WRC control tyre supplyer

[Sulland]

So for tyre we have basically had Michelin or Pirelli for many years, ever since FIA restricted teams to one brand.
DMack and MRT have tried to get the contract with FIA for the top class, but not succeeded.

Now we will get a new company, Hankook coming in.
Lets see how their testing towards next year will happen, and what the drivers feel about them.

Always cool with something new, even if I would like to have tyres from more than one manufacturer in all classes in WRC. At least for WRC2 and 3, where ryre manus could pay for cars ala DMack and MRT.

Will Hankook be a success, and maybe bring something new into the sport?

[doubled1978]

I hope so, it usually throws a few spanner’s in the works when things like this change.
i just hope the tyres are reliable in the sense that we don’t see a whole host of punctures that make the events a lottery. The actual performance of the tyres is secondary really, it doesn’t matter if they aren’t as ‘fast’ as Pirelli or Michelin, so long as they are reliable.

[fiscorpun]

ERC with Tire War >> WRC spec tires

[seb_sh]

ERC with Tire War >> WRC spec tires

Not really, it's a source of spending and inequality and if you're on the "wrong" tyre you're screwed. It kind of works in customer series like ERC but for top level championships I think it's a thing of the past. The only other championship that has it that I can think of is SuperGT in Japan.

[doubled1978]

Not really, it's a source of spending and inequality and if you're on the "wrong" tyre you're screwed. It kind of works in customer series like ERC but for top level championships I think it's a thing of the past. The only other championship that has it that I can think of is SuperGT in Japan.

Exactly, tyre wars are a thing of the past generally due to the costs involved.

[AndyRAC]

No top tier series should have a single tyre supplier....otherwise you may as well use a single car and be done with it. Adding a mix of tyres just adds more variables.....which I don't have a problem with. There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

[doubled1978]

No top tier series should have a single tyre supplier....otherwise you may as well use a single car and be done with it. Adding a mix of tyres just adds more variables.....which I don't have a problem with. There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

Every top tier series except SuperGT disagrees with you. Turns out car manufactures don’t want their multi million motorsport programme to live or die on the capability of their tyre supplier.
You also get preferred teams within brands, Ferraris Bridgestones were very different to those used by the likes of Jordan for instance, and I bet the same thing was going on in rallying.

[typhoon]

There was a time when we had Michelin v Pirelli, and the latter were useless on dry Tarmac, but if it was wet, they were the tyres to be on.......

As a simple fan I'd totally agree with it, but this is exactly a situation in which a Board wouldn't ever want to deal with. Without the manufacturers, you'd get 60% less marketing and promotion of the championship, let's always keep this in mind!

Imagine losing the championship because you screwed the last rally due to the tyres, so it's not the team's fault or something in their hands. How would you explain it to few people that gave you like 80M euros (see Hyundai) and you flushed them into the toilet because of a partner?

[Andre Oliveira]

Obligation to national ones is non sense.

[Mirek]

Every top tier series except SuperGT disagrees with you. Turns out car manufactures don’t want their multi million motorsport programme to live or die on the capability of their tyre supplier.
You also get preferred teams within brands, Ferraris Bridgestones were very different to those used by the likes of Jordan for instance, and I bet the same thing was going on in rallying.

This is all a principal question and a very interesting one because it's one which will always divide people. Generally there are two major directions which one can take.

The first one is to make all condition for the drivers (crews) as even as possible by extreme restriction of the rules. By this you can achieve maximum weight of the crew skills in the overall result. In general it means to follow athletic sports and try to turn motorsport into human-only performance and by that also limit the vehicle to a simple tool - like shoes, skates, balls or hockey sticks. This is currect WRC.

The second option is to go back to the essence of motorsport which didn't start as a competition of drivers (crews) but as a competition of machines. It's obvious that the more freedom of rules you give the higher is the weight of the machine performance in the overall result. This is where crazy engineering ideas appear and win races - something lost in rallying of the 80'. I think that most technical people would prefer more freedom of rules, not only about tyres but also about engines, suspension, you name it. The excitement coming from the technical development used to be part of the game but it's long gone. To be honest I am not interested in today's searching for which team used 0,5° larger castor or a slightly more angled wing leading edge on otherwise completely same machines.

Now back to the tyres. You present something as a pure risk but in the same time it's also a potentional advantage. You can loose but just like that you can win, and win a lot. And it's not in any way a lottery. The manufacturers know how to measure performance and how to select their suppliers. In the end they can throw whatever shit on the tyre manufacturers but the selection is their choice. Having a single supplier is easy for everyone but it removes part of the competition which some other people would like to see.

[Steve Boyd]

The "free market" option sounds great to begin with but it very quickly turns into a money battle and becomes very expensive for the tyre manufacturer who wants to win and for any team that has to buy their tyres to keep up with the team with a sponsorship deal from the best manufacturer. Not many tyre manufacturers these days are prepared to get into that kind of financial battle. Not all of them were even prepared to get into the bidding war for the WRC contract. If there was some way of making all teams source their tyres on the open market rather than through deals with the tyre makers it might work but even then how do you ensure that somebody doesn't get tyres with "trick" compounds to give them an advantage as has happened in saloon car racing in the past.

[doubled1978]

This is all a principal question and a very interesting one because it's one which will always divide people. Generally there are two major directions which one can take.

The first one is to make all condition for the drivers (crews) as even as possible by extreme restriction of the rules. By this you can achieve maximum weight of the crew skills in the overall result. In general it means to follow athletic sports and try to turn motorsport into human-only performance and by that also limit the vehicle to a simple tool - like shoes, skates, balls or hockey sticks. This is currect WRC.

The second option is to go back to the essence of motorsport which didn't start as a competition of drivers (crews) but as a competition of machines. It's obvious that the more freedom of rules you give the higher is the weight of the machine performance in the overall result. This is where crazy engineering ideas appear and win races - something lost in rallying of the 80'. I think that most technical people would prefer more freedom of rules, not only about tyres but also about engines, suspension, you name it. The excitement coming from the technical development used to be part of the game but it's long gone. To be honest I am not interested in today's searching for which team used 0,5° larger castor or a slightly more angled wing leading edge on otherwise completely same machines.

Now back to the tyres. You present something as a pure risk but in the same time it's also a potentional advantage. You can loose but just like that you can win, and win a lot. And it's not in any way a lottery. The manufacturers know how to measure performance and how to select their suppliers. In the end they can throw whatever shit on the tyre manufacturers but the selection is their choice. Having a single supplier is easy for everyone but it removes part of the competition which some other people would like to see.

Of course, I completely agree that there is always the possibility of the upside as well as the downside.
However, I don’t think it will ever happen again in the main series because the tyre supply contract is a sponsorship and revenue stream for the series they support. If you have open tyres, the teams take the benefit of free tyres, whereas now the teams pay and the tyre manufacturer pays the series. Rallying has no doubt monetised the fuel supply as well with P1, rather than have each team with their own fuel suppliers.
I personally like the technical freedom route for myself, but as the promoter of a series you will surely want the performance of the cars as close as possible with less variables that can lead to one team having a large advantage.
That is the modern way of thinking rather than outright open competition.

[fiscorpun]

Arent the tire rules in SuperGT similar to engines and chassis? "You can build stuff inside these specs to ensure a certain parity"...?

[Sulland]

Under the current rwgulations, what possibilities has the newcomer Hankook have to test their development tyres in anger for the top 3 carclasses i WRC?

Will they have to use ERC for rally2 and 3, and a mule for rally1, or are there loopholes?

[AMSS]

Under the current rwgulations, what possibilities has the newcomer Hankook have to test their development tyres in anger for the top 3 carclasses i WRC?

Will they have to use ERC for rally2 and 3, and a mule for rally1, or are there loopholes?

I`m not sure but at least in the past the FIA has allowed for extra test days to the teams when a new controlled tire manufacturer arrives

[AMSS]

Under the current rwgulations, what possibilities has the newcomer Hankook have to test their development tyres in anger for the top 3 carclasses i WRC?

Will they have to use ERC for rally2 and 3, and a mule for rally1, or are there loopholes?

I`m not sure but at least in the past the FIA has allowed for extra test days to the Rally 1/WRC teams when a new controlled tire manufacturer arrives. the lower categories don`t have any testing restrictions so they can test how much they want

[PLuto]

Some WRC teams were testing Hankook tyres, so development is in progress.

[Sulland]

What are the first impressions on the Hankooks for Rally1 through alle car classes all the way down to Rally4/5?
Are the becoming competitive?

A bit strange that they do not sponsor cars in WRC and ERC motr to get better data to develop from.
Have Hankook mentioned why not?

[WRCStan]

What are the first impressions on the Hankooks for Rally1 through alle car classes all the way down to Rally4/5?
Are the becoming competitive?

A bit strange that they do not sponsor cars in WRC and ERC motr to get better data to develop from.
Have Hankook mentioned why not?

They can't sponsor cars in WRC due to the existing arrangement with Pirelli.

Nothing they can do with a Rally1 in ERC and I guess they must be happy with existing development methods for lower classes.

[rallyfiend]

Given that it seems all three teams have been co-opted in to doing the development testing - and indeed by definition their drivers - the fact there is little negative rumours, it seems like it must be going well.

[Andre Oliveira]

Btw, Hankook will be the tyre of Swedish Championship for 2025-2027.