P1 with Matt and Tommy - Would a TYRE WAR make F1 better?

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

Would F1 benefit from having a second tyre supplier alongside Pirelli? We discuss the pros and cons as well as hearing your opinions.Follow us on socials! You can find us on Twitter, Instagram, Twitch, YouTube and TikTok.***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!*** Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello, everybody and welcome back to another P1 podcast with Matt and Tommy. Yeah, I just flew through it this time. I didn't fancy the emphasis. I've wanted smooth intro. I don't know what I'm saying. I'm clearly going insane because we haven't had Formula One for what feels like four years. Yes, it's a month's break after three races. I'm not okay, Tommy.

Are you okay? No. Baku better be good now. Please. We need some more Melbourne-style chaos, don't we at Baku? You also don't know how to say Melbourne's, still. So that's interesting. Oh, God, same.

Every Australian listener, we'll get our stats through and we'll have like 0% Australians listening. It's just plummeting now. Yeah, no, it's fine. It's tomato tomato. So today we are talking about tyres. And would a tire war make F1 better? Now, this hasn't existed for quite some time. But we will get into this right after our five-star review. And this one comes in from Jammy 266.

If you want yours to be read out, leave us a five-star review. Tell us why you love this podcast. It helps us so much. I cannot stress how much a good review helps us. So please send them in and we read one out each podcast. So this is from Jammy 266 from the United Kingdom. Genuinely love listening to Matt and Tommy. They have such great banter between each other and give great insight into the very sometimes confusing sport that is F1.

I love that. Very sometimes confusing. That in itself is confusing. But thank you, Jamie. Really appreciate the love and that you're enjoying the podcast. Now, not since 2006 have we had, what I said, was a tyre war

and that was between Michelin and Bridgetown. 2006, and it's now 2023. We are fossils. Like, I remember watching Formula One then. Where's all the time gone? It's mad, isn't it? That was so long ago. Hamilton wasn't even an F1?

Sorry, I just definitely was, a promise I didn't throw up then. Hamilton wasn't even in F1. No, I loved it. No, honestly, it was like a voice mod from Twitch. It was great. But yeah, I guess the question that we are going to be asking ourselves today is, was it better back then? The good old days.

Or is it better now with Pirelli? So we put a vote to you on Twitter. And there's 7,000 votes, 68% of you said, yes, you would like to see another tire manufacturer join F1 alongside Pirelli. That's a lot. And I think I'm part of the 32% than the 68% because as much as it did provide an element of, oh, will Michelin or Bridgetown get it better for this particular track or will it suit this particular circuit better?

I don't know. It just didn't feel like a level playing field in some respects. and then you had sometimes the bridge stones were unbelievable, and other times the Michelin's were amazing. So I know that variables in Formula One can create a good amount of drama, but I like the fact that it is Pirelli and Porelli only and that they can just provide tyres to all the different teams. Otherwise, yeah, it just creates another element

that newer fans will then struggle to understand at times as well. And simplifying the sport is better overall when it comes to, the growth of Formula One. So for me, just have it as Pirelli, maybe have them degrade a little bit more and that's your lot.

Yeah, I am also of the opinion that I don't think it would be what I don't think is what F1 needs right now, particularly in this whole budget cap era where, you know, we're sat here complaining that the Red Bull

are absolutely miles ahead, but I've been, you know, speaking to me, my father-in-law about this and he was like, God, the F-1 grid's so close. I can't believe that, you know, it's a second because you're just so used to, you know, way back when, even in like 2006, you know, a second was sometimes a gap between two cars, never mind the whole grid. So Red Bull, yes, are dominating. But the actual margin is not a huge amount. And then the rest of the grid are really kind of close.

So I worry that if you introduced a new tire into the mix and one week, the tire was just four or five seconds off, yes, you might get a fun little narrative that maybe one week like a Mercedes are really bad or a Red Bull is really bad. And then next week, there'd be six seconds clear of the field and it'd be a bit boring. So I just don't, I just don't think that is the right way to go at the moment when the whole point is them closing up the entire grid, and it is actually getting quite close. Absolutely. Question from Mr.

Well, that's actually a comment. Mr. underscore steam Morris. Bridgestone versus Michelin was another dynamic that made things unpredictable. And I agree. Sometimes it was. Sometimes the Ferraris were quicker on the Bridgestone. Sometimes the Renault was quicker on the Michelin. And you did have this Titanic battle between Schumacher and Alonzo way back when.

But I'm still of the appearance. opinion that it's an unpredictability that Formula One doesn't need in my opinion. It's just one of those that the variation should be, oh, the team's gone on mediums or the team's gone on hards. And I'm still, yeah, very much of the opinion that it would just add another level of complexity to the sport that just isn't needed. And as a fan, I'm not sure I enjoyed, not knowing if my team was going to turn up to a race and it be decent or not, because sometimes, as we mentioned, Bridgestone would, it would suit a particular track condition or the Michelin's would suit a particular,

I think, was the bridge stones quite, I'm trying to, I'm just going on a whim here, but it was like one of the tires was really good in the wet, for example, and yeah, and said that it was switch on better and things like that. So I'm, I'm just not, I just don't want to go back to those old days. I think Porelli is the right way to go. as I said, I think that there there needs to be the option of more two stops for sure because that that is the sweet spot for me

and we've discussed it before, haven't we told me where should Formula One have a mandatory two pit stop sort of rule and so you have more of a strategic element to the race that I'm more in favour of than having an additional tyre manufacturer. Yeah, because the bridge, Bridgillin. The bridgeline.

The bridgeline and Michelstone era. Yes, the Bridgeton and Michelin era was, you know, you kind of had that battle in 2006 between Schumacher and Alonzo where, yeah, it was quite close and it was good. But you could get the difficult situation. So for me, the one that stands out is 2005, we won't talk about America yet. but 2005 in terms of just the season. And Ferrari were on the bridge stones and they were very good.

And now, don't get me wrong, even as a Red Bull fan, I would like them to be more in the mix and closer. But would it be fun? And I'm sure people will banter and go, yes, it absolutely would be. But would it be fun for Max Osteppen to just not have a car that he can even do? I don't want to, I don't think people want to see that. I didn't even want to see that when Hamilton was winning. You know, they pegged Mercedes back a bit,

but we got a great battle between Hamilton and Vastappen. But Michael Schumacher in 2005 just couldn't even compete. And it's like, is that really fun? Don't get me wrong. I wasn't you, Matt. I was bored and didn't want Michael Schumacher to win every single race. I was a Fernando Alonzo fan. So I welcomed it from that stage.

But taking my, Alonzo hat off and being older and looking back on it now, I don't think that's good for the sport, that you could just, you know, we could do this now and Michelin enter the, with Aston Martin and the tie's rubbish. That'd be Alonzo's luck, wouldn't it? Tires rubbish and Alonzo suddenly just last every race again.

And absolutely nowhere near. I don't, you know, it can go both ways. So I don't think that would be good for the sport. Next comment from Shepark underscore Jacks. Two would be fine, but once the top teams show a preference for one over the other, all the other teams will follow them, see you're effectively back to one. Now, I don't know if it would be different in this day and age of Formula One, but I don't seem to recall teams flopping and changing between Bridgestones and Michelin's.

It was almost very much a they are part of this team, and that's it. You didn't see Ferrari going to Michelin tires, for example. but it was very much Ferrari in Bridgestone and they try and make it work. Super partnership, yeah. Yeah. So I don't think, again, if that was the case and this is the direction they went in,

that it would be a chopping and changing and oh, whichever tie you want this week, it wouldn't be like that. No. My kind of, if I go back even further and think about one of the seasons. After the first race of Formula One, of Silverstone, back to the past.

1948. Not quite that far back. But yeah, 1997, we had a tie war then. It was a good year, which most of the top teams were on and had been in F1. And then Bridgetown came into the sport that year. And there were some tracks where Bridgetown were just amazing. And it meant that you had ridiculous races where, you know, Damon Hill nearly won in Arrows. It was the worst car on the grid.

So you could get that. where you might get one race where, I don't know, Nico Holcomberg and a house is the best driver on the grid by a mile because he's got the right tires and they're so much quicker. But I feel like the novelty would wear off a bit if that kept happening. And I think Formula One needs to be close, not just have a random team be six seconds up the road on a random week, even if it is fun that it would be someone's,

completely random, which is what happened in 97. You had the bridge stone tires were arguably better, but the teams were rubbish. So there were just occasional races where the tires worked really well. And they were getting podiums left, right and center. And you had loads of different teams on the podium. But then this question, like, you go back to the year after and everyone realized that the bridge stone tires were best. Everyone was on bridge stones and no one was on good years.

So, yeah, it doesn't really work. No, definitely not. At Levy Kelso says, I think it would be cool for multiple tire manufacturers to make the soft, medium and hard tires and the teams have to pick. Maybe it would help other midfield teams find themselves amongst the front of certain tracks

that suits the tires. That kind of goes back to your point of, do we really want a lottery of, oh, let's spin the wheel and see who's going to have a good soft tire today. Like, that's not the way in which Formula One wants to go, in my opinion, although some people might argue that entertainment is going over sporting events these days for Formula One and the amount of red flags and so on. But yeah, I've just, I can't see it happening. I just don't

think it would make sense. I don't think Pirelli would want that to have another Thai man. Well, it definitely wouldn't want another tireman in Formula One because it takes away from their brand. But I don't think they've done that bad of a job to say, yeah, screw you, Pirelli. We're getting someone new in to compete against you. So people think this would like wake Porelli up and make the tires better, but like better against what? Because, you know, I think this kind of unusual order and a mix in tires can be done nowadays by one tire manufacturer. We don't need to have someone on bridgestones and someone on Michelin and they're stuck with that tire for the whole year. You can just have a Pirelli hard tire and a Pirelli soft tire and there's a big difference between them.

And then you get an exciting race. And then you would get a race where perhaps late safety car, someone's already pitted for new softs or whatever. Someone like the rest of the grid are on hards or whatever and they can fly through the field and you get a really unlikely cool result. which we have seen in the Preli era. So I don't, I just think this is too risky. First, too risky. And second, yeah, too confusing. And particularly if it gets to the point where it's like,

you have a tire graphic and it's like, oh, Charlotte Clare's on the good year soft at the moment. And now he's moving to the Michelin medium. We've got, and then because people want that data of who's on what tire, because it does affect the race, it would just throw too many elements in. I think the thing that would fix it is you just do what IndyCar do

and have a soft and a hard and you separate them out a lot more. Interesting. This next point as well is pretty good. This is from GRMRD. We don't need this again. I'm okay with two manufacturers if they switch them between the races. So all the teams use the same tires in one race.

So one race you might have, yeah, bridge stones, another race you might have. have Pirelli's. Now, I don't mind that as long as they're all on the same tire. That could, in essence, create some sort of variability because a particular car might suit a bridge stone over a Michelin. But if they're all on the same tire, then perhaps there's slightly that less the element of lottery is perhaps slightly taken away. But I guess at the same time, that's never going to happen. No team is going to agree to have to make their car, work with more than one type of tire.

I just can't see that happening. No, they'll veto that. The teams won it. And I do think this is a better idea than having a difference in tire because, yeah, you might see a case where, oh, the Red Bull isn't that great on the Michelin's, one of the team is better. But it's not every single race, but then you get into an argument if it's like a odd calendar, which ones do you do?

And then are you favouring one team by the other? Because FIA could just go, to peg Red Bull back, spin the wheel. Oh, it's Mitchelins this week. Sorry, Red Bull. Let's get everyone 100 points catch up to you. So, yeah, it's a better idea. But again, I think it would just be too confusing.

I just can't see it happening. It's been spoken about this, but Prelia have just been around so long now that I just can't see another team sorry, another manufacturer coming in and doing it. Yeah, they're a staple now in Formula One. They've been around long enough

that they are just the standard when it comes to Formula One tyres. At Rannock won and only. I remember the 2005 US Grand Prix. Please not again. Now, for those that are wondering, what is the 2005 US Grand Prix? It was a long time ago.

But it was a time where the Michelins could not handle the Indianapolis circuit where they were simply failing. I think it was Ralph Schumacher went in at a ridiculous speed around the long right-hand bend of essentially half of the Indy 500 track basically, wasn't it? And then they went into the infield section.

But yeah, so they had to run the race with six cars, which was a fascinating fight for the win between Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello, which, to be honest, not far dissimilar to what we'd been used to for the years prior to that anyway. Yeah. I mean, unless I'm completely missing something here, is having a tire war, did having a

tie war cause the 2005 US Grand Prix fast, or was it just that one of them didn't make ties that were suited and you had a problem? Because if you didn't have a tire war, or, you know, you could have quite easily not had a tie war then, and the whole grid run Michelin's, and then no one would have raced. So I don't, I don't get the argument of like, if you get two teams, we'll have a two, 2005 US Grand Prix situation again because Pirelli, I say Pirelli could quite easily do something wrong where the ties explode. And they have quite a few times.

Yeah, Silverstone comes to mind. Silverstone comes to mind. So, yeah, I don't think the 2005 US Grand Prix is to blame for like just the fact that there's a tire war, but that doesn't mean that I want it. No, and also they could have just added a Shoeuvre. but they said no to that one, didn't they, old Ferrari? They were not fancying that one.

The final comment comes in from Simon Miller 52. Would rather see refueling make a return and switch up the strategies. I just feel like the days are gone for refueling. It just doesn't seem like that is the way Formula One will ever go again. It was a risk. You saw so many pit lane incidents from refueling that with the way in which Formula One's progress,

and safety. It's just not something I feel they will reintroduce as much as that was a great element to strategy. It was a great element to qualifying sometimes as well, where you had Michael Schumacher in a dominant Ferrari in absolutely, like filling it up to the brim and still managing to stick it up on the front row or something. And you had Yarno Trulli on pole in a Toyota with three millilitres in his car. Yeah.

And launch control and was four years ahead of the turn one. Yeah. So I did enjoy the refueling era. just from a strategy element, but I just, yeah, I can't see it coming back anytime soon. I can't see it coming back. And the reason they got rid of it in the first place is because all the overtakes are happening in the pits and everyone complained about it. So it's funny now there's this like nostalgia thing that people want it back.

But we've had this too often anyway with the whole fuel situation where Formula 1 for me, sometimes like the whole management phase of Formula 1 is not particularly interesting. now the recent Australian Grand Prix, if we hadn't have had the red flag and the chaos, that was just a case where everyone put the hard tires on and they were just managing it to the end. And that's not particularly interesting. And you could argue that, oh, well,

if they've got all different fuels in, you kind of mix it up. But they'd all overtake each other in the pits and you'd just sit behind. And as soon as someone came into the pits, you would have that disappointing situation. like bring refueling back now and I feel like you would get the same

thing that Michael Schumacher did where the Stepan brims the car still qualifies about third he's past the two Merks after the first six laps of DRS anyway and then he can go to the rest of the race or like really long and everyone else has to pit like six times

so I don't think refueling is the one personally I think the yeah what is the one Yeah, the one for me is still the double two pit stops. You have to run soft, medium and hard tires during the race. And actually now I think about it as well. If you did, then it would kind of cover a bit of strategy element to the red flag

rule as well because you wouldn't have just had your mandatory pitstop. We'd have to do another one. Yeah, exactly. I'm completely of the same opinion. if they really want to, in some way, manufacture drama and entertainment, that's the way to do it in a more sporting way, where I'm actually not against having two-stop mandatory, soft, medium, hard, all need to be used at some point.

That would, okay, on one side of things, probably make it a little bit more confusing for people to watch because you have these three different compounds to be using. And if you are a standard fan that just tunes in on a Sunday, it might be a little bit hard to keep up with. But then that's the job of the broadcast to make sure that it is as easy to understand as possible. So yeah, I think that's it.

I think we are literally fixing Formula One, Tommy, if they listen to us. One shot quality in Q3. Yes, please. Everyone back it. And then, yeah, two stop strategy, three different tire compounds. Let's go. I'd even counter that argument of,

oh, it'd be too confusing, that you could argue that it's just as confusing when we have the CGI fancy little Pirelli graphic of the soft, medium and hards, and Crofties there just going like, oh, well, one of these isn't going to be used. And I feel like that's just as confusing because you're like, well, why?

Why? What's wrong with the hard tire? Yeah, why are you making a big thing of this CGI graphic that these are the compounds available and one of them isn't available. So I almost feel like it would be easier to be like, you see those three tires in that graphic. They have to use all of them.

They have to be used. And yeah, I like that. And let's go one step further, Tommy. They have to use the inters and the wets too. Four stops. Yeah. I think someone did that in a race. I feel like used every single set of tire.

It might have been at Ocon when he, I can't remember. But yeah. Wow. That's a hell of a thing to do. Even every dry tire. I'm sure it was done. Must have been in the... That's insane.

I need to find that. I'm sure someone has messaged me. Okay. Ocon's clearly a head of... of the game if it was him. But yeah, there you go. That is our Tire War chat wrapped up. Tommy, what's your final thoughts?

I'm glad you're here this time because the 2026 script predictions when we filmed, you ran off and had to be unwell. Yes. Well, technically, I'm not here because when this is released, I'm in the Netherlands.

So, yes. There you go. That's your final thought. What the hell was that? That was your final thoughts. Just yes, there you go. Do you have any final? That's it, that you're going on holiday? Yeah, I'm going on holiday and love you all.

I don't believe, wow, that's really insightful. Tommy, I don't actually believe I approved your holiday on the system. Oh, no, sorry, Mr. Co-Founder. Sorry, yeah, that's what you're forgetting now. I'm the same level as you these days. Okay, my final thought is, stay strong, everyone. We will be back in Baku before you know it. The street fighters or whatever they're called.

there. Rompry this year. We will have to wait and see. But we will keep you entertained along the way. Thank you for listening or for watching. And we'll see you very soon for another piece of content. Bye. Bye.

P1 is a Stack production and part of the Acast's creator network.