiple manufacturer names on the series, and also help create passing at all tracks when some cars would be slower/faster in parts of the course others aren't.

But, the main question here is, do you want to see multiple tire providers in 2011 (or before), or are you happy with the way it is now?


this is a question (along with the multiple chassis and engine suppliers) I go back and forth with....

having multiple 'suppliers' brings cash and innovation into a series...

but if a racer or team gets stuck without 'THE PACKAGE' on a race weekend...or even a season they have no chance of being competitive....it happened during the mid to late 90's.....if your team or driver has no chance of winning or even running up front would you be inclined to tune out on a race weekend?


i'm not sure of the right answer.... and I suspect a SPEC series isn't the answer either....

just not sure what the happy medium is either

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I am confortable with control tyres, especially with Firestone being such a great, enthusiastic partner. For me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Limited testing means limited cost, which is vital in the mid-term future of the series. I support a spec chassis as well for now. Costs are are getting out of control even today.

However, engine competition is just neccessary. Manufacturers have to be involved in a top tier racing series. This is the area where commercial considerations justify, even require competition, and where close competition is the easiest to control with regulations.

[dataman1]

I too, like Ken and the Dr. have mixed feelings. I see attributes in both their statements.

I think one chassis can work provided it is new to everyone at the same time. That is the only way to make it equal to all teams. So, I guess I would support a change in manufacturer so everyone starts at ground zero.

A single tire provideer is common with most upper level racing series so I would go along with that as well, however I like the option tire idea in F1 and CCWS.

Multiple engine manfacturers is a must IMO. It also makes sense from an advertising point of view. People buy brands of autos and for that matter tires. I doubt Dallara, Lola, Panoz, etc.. will ever make a passenger vehicle for the average person. Even if Illmor or Cosworth build the engines we need the badge and dollars from multiple passenger car companies.

[!!WALDO!!]

Sanctions have found that limiting tires increases safety and reduces costs. In the tire war era of the 1960s it was really tough of on these drivers in 1964-1965.

Jimmy Pardue
Bobby Marshman
Billy Wade

All lost to tire tests. Almost lost, Parnelli Jones.

[garyshell]

Sanctions have found that limiting tires increases safety and reduces costs. In the tire war era of the 1960s it was really tough of on these drivers in 1964-1965.

Jimmy Pardue
Bobby Marshman
Billy Wade

All lost to tire tests. Almost lost, Parnelli Jones.


While I agree with the gist of this, I am not sure that this always plays out. Witness the horrible tires that Tony Stewart and others were complaining about from Goodyear. The lack of competition can also lead to complacency and laziness on the part of manufacturers. This is very much a double edged sword. But over all, I believe the competition is NOT a great idea.

Gary

[inimitablestoo]

I much prefer open competition and would love to see F1 running with rival tyre manufacturers again - but on ovals (and IndyCars do still race predominantly on ovals, at least at the moment) I'm prepared to accept one tyre manufacturer only in the name of safety.

Certainly, the issues Goodyear has had in NASCAR have been one factor in arguing against a one-tyre rule, but Bridgestone at least (I presume Firestone too, since it's essentially the same company) tends to be very conservative with its tyres so those issues don't tend to occur.

[bblocker68]

I think a tire war would be great after IndyCar gets on solid ground and is making good profits.

Tire development at this point would drive up costs and we could possibly lose some of the smaller teams. This is not the time to lose any more IndyCar teams, IMO.

[wedge]

Certainly, the issues Goodyear has had in NASCAR have been one factor in arguing against a one-tyre rule, but Bridgestone at least (I presume Firestone too, since it's essentially the same company) tends to be very conservative with its tyres so those issues don't tend to occur.

Goodyear have been off the ball when they were sole tyre supplier - F1, Champcars they got there asses whupped in tyre wars.

Though funnily I seem to remember someone dissing Firestone. I think it was Jackie Stewart's autobiography criticised them for developing their tyres soley from numbers and data gathering and relying less from driver input or something like that - I need to read it again! Somebody correct me! LOL!!!

On balance, I'd say no to tyre wars. Increased cornering speed, reduced braking distances and overtaking less likely, softer compounds and more marbles - I remember CC used to bring out the blowdryers at Detroit, cars literrally sucked into the walls becaused of the marbles.

[Chamoo]

Alright then, what about this. I was driving around today and while thinking of this thread, I thought up this idea.

A controlled tire competition between two companies, Firestone and Bridgestone? These are the two companies that ran the two OW series in the US for a few years. These are two companies that are essencially one (I believe Bridgestone is the parent company of Firestone, but it could be the other way around). What better way to create controlled competition where each division of the company would be allowed to create a tire, yet the people in charge would be able to cap spending on the season, or on a per race basis. It would also create real competition between two large tire manufacturers.

Now, the tires wouldn't be the same tire, just different names on them. They would actually be two different tires that are developed by each company seperately. I know that some tricks would be shared simply because they probably know how each company does their work, but, subtle differences would make a tire better or worse at different tracks, proving to create different passing opportunities.

This idea would provide a cost effective way to create a tire war/competition, without running up costs to teams, and adding another element to the IRL.

[V12]

I will always say that variety and competition in the three main fields (chassis, engine, tyre) is a good thing. However I can just about accept a sole tyre, although I think F1 has definitely suffered since Michelin's withdrawal - i.e. McLaren and Ferrari win virtually everything, whereas if say the BMW or Renault was on Michelins, they may be able to strike the odd blow when their tyres are better suited.

Translated to IndyCar, variety in equipment will open up the possibility of a non Ganassi/Penske/AGR car heading the pack when their "package" is the one to have.

Sticking specifically to tyres, two races that stick out for me are Scott Pruett's win for Patrick at Michigan '95 that I remember being largely attributed to Firestone's advantage over the Goodyears used by most of the front runners that year. Then the following year, when Firestone was generally the tyre to have, I remember one race it rained (Detroit?) and Michael Andretti on Goodyears ran away with it despite the first five or six qualifiers being on Firestones.

Yes its "unfair", but I don't think that motor racing should aim to be some laboratory controlled test of the best driver, team or whatever, it should be about all the variables coming together and clicking on race day.

As far as chassis and engines go, I know I am in the minority but I would say chassis competition is more important than engine competition for me. Engines are not visible external components of the car, whereas seeing 20-odd cars absolutely identical in shape (i.e. spec-chassis), well, it's a bit of a turn-off for me.

[dataman1]

Chamoo,

First off, you were driving and thinking of this thread?? Hmm...

I believe that whether Bridgestone or Firestone, they are the same basic design and manufacturing facility under the same person Al Spire. Thus the same tire more or less.

[Chamoo]

Yes, but cost effective for whom? Not Bridgestone/Firestone, who may not be willing to pay the freight to stay in US OW.

I can't see it being any more expensive then providing tires for CCWS and IRL. Maybe add 10% to that for both sides, except you'd be getting more advertising for atleast Bridgestone I believe with I500 exposure and the competition would add some exposure for both brands.

It was just an idea.

I just want to see competition at every level - Drivers, Engines, Chassis, Tires.

I will be dissapointed if we remain with one tire manufacturer, but more inportantly I'd be very dissapointed if we remained with one chassis.

[Bob Riebe]

Look at it this way; if you have a single supplier because no one else wants to play, so be it; if it is some contrived spec. or single supplier because of backroom dealing that is contrived dung.

[Jag_Warrior]

I believe that whether Bridgestone or Firestone, they are the same basic design and manufacturing facility under the same person Al Spire. Thus the same tire more or less.

Yeah, did you ever take a close look at Champ Car's "Bridgestone" tires? On another board there was a good closeup of a CCWS "Bridgestone", where you could clearly see Firestone molded into the sidewall. :D

[wedge]

I will always say that variety and competition in the three main fields (chassis, engine, tyre) is a good thing. However I can just about accept a sole tyre, although I think F1 has definitely suffered since Michelin's withdrawal - i.e. McLaren and Ferrari win virtually everything, whereas if say the BMW or Renault was on Michelins, they may be able to strike the odd blow when their tyres are better suited.

Translated to IndyCar, variety in equipment will open up the possibility of a non Ganassi/Penske/AGR car heading the pack when their "package" is the one to have.

Sticking specifically to tyres, two races that stick out for me are Scott Pruett's win for Patrick at Michigan '95 that I remember being largely attributed to Firestone's advantage over the Goodyears used by most of the front runners that year. Then the following year, when Firestone was generally the tyre to have, I remember one race it rained (Detroit?) and Michael Andretti on Goodyears ran away with it despite the first five or six qualifiers being on Firestones.

Yes its "unfair", but I don't think that motor racing should aim to be some laboratory controlled test of the best driver, team or whatever, it should be about all the variables coming together and clicking on race day.


That's the main reason why I'm against a tyre war.

I fully understand where you're coming from, motorsport is about having competing variables but the fans care more about the teams and drivers than they do about the tyres.

The 2006 F1 season being a case in point. If Ferrari won it was because it was down to BS, if Renault won it was down to Michelin. Qualy for China that year, Schumacher was the only BS driver in the top 10 and yet if it had been a control tyre he would have a better chance at getting pole.

[NickFalzone]

IRL is going with one tire and one chassis on the new car, so either get used to it or find another series to follow. There are very legit safety reasons to go this way, and beyond that, the chassis manufacturers (panoz, dallara, etc.) do not make chassis for street cars, so the marketing activation is poor.