Amid all the wrangling over the future of Formula 1 recently, there is one technical aspect with supreme power to define the competitive make-up of the championship and its future technical direction.
I'm not talking about wealth distribution, or refuelling, or 1000bhp engines and their architecture (all of which are significant, of course). I'm talking about tyres - the one element of the F1 equation by which all others must eventually be transmuted onto the track.
It's not exactly a tyre war as we've come to know it, but the fact that Michelin is ready to consider returning to F1 in 2017 at least creates potential for a contest over who will supply rubber for the championship when Pirelli's current deal expires at the end of 2016.
The last time Michelin was in F1 there was a full-blown tyre war with Bridgestone. This was an interesting period for F1 followers, mainly because the erstwhile dominant Bridgestone-shod Ferraris suddenly had some genuine opposition, first from McLaren and Williams, and later from Renault.
Many would like a return to this sort of competition, which drove performance and created competitive variation. But, in the current climate of squeezed budgets and expensive engines, no one would reasonably countenance a return to that expensive paradigm.
Exciting 2010 Canadian GP prompted era of degrading tyres © LAT |
So if Michelin does return, it will have to do so as sole supplier - the very thing that led it to pull out of F1 after 2006, leaving Bridgestone as monopolist.
But the company's motorsport director Pascal Couasnon has said Michelin will only return if F1 alters its technical regulations to make the tyres a "technical object again, not just a tool to do a more or less spectacular show".
Unfortunately for him, that is exactly what the tyres in current F1 are designed to do. Pirelli gets a bad rep for 'forcing' drivers to go slowly and preserve their rubber in races. But that's because F1's stakeholders wanted change in order to end the formulaic trend of one-stop bore-a-thons.
Remember the Canadian Grand Prix of 2010 (when Pirelli signed its original supply deal)? Everyone thought that race was amazing, because it went against the grain. Bridgestone's tyres overheated and the competitive order was shaken by strategic variation. Pirelli was asked to create more 'Canada 2010s' with its rubber.
Couasnon joins the chorus of those who now criticise Pirelli for making tyres that wear out too fast, saying: "Tyres should offer stable performance and grip levels. It's not normal that after a few laps a driver says, 'I need to slow down otherwise the tyres won't last'.
"That shouldn't happen. These days F1 drivers can't show their talent because the tyres don't allow them to. This happens when you are in a sole-supplier regime and you have no motivation to improve.
Silverstone 2013 was the nadir of the Pirelli era in F1... © LAT |
"That's called mediocrity, not technology."
That's a stinging rebuke, and means Michelin wants F1 to do a volte-face – adopting durable tyres that basically eliminate the need for pitstops altogether. Those who are disenchanted with the current state of F1 may welcome this change of emphasis.
But the important question is: would the racing be better if tyres lasted longer and pitstops were eliminated?
Anecdotal evidence (where races have not been affected by adverse weather) suggests not. This year's Malaysian Grand Prix was captivating because of strategic variation; the 2012 season produced many different winners because the tyres fell apart easily; the 2010 Canadian GP was exciting because teams couldn't make the tyres work consistently.
People have short memories. I'm sure the drivers and engineers would love Michelin to return. The French manufacturer is renowned for making quality products wherever it (ahem) treads, and a fast, stable, consistent tyre would make the cars more rewarding to drive and easier to set up.
But the result will be processional racing (provided aerodynamic regulations remain largely unchanged). That's why F1 promoter Bernie Ecclestone – whose job is to ensure it remains interesting to fans and thus lucrative for him and his bosses – was moved to speak out against Michelin's mooted comeback.
"All Michelin would do is make a rock-hard tyre that you could put on in January and take off in December, because they don't want to be in a position where they can be criticised," he argued.
"That would make absolutely 100 per cent sure, if there was a question mark about Mercedes winning, it would be removed.
Michelin would push to overhaul Formula 1 tyre and wheel sizes |
"It would be all the things we don't want, and goes against all the things Pirelli have had the courage to do from what we have asked, which has made for some bloody good racing."
The trouble is, many people (as ever where F1 is concerned) want to have their cake and eat it, so to speak. They want super-fast cars and drivers running flat-out, but that means 'better' tyres and lots of downforce.
They want exciting racing and lots of unpredictability, but don't want tyres that wear out and cause lots of pitstops. They want drivers to go quickly in each stint of a race, but don't want the sort of strategic normality that made refuelling-era F1 boring and predictable.
"It's always been a factor in Formula 1 racing that you have to consider getting the most out of the tyre over a longer distance," says Mercedes technical chief Paddy Lowe. "I don't think there have been many tyres over the years that one could sprint with on every single lap.
"With the current tyres we have an interesting situation, which has improved the spectacle a great deal. We've seen far more exciting races since Pirelli came into Formula 1.
"There is the aspect around drivers having to manage and not necessarily drive as fast as we would like, but that's been an element in the past. It may be a slightly bigger element at the moment, but it also adds to the skill necessary from the driver. And in qualifying, of course, they are still going absolutely flat-out."
F1 is not keen on moving away from its current supplier © LAT |
A move to spice things up by allowing free choice from four compounds from next year sounds interesting initially, until you realise teams will quickly work out the overall fastest option for each circuit and all converge to the centre ground.
As Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery argues: "If you start opening up choices this is what will happen: firstly, the top teams will centralise around the same choices because they use the same ideas and data we would be using, then there would be some people that would want to risk a little more, and then there would be some people who would want to be a little reckless.
"That is before we get into the logistical problems and extreme cost it would involve to do such a thing.
"It's more important to look at 'why would you want to do something like that?' and 'what are you trying to solve?' rather than suggesting a change without analysing what you are trying to achieve."
He's certainly right on that last point. You can debate indefinitely whether F1 should focus on purity of competition over the needs of the 'show', but has anyone bothered to find out what the fans really want before proposing change?
【于是凹凸与GPDA都推出了车迷调查问卷。你心目中的F1应该是怎样的呢？】Probably not. So we've taken matters into our own hands by launching a comprehensive fan survey (in conjunction with our sister titles F1 Racing and Motorsport News). What do you want F1 to be?
Amid all the wrangling over the future of Formula 1 recently, there is one technical aspect with supreme power to define the competitive make-up of the championship and its future technical direction.
I'm not talking about wealth distribution, or refuelling, or 1000bhp engines and their architecture (all of which are significant, of course). I'm talking about tyres - the one element of the F1 equation by which all others must eventually be transmuted onto the track.
It's not exactly a tyre war as we've come to know it, but the fact that Michelin is ready to consider returning to F1 in 2017 at least creates potential for a contest over who will supply rubber for the championship when Pirelli's current deal expires at the end of 2016.
The last time Michelin was in F1 there was a full-blown tyre war with Bridgestone. This was an interesting period for F1 followers, mainly because the erstwhile dominant Bridgestone-shod Ferraris suddenly had some genuine opposition, first from McLaren and Williams, and later from Renault.
Many would like a return to this sort of competition, which drove performance and created competitive variation. But, in the current climate of squeezed budgets and expensive engines, no one would reasonably countenance a return to that expensive paradigm.
Exciting 2010 Canadian GP prompted era of degrading tyres © LAT |
So if Michelin does return, it will have to do so as sole supplier - the very thing that led it to pull out of F1 after 2006, leaving Bridgestone as monopolist.
But the company's motorsport director Pascal Couasnon has said Michelin will only return if F1 alters its technical regulations to make the tyres a "technical object again, not just a tool to do a more or less spectacular show".
Unfortunately for him, that is exactly what the tyres in current F1 are designed to do. Pirelli gets a bad rep for 'forcing' drivers to go slowly and preserve their rubber in races. But that's because F1's stakeholders wanted change in order to end the formulaic trend of one-stop bore-a-thons.
Remember the Canadian Grand Prix of 2010 (when Pirelli signed its original supply deal)? Everyone thought that race was amazing, because it went against the grain. Bridgestone's tyres overheated and the competitive order was shaken by strategic variation. Pirelli was asked to create more 'Canada 2010s' with its rubber.
Couasnon joins the chorus of those who now criticise Pirelli for making tyres that wear out too fast, saying: "Tyres should offer stable performance and grip levels. It's not normal that after a few laps a driver says, 'I need to slow down otherwise the tyres won't last'.
"That shouldn't happen. These days F1 drivers can't show their talent because the tyres don't allow them to. This happens when you are in a sole-supplier regime and you have no motivation to improve.
Silverstone 2013 was the nadir of the Pirelli era in F1... © LAT |
"That's called mediocrity, not technology."
That's a stinging rebuke, and means Michelin wants F1 to do a volte-face – adopting durable tyres that basically eliminate the need for pitstops altogether. Those who are disenchanted with the current state of F1 may welcome this change of emphasis.
But the important question is: would the racing be better if tyres lasted longer and pitstops were eliminated?
Anecdotal evidence (where races have not been affected by adverse weather) suggests not. This year's Malaysian Grand Prix was captivating because of strategic variation; the 2012 season produced many different winners because the tyres fell apart easily; the 2010 Canadian GP was exciting because teams couldn't make the tyres work consistently.
People have short memories. I'm sure the drivers and engineers would love Michelin to return. The French manufacturer is renowned for making quality products wherever it (ahem) treads, and a fast, stable, consistent tyre would make the cars more rewarding to drive and easier to set up.
But the result will be processional racing (provided aerodynamic regulations remain largely unchanged). That's why F1 promoter Bernie Ecclestone – whose job is to ensure it remains interesting to fans and thus lucrative for him and his bosses – was moved to speak out against Michelin's mooted comeback.
"All Michelin would do is make a rock-hard tyre that you could put on in January and take off in December, because they don't want to be in a position where they can be criticised," he argued.
"That would make absolutely 100 per cent sure, if there was a question mark about Mercedes winning, it would be removed.
Michelin would push to overhaul Formula 1 tyre and wheel sizes |
"It would be all the things we don't want, and goes against all the things Pirelli have had the courage to do from what we have asked, which has made for some bloody good racing."
The trouble is, many people (as ever where F1 is concerned) want to have their cake and eat it, so to speak. They want super-fast cars and drivers running flat-out, but that means 'better' tyres and lots of downforce.
They want exciting racing and lots of unpredictability, but don't want tyres that wear out and cause lots of pitstops. They want drivers to go quickly in each stint of a race, but don't want the sort of strategic normality that made refuelling-era F1 boring and predictable.
"It's always been a factor in Formula 1 racing that you have to consider getting the most out of the tyre over a longer distance," says Mercedes technical chief Paddy Lowe. "I don't think there have been many tyres over the years that one could sprint with on every single lap.
"With the current tyres we have an interesting situation, which has improved the spectacle a great deal. We've seen far more exciting races since Pirelli came into Formula 1.
"There is the aspect around drivers having to manage and not necessarily drive as fast as we would like, but that's been an element in the past. It may be a slightly bigger element at the moment, but it also adds to the skill necessary from the driver. And in qualifying, of course, they are still going absolutely flat-out."
F1 is not keen on moving away from its current supplier © LAT |
A move to spice things up by allowing free choice from four compounds from next year sounds interesting initially, until you realise teams will quickly work out the overall fastest option for each circuit and all converge to the centre ground.
As Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery argues: "If you start opening up choices this is what will happen: firstly, the top teams will centralise around the same choices because they use the same ideas and data we would be using, then there would be some people that would want to risk a little more, and then there would be some people who would want to be a little reckless.
"That is before we get into the logistical problems and extreme cost it would involve to do such a thing.
"It's more important to look at 'why would you want to do something like that?' and 'what are you trying to solve?' rather than suggesting a change without analysing what you are trying to achieve."
He's certainly right on that last point. You can debate indefinitely whether F1 should focus on purity of competition over the needs of the 'show', but has anyone bothered to find out what the fans really want before proposing change?
【于是凹凸与GPDA都推出了车迷调查问卷。你心目中的F1应该是怎样的呢？】Probably not. So we've taken matters into our own hands by launching a comprehensive fan survey (in conjunction with our sister titles F1 Racing and Motorsport News). What do you want F1 to be?
