Pirelli set for F1 tyre tender challenge as Bridgestone talk ramps up

The News flair is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.

Read the rules. Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*




Which is illegal in the EU.


A lot of websites are like this, they either found a loophole or simply don't care


They don't care because the delegated bodies from the member states don't have enough capacity to enforce all the rules. They are busy with bigger dataleaks, etc.


Can you sue them?


The official way is to file a complaint... to the delegated body. But like I said they are lacking capacity in most countries so you will get an answer in a long time if at all.


To be honest, I'm really confused here. Maybe later I'll try to research on google or YouTube about this. So that somehow I have an idea.


They don't care, as basically noone is enforcing it. Member states simply do not have the resources to enforce each individual breach of privacy legislation, because they're all over the place.


It's only illegal to not disclose them.


In the EU: No, it’s not. There are different types of cookies, and the only ones you don’t need consent for are ‘essential’ cookies (which needs to be interpret conservatively, in the sense that cookies cannot easily be classified as essential). All other cookies you need explicit consent for. Additionally, you need to be able to manage your consent at any time, and rejecting consent should be as easy as granting it. Informing/disclosing is only part of this. Lastly, denying access due to the lack of consent (cookie wall) is also illegal, as it infringes on the requirements of free consent.


You're offering consent for any cookie they disclose if you choose to use the site. It says right there that you either accept the terms or leave.


Which is a cookie wall, and is illegal.


Only for tracking cookies, and only for "general access". You can \- Restrict access to specific places dependent on cookie acceptance \- Require cookies that are used in the actual processing of requests On a personal note, as someone who develops websites, the idea that you should be forced to provide a cookie-free version of your own private website is ludicrous, and absolutely would lead to security vulnerabilities.


Not only for 'tracking' cookies, for any non-essential cookies placed by the website, as these require consent. A cookie wall is infringing on the requirements of free consent. I invite you to have a look at [the EDPB's guidelines on consent](https://www.rossomotori.it/2023/06/f1-sky-bobbi-e-valsecchi-sospesi-per-sessismo-video/), which also includes literal examples of how this is not compliant. I also urge you to have a look at the e-privacy's directive (or local law of member states implemented following the directive) about the use of cookies and requirements of consent. As for the security part: this is absolutely untrue as any of the cookies subject to consent tend not to contribute to security significantly. If a cookie, for whatever reason, is crucial for security (perhaps a session cookie related to authentication for a website this is (partly) behind authentication), these generally can be qualified as essential and are not subject to consent. The cookies that are tend to be more of an analytical of commercial/marketing angle, and tend not to have any security implications when not placed. Respectfully, If you are indeed a developer, then your ignorance on the topic is probably contributing to websites getting this stuff wrong.


I already have read that. And it's exactly like I said. Also, plenty of sites use cookies for business logic related things other than analytics or tracking. You don't know what you're talking about.


12ft.io works perfectly on autosport and motorsport


Yep incredibly cancerous.


Just install uBlock Origin, disable Javascript on the website and block the elements blocking the webpage.


Exactly. I had zero of the aforementioned annoyances.


I don't use anything to do with autosport since they tried to charge 10.99 a WEEK for their magazine. Backfired spectacularly.


I use Apollo and it has a setting where any website auto loads reader view. So it skips all of this and bypasses any paywalls/subscribewalls most of the time. Am dreading what’s gonna happen if I have to move to the official app.


People care about cookies?


When looking for articles to share to the subreddit, I actively avoid using Autosport. Motorsport.com which is under the same umbrella is okay. But I don't use Autosport links anymore if I feel like posting an article here.


I hate what the GDPR has done to website usability. Cookie pop up’s are as annoying as auto play videos on sites.


Kees van de Grint always said bridgestone never liked creating tires that would fail, so im wondering what changed for Bridgestone and if this is even true.


The exposure that F1 brings to your company is probably what they're going for. Even if they don't sign a deal and get their tires on the grid, we're all talking about them


Personnel. Hardly any of the people that made that call would be working there any more.


The issue is that the FIA tells Pirelli what they want /expect from each compound, if the FIA does the same with Bridgestone then I don't think there's going to be much of a difference.


To be honest, I genuinely do believe this could be one of the last tenders with tyres being made with degradation in mind. It's completely at antithesis with [how the FIA is going about things when it comes to tyres](https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-how-fia-helping-tackle-plastic-pollution-tyres-through-research-and-regulation) and it is one of the easiest spots for F1 to cut into its carbon footprint with a reduction in the number of sets brought to the weekend. A new gimmick would have to replace it, something that encourages a strategy element but doesn't have the same kind of environmental impact that degrading tyres or refuelling (Very heavy refuelling rigs) comes with. But by 2028, made-to-degrade tyres will have been around for 18 years, it's time for a mix up and something new.




Tyre strategy doesn't need to be affected, but the overall amount of tyres over a weekend could be reduced


I think we can keep something like a swappable batteries, where there can be 3 batteries, light, medium and heavy. Light batteries have less weight but do not store much power, heavy batteries are heavier but can last longer. We should make them pit and swap the battery. Let the batteries and the casing be spec parts.


not sure if having/wasting so many batterires wont be bad for the environment either :) between tyres and batteries, rare materials from battery is probably worse and more expensive than rubber


I'm sure they'd be rechargeable


No. A pile of D batteries.


The materials from batteries are not too bad to recover and recycle. Tires, on the other hand, get chipped up and mixed in to stuff. But, yeah. The environmental impact of both aren't great.


Batteries are 95% recyclable due to the fact they are metal. Amazing technoloy it is.


yeah, I believe you, but its still a rare metal that needs to be mined. ​ Still, no argument from me, just curious about the direction either way!


There's actually been some progress in sodium ion batteries. It's a lot more prevalent than lithium.


Whatever battery can be deliver 350kW over the full lap and can be fully charged by the MGU-K would be the meta battery, which would probably be the standard size. There’d be no point having a “light” battery with too small a capacity to deliver full power over a lap or a “heavy” battery that can’t be fully charged by the KERS system as both would leave performance on the table. Having a detachable 100kg battery that requires lifted into a car during a pit stop and that isn’t part of the chassis structure/can become detached in a bad accident is a massive safety no no; Formula E dumped the concept in 2018.


Makes sense.


Too dangerous, just like refueling. Changing tures is safe, and until they find something just as safe they'll stick with the tyres.


You're 100% right, it will be massively unpopular but F1 will have to get rid of high degradation tyres at some point


I think refuelling could do the trick, the issues that were associated with overtaking may be less of an issue with less wakey cars.


Not sure how much wake even plays into this. The main issue with overtaking in refuelling era was that it was faster to sit behind someone until he pits and then slam in fast laps with an empty tank, than to overtake.


It won't, the refuelling age of F1 gave horrible racing overall. The prospect of different fuel strategies sounds nice but on race day it delivers very little overtakes. Cars were so far apart with the only exception being the start of the race.


Exactly this, you'll never see an on track overtake again if F1 brings back refuelling. From 1994 to 2010 was some of the dullest racing. Schumacher and Ferrari (and Bridgestone) domination. Any talk of Bridgestone and refuelling returning makes me shiver


Uh, what? In 97 the championship went down to the wire, same as 99 and 2003. Plus, with refueling and qualifying rules (you had to qualify on the fuel you'd start the race with), you always had some team going for pole on fumes. There was plenty of overtaking as well, the "all passing was done in the pits" myth is due to teams using different fuel strategies and ending up on different windows. The only two "boring" years of the 1994-2009 era would be 2002 and 2004, both of which were many times better than anything between 2014 and 2020.


And yet the on-track product in the worst of years (other than 2015) was far better than anything before the refueling ban and later the addition of DRS. The seasons were more compelling pre-recession, with more teams capable of spending massive amounts of money and turning their entire season around with unlimited testing and development, but the on-track action... was bad.


Apart from Jerez, name 3 memorable exciting races from 97. 2002 and 2004 were painful, 2016, 17, 18 beat them hands down even if just for the Vettel Ferrari meltdowns in the latter half of the post 2017 seasons. Championships can go down to the wire without actual exciting races on track. Refuelling will be awful for the sport if it turns.


I think reducing the fuel tank size to 1/3 of the current size would be a smart move if refueling had to come back. It would achieve 2 thins: 1. Reduce car size and weight 2. The "fuel strategy" would still be somewhat similar for all cars like it is for IndyCar, where the main strategy is either 2 stops or 3 stops but the on track overtakes still happen regularly.


Cars are this big because of safety regulations and aero. The fuel tank doesn't play a big role, if at all. Pre-1994 (Legalization of refueling) cars were smaller than they are now.


Doesn't the hybrid system have a lot to do with it as well?


No, it increases weight but doesn't demand that cars be this long. Nothing does, the teams just want them to be long, aero benefits apparently.


Nearly every racing series has close racing while still having refueling....


All series with consistently close racing have either spec cars or BoP.


They didn't have DRS and nobody talkes about that. If we had no DRS, overtakes would be much more less


One of the problems is cars today use a lot less fuel than they did when we last had refueling. Add to that the cars being heavier and the advantage of being lighter on fuel is a lot less. I think you'd have teams doing the minimum stops possible, with the weight savings of doing an extra stop and carrying less fuel not making up the delta of the extra pit stop. Cars used over 200kg of fuel back then, now they are carrying half that. Cars back then weighed like 620kg, now they are at 798kg. Fuel weight is just not a large enough percentage of the car weight to make that difference today work well enough.


Refueling electric cars will be interesting.




Tsunoda Penalty, serve 5 min penalty on next recharge


Replacing your battery pitstops, like Formula E first had.


I thought they swapped the whole car.


FE will be doing it next year if you want to see how it’ll work


Can they just make tyres so powerful they don't last long?


What about joker laps, like in rallycross? Or DRS activation mode, like attack mode in Formula E? (You could also just make them go of the racing line, without giving any benefits.)


I'm thinking of a battery that has percentage icon screen depending the use and you can charge if you choose to to have some more hp for the race.


This is always trotted out but it's not just a deg problem. It's not just their F1 tyres, their GT tyres, their WRC tyres (which are by far and away the worst example of Pirelli incompetence), even their road tyres have many of the same fundamental problems, namely they're all very pressure and temperature sensitive, far more so than their competitors. Pirelli are asked to build a high deg tyre. They do this and you can't fault them for it. However they're not asked to build a tyre that grains if you look at it funny, or if you somehow manage to avoid the graining starts blistering. They're thermally godawful. You can and absolutely should fault them for this. And that's ignoring the pressure sensitivity, and the blowouts which conveniently are always - including with their GT and WRC tyres - due to pressures according to Pirelli, problems no other manufacturer seems to struggle with. The old Bridgestones, and the tyre war era Bridgestones & Michelins before them would grain up and need care if you abused, but the key thing is they would come back to you, and they were less picky and temperamental, especially with temperature. The Pirellis are basically done if you overheat them, they will come back to you but they'll never be the same, the Bridgestones however tolerated temperature far better. A new manufacturer isn't likely to be a magic solution that will overnight fix the tyres, but it will very likely go a long way towards fixing some of the chronic issues the Pirellis have always (and seemingly always will) suffered from.


Thank you for saying this. The argument that “pirelli is just doing what the FIA wants” has been clearly wrong for years. It’s frustrating to continue to see it get trotted out in defense of a company that is clearly a B tier supplier.


Pirelli is considered top tier because of their F1 contract. But in reality it's just marketing. Bridgestone and especially Michelin are the best in the world.


I've only been watching F1 for like 3yrs, while my dad has been watching for over a decade (mainly when Honda is in the sport). I once asked him about using Pirellis on our cars, since F1 uses them. Just to get his opinion on the brand. And he was like "Oh hell no, those are trash tires." And he, too espouses Bridgestone and Michelin being the best. My parents own a little roadster, a Honda S2000. And they only ever put Michelins on that bad boy.


I used to work a seasonal job at a tire warehouse whose solely stored Michelins. Sooo many people would get arrested for trying to hide them and steal them later. There was a specific tire model where only a manager could lift the pallet and store them away. Michelin makes awesome tires


So Porsche are famously very, very anal about the tyres that go on their road cars. If you want your warranty etc you have to use "N-Marked" tyres - which are essentially variants on normal high performance road tyres (the tread patterns are the same as the other tyres of the same model but Porsche dictate certain aspects of the construction & rubber compound) from most of the usual big name suppliers. Can you guess who very often gets booted off the list of N Marked tyres? I'll give you a hint, it begins with P and ends in irelli. Pirelli aren't really considered "top tier" by anyone. They're not totally awful, but they're miles adrift from the other "premium" suppliers (i.e. Bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear etc)


> Bridgestone and especially Michelin are the best in the world. You are wrong... [KumHo tyres are the best in the world, obviously...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumho_Tire)




the easiest argument is watching any series that allows teams to use a mix of tire providers. they never pick the pirelli's, it's always michelin if given a proper choice. if pirelli's F1 tires were intentionally horrible and the rest of their racing tires were good, teams wouldn't act like they're allergic to them. they pick michelin for a reason




I don’t think FIA asks them to built tires that cannot be pushed from lap 1 or one that grains.


Not sure that is true. Formula 1 cars are also built according to the same formula, but execution is very different. While that is perhaps not 1-on-1 comparable with tire compounds, just because the set parameters are the same doesn't mean the execution is identical.


There won’t be. It’s weird for Pirelli, because their partnership actively makes their tyres look worse than they are plenty capable of producing. It would only be interesting if both Pirelli and Bstone were involved


Outside of the cheese compounds on which I agree with you, many people do take an issue with how often Pirellis end up failing unexpectedly. Whether or not if that is a product of the FIA's demands, I'm not sure, but it isn't surprising that many want to see Pirelli out. Worth mentioning that compared to Michelin and Bridgestone, Pirelli is a significantly smaller tyre company that does not have the same R&D capabilities.


Depends if Pirelli actually meets the goals that we’re set


IIRC the Bridgestones were pretty well regarded before Pirelli came in.


>IIRC the Bridgestones were pretty well regarded before Pirelli came in. not just in f1, even in motogp bridgestones were well regarded




Whilst Bridgestone are a good tyre manufacturer, aren’t Goodyear/Continental/Michelin generally regarded as slightly better?


I think by price point yes, but I’ve always had Bridgestones on my car and they work perfectly fine, not that I’ve actually any track driving in my little Suzuki (for now…)


I definitely would not say so. Goodyear’s compounds have been lagging behind for a little while and Bridgestone makes some great, great stuff.


Definitely not in the case of Goodyear (basically a Walmart special). Michelin are usually about the same.


Michelin are the best in the world.


Not at taking corners at Indianapolis.


Which isn't relevant in any way, shape or form today.


Yes it would br convenient for "da best tyre company" to forget about that.


You strike me as the sort of person to call a Nissan a "Datsun" like Jeremy Clarkson does. Michelin had an issue at a single race in a single racing series using a single spec of tire in a single year. I don't know how to deal with people like you.


Being compared to Clarkson is a compliment to me. Also, I recall a little while ago that Michilen stated they would return to F1 if they went to 18 inch wheels. Well we have those now and still not even a hint of coming back. Seems then that they either want to come back entirely on their own terms or don't want any competition. I don't blame them. If Michelin face the Indianapolis situation twice I don't think anyone would take them seriously ever again. Either way its not really something I would expect from as you say, the "best tyre company"


What are the metrics for determining the best tire manufacturer?


Go ask the people that review tires and keep placing them #1.


In the bike world Bridgestone and Micheline tires are usually what people suggest and for good reason, got a set of Pirelli tires on my bike and can't wait to get them off once the tread is done


The Firestone’s in Indycar are well regarded too isn’t it ?


Firestone is a Bridgestone B brand, and that experience in ovals is what helped them developing tyres that didn't explode in the banked corner of Inidianapolis in 2005. Also, this is also why F1 should stick to one manufacturer only, that 2005 season was heavily compromised by the superior performance of Michelin tyres over Bridgestone on almoat every track.


That was a deliberate thing done by the FIA to bring a sharp halt to Schumacher and Ferrari’s domination of the sport, after they blitzed 12 of the first 13 races in 2004. the Bridgestones were designed for multiple full pace stints so they banned tyre changes in pit stops, effectively hamstringing the Bridgestone cars on Sundays.


I’m sorry, are you saying at one point that F1 didn’t allow *tyre changes* during pit stops? Why else were they pitting?


Fuel. Refuelling was permitted back between 1994 and 2009




Refuelling, a quick chat with the pit crew, piss breaks, popping over to catering for a sandwich, some time to file your taxes, etc.


Fuel only. The FIA *really* hated Ferrari. I think they still do.


English media too. If Ferrari was dominating like RB has been doing media would have pushed FIA to introduce changes to hamper them


The 05 season was compromised by FIA nerfing Ferrari through Bridgestone tires. It was by design not something happened by merit


The Firestones in indycar are more or less flawless. The tires have basically never randomly exploded and don't need to be babied lap after lap just to make one pass attempt. They survive wings touching wheels at 220+


Ehh, I'd say there's still plenty of tyre degradation in IndyCar. Just last race, the alternates fell off pretty quickly. The main reason tyres don't play a bigger part is they don't have enough fuel to really extend those stints.


I never said they didnt fall off, I mostly just spoke for the robustness of their construction which is also an issue with Pirellis. Even with the alternates falling off they last 10+ laps of PUSHING, Grosjean said as much when he switched series that the Firestones actually let a driver push and attempt to battle for numerous laps without risking falling off a cliff. On top of all the other issues tire pressure is literally never talked about negatively, unlike Pirellis, and they don't even use tire blankets making the warmup curve even more difficult for the Firestones. Firestone is doing magnitudes better than Pirelli relative to their sport. the FIA has a hand in it with their insane requirements (I think 3 compounds is completely pointless on top of all the other usual complaints) but Pirelli is definitely at fault for a large portion.


I'm not going to argue that Pirelli is perfect. I agree with everything you said except one point. The Pirellis falling off a cliff is a behavior desired in F1 by the FIA. The FIA believes that if the tires didn't do that, there would be almost no incentive to pit. That is the requirement that specifically has kept other manufacturers away from F1. It can be debated whether that requirement is dumb, but with the information I've seen, we can't blame Pirelli for it. Everything else is fair criticism, though.


It’s not flawless. Have you seen the marbles on track that makes alternate line very slippery ?


thats almost all tyres though. Thats just how rubbers and friction works.


I have a close friend who works in Indycar and his feedback tends to be the opposite - while they may not outright fail, they also apparently have a lot of variance from set to set in terms of balance and deg. Laguna last year was marred by there being random sets of Alternate tyres that had no grip at all, with drivers having laptime differences of *seconds* in qualifying from set to set. Not to mention Indianapolis this year where Firestone softened the left-side tyres for seemingly no reason and everyone had to watch for vibrations - see Dixon's car at the end of his first stint!


>The Firestones in indycar are more or less flawless But when it came to road cars, [Ford Explorer to be specific](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy), it was a different matter.


You never watched 2009/2010, obviously.


Would potentially be cool to see a the change just to see how each driver adapts


Inbefore Michelin comes back with Aston Martin and Nando wins 4 more WDC


Nando didn't mind Bridgestone though


Funny way to spell Stroll


It'd be nice to have another tyre manufacturer take on this challenge. Yes the FIA are asking something that sounds very difficult, but because Pirelli have been the only ones willing to do it I actually have no idea how well of a job they've done throughout all these years Besides, such a significant change could spice up the field in 2026 by forcing teams to adapt to entirely different tyres on which they'll have little data


Those 2009-2010 Bridgestones slicks are so beautiful


Grooved>Slicks if we're coming at it purely from a looks perspective


Bridgestone and Ferrari, a match made in heaven. The last Ferrari title was on Bridgestone rubber.


Bridgestone can actually build a usable wet tyre so that would be a help too.


What good will that bring when F1 won't start a race unless it's not full wets condition anyways?


They might actually start the races if the tyre is good.


The tyre isn't the problem, its the spray that the cars kick up.


It’s not that Pirelli doesn’t make usable tyres, the cars are so big and the spray so huge that visibility has become a concern. That’s the reason F1 hates wet races now


This article is BS Literally just says there is a rumour Bridgestone have submitted a rival bid and that's it.


Geez people it's not hard. Look at IndyCar. F1 needs just two tire specs per race. One that melts in like 10-15 laps and one makes it 1/2 race distance. This way it's assured of at least a two stop race.


I want Michelin back :(


Michelin doesn't want to create a fast-degrading tyre


I know… but imagine how much faster the cars would be on Michelin rubber


Just bring in multiple manufacturers, geez. SuperGT has four and it works fine.


So your telling me there’s potenza!!


Just allow multiple suppliers. Give them some parameters to work within and let them have at it. It worked for decades. And there's only been one race hampered by tyres. Which was a lot more to do with rule changes, fundamental suspension setups, and break away factions. Then Michelin "Bringing the wrong tyre"


THANK YOU. There's no reason to not allow more than one tire. Isn't this supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports?


The last time they allowed another manufacturer it was an utter shit show. Another tire war is the last thing we should be looking for.


You're right I forgot about the 1964 Italian GP.


It was also a shit show when the hybrid era started and Mercedes built a rocket ship while Renault built a potato PU that would occasionally explode. The sport is built on shit shows


Sure but not Indianapolis GP 2005 shitshows lmao. People who say bring back tire wars straight up don't know what they are talking about.


Please no more tyre war


Cant be worse than it is right now. And yes, I did watch F1 back when Bridgestone and Michelin were duking it out.


pls no more pirelli shitshow either


What exactly is Pirelli doing that the FIA isnt asking for?


The problem lies with both them both. Thus, no more *tyre* shitshow pls. What comes to mind first is probably the sudden tyre explosions that happen every few years which kicks off these kind of discussions. If more tyre testing is needed to fix that, the FIA should make that happen. Also, it seems like every other weekend there's a compound that nobody (except for maybe ferrari) uses because of the overall lack of performance. If the differences between compounds are that big then maybe they should bring the gaps down so that we could actually see more varying in the strategies instead of the old medium-hard that seems to be the teams' go-to move especially this year. Idk, i'm not a tyre tech but clearly there's work to be done. Bridgestone was well regarded in their time and it'd be nice to see them back in the sport.


Yes please, tire war. Then Pirelli would either have to build a quality tire or GTFO.


They build the tyre entirely to FIA specification though


"Who can make the shittier tire? May the worse manufacturer win." -F1


If this happens can we get the RE71-RS in 315? Corvette guys wanna know 😂


Give us Dunlop tyres you cowards


As long as we don’t get another stupid tyre war then I’m all for it. I’m all for getting those lovely green strip walled soft Bridgestone tyres back too. Loved how they used to look.


Can we have multi tyre compounds back please. Michelin, Bridgestone and Pirelli competing


Inb4 the banking at Zandvoort is too dangerous and they go to strike.


*Goodyear has entered the chat*


*PTSD intensifies*


I think you meant companies (we already have multiple compounds), but yes, I agree. Competing tire manufacturers would be great.


I dislike this. You can have the best car of the grid and have shitty results because your tyre manufacturer is worse than the rest of the tyres. Absolut nonsense. This is a car competition, not a tyre competition.


Don't let teams sign exclusive deals with the tire brands. Each team gets 2 sets of each brand's full range of compounds, then they decide how to use them. Totally anarchy in the first Free Practice as Charles drives onto the track with a mixed set of Pirelli softs and Bridgestone Hards


That would actually be really cool to see, high deg from left/right/front/back, so the team mixes and matches to strike the balance.


Honestly same for engines They should just make them spec /s Though with two variables out of the teams' control, I do wonder if it isn't becoming a bit too much


The engine is not out of the teams' control. All the engine manufacturers should be able to develop the best engine on the grid, and the client teams can choose which engine they want, they just have to pay for it, and build the car around it, just like the other teams.


All the tyre manufacturers should be able to develop the best tyres on the grid, and the client teams can choose which tyre they want, they just have to pay for it, and build the car around it, just like the other teams. How is this different from your statement?


Because the tyres are not build by Ferrari, Alpine, Honda, RBRPT-Ford, Mercedes or Audi, which are car manufacturers. The tyres are a completely external part designed by tyre companies. You can't be asking brands to use same ECUs and then making them choose between different tyres. If you can't see the difference... Let alone that tyres are the most crucial part of a car, the 2005 Bridgestone teams were nowhere to be found due to the difference with Michelin.


There are tons of parts on the cars designed by external companies. Your argument makes no sense.


That's the thing not every team can pick the best engine, back when the Merc engine was dominant they could only supply a few teams, and say for example next reg change Ferrari make an absolute beast of an engine do you think they'd sell it to everyone?


About time for Indy 2005 part 2: The Revengening. Ferrari still Ferrari Minardi -> AT Jordan -> Aston Martin


No thank you. It’s often unsafe, expensive, it makes the field spread out more and most importantly, it is absolutely pointless.


>unsafe But having different companies supplying firesuits, helmets, crash structures, and harnesses is fine? >expensive Welcome to F1. Also, cost cap. >field spread out Based on what? >absolutely pointless What makes it any more pointless than anything else about the sport? You could argue the entire idea of racing cars around a track is pointless too.


>What makes it any more pointless than anything else about the sport? You could argue the entire idea of racing cars around a track is pointless too. So you admit it’s pointless. Why on earth did you even bother with the rest of your comment if you can’t prove that there’s a point.


The point is competition. That's the point of the whole damn sport.


If Bridgestone returns, can grooved tyres return with them too? I can't be the only one who liked them!


I think you are


Weren't the grooves put in to slow the cars down?


Grooved tires were implemented to limit grip at certain speeds to force the cars to slow down. Slicks aren’t going anywhere.




About time. Pirelli is destroying Formula One. I think it's time to go back to V8s again. I hope Bridgestone make(s) better Intermediate and Wet Tyres.


What would going to V8s solve in regards to the tyres?


It would return Formula One back to the good old days.


My god why hasn’t anyone thought of that!! I had no idea that the issues with F1 today can simply be ascribed to the fact the cars have two less cylinders!!


The sport's gone soft man.


These new-ish stupid V6 Hybrid progressive-ecological propaganda sh!t destroyed the spirit of Formula One. Ever since 2014 we rarely saw True racing (with a few exceptions like 2016 and 2021)


If the hybrid era hadn’t ushered in unparalleled domination in the sport I can guarantee nobody would care that its “programming propaganda”. It’s everybody else’s fault that they couldn’t catch Mercedes, not the V6’s.


I'll say again what i said before. The sport's gone soft 🍺🍺. If someone doesn't like seeing Formula 1 because of it's danger, then they should stop watching it and go watch Golf. I feel SHAME to what Formula One has become. A TV show all about money that gets governed by cowards.


I don’t think anybody doesn’t watch F1 simply because it’s dangerous….nor was anybody talking about here😂


Whatever brings back the purple and pink colors. It's way too hard to know which compounds they're running and how they compare from week to week.


Bridgestone is a tire contender. We don't make tyres round these parts.


...to go back to the days where there were competing tire manufacturers too. Where top teams get the tire choice wrong and suffer the whole race


Tire wars don't seem to work out in the long run I'm very open to another manufacturer and taking over for Pirelli