03/09/2005
NEWS STORY
Michelin’s opposition to this evolution in the regulations has been the subject of numerous discussions at Michelin Competition.
Why does the FIA want to introduce control tyres in Formula 1?
Pierre Dupasquier: There are three official reasons, and I say ‘official’ reasons: to bring down costs, to improve safety by curbing performance and to ensure that no team would lose out by being on the “wrong” tyres.
In what way would a control tyre cut costs?
PD: A given single type of tyre, with no development work on it, would reduce the distance covered by teams to assist with tyre development. If Formula 1 cars had a limited number of tyre types for the year – for example, a dry weather tyre and a wet weather tyre –, the tyre of each type would be exactly the same and produced in large quantities at the start of the season in a single batch. Also, the number of tyres allocated to each team would be established for each circuit.
Are you saying there would be no development or testing?
PD: That’s why I said ‘official’ reasons earlier, since this proposal to work with a single tyre manufacturer in reality conceals a fundamental issue: the reduction of the role of the tyre to that of a banal component with no other added value than permitting Formula 1 cars to be mobile. As the world’s leading tyre manufacturer, that is something we cannot accept. In day to day life, road car and truck manufacturers are forever coming to us with a view to developing new tyres that optimise the running, comfort, road holding and energy efficiency of their vehicles, while in Formula 1, a technological showcase if ever there was one, you’re talking about tyres becoming something banal. That would make no sense at all for our customers and for the image of the tyre. When you are the leading tyre manufacturer, you have a responsibility vis-à- vis your profession, or in any case a responsibility as we see it at Michelin.
Are you saying that savings would not be possible in the case of competing tyre manufacturers?
PD: We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of tyres per car with the current regulations: three sets of each type of dry weather tyre, two types per race weekend and one set of tyres to cover qualifying and the race. A reduction in the distances covered in testing is currently being looked at.
Has Michelin made any proposals concerning the reduction of testing?
PD: At the 2004 Brazilian Grand Prix, we made a written proposal to Mr. Ecclestone who had approached us concerning this matter: “Michelin declares that it is in a position to develop F1 tyres without necessitating any specific testing for their development. It is possible to fit our test tyres to the car each time our partners take to the track to run gearboxes or to validate aerodynamics.” However, I would like to stress that Michelin is in favour of testing in very specific circumstances. We believe that, for safety reasons, tyre companies should be allowed to test at new circuits or tracks where the surface or the layout has been changed.
If Michelin’s proposals were applied in a situation where more than one tyre manufacturer was still involved, what sort of savings could be achieved?
PD: We have two proposals for bringing down costs: fewer tyre types and restrictions concerning the distances covered in testing. At 800 dollars per kilometre covered in testing, that soon adds up to an appreciable saving. You could reasonably reduce the distance covered annually by each team by 20,000 km. Multiply that by ten teams, that comes to 200,000 km; a saving to F1 of 160 million dollars! This is something we have already put into application with another tyre manufacturer in world rallying (WRC).
The second objective is to improve race and driver safety...
PD: If a driver brakes too late, if he enters a corner too quickly or if he touches the rear wheel of the preceding car, the car will go off whether it is running on a control tyre or not. Indeed, championships with control tyres already exist, notably in the United States. For example, Nascar, Indy Car and Champcar. But this is no guarantee of safety. This year, at Pocomo in Nascar, seven tyres exploded during practice and the race.
The third argument concerns fairness between the teams. In the case of a single tyre manufacturer, what guarantee would there be that all teams are treated equally?
PD: Good question. If the organiser wants, there are means that have already been used in the past, such as allocating tyres at random and managing tyres with a view to eliminating the temptation of treating them in such a way that their performance could effectively be improved. In the single make championships with which we are involved, we have often asked competitors to come to our trucks to choose their tyres themselves.
Could tyre development be more suited to one car than another?
PD: Yes, that could happen and I’ll explain why... Optimising the performance of a Formula 1 car is dependent on a complex balance between its tyres, its aerodynamics and its traction. It is independent of the driver, the engine’s power per se and race incidents and tactics. If I wanted to favour a given team, I would develop tyres for that team by optimising this balance. Then I would reproduce this tyre for everyone. Even if the tyres were allocated at random, the team being favoured would profit from this development whatever happened. A tyre developed to match the balance of that team’s car would have little chance of being the optimal solution for the other cars. I wasn’t involved at the time, but this is what I have been led to believe happened following explanations from the teams who came knocking at our door in 1999 and 2000 to run on Michelin tyres and who say they want to continue with Michelin today. To be honest, I think the presence of a single tyre manufacturer would do nothing at all to improve the interest of the racing.
What are the disadvantages of having a single tyre manufacturer in F1.
PD: As we see it, the major inconvenience is twofold: You reduce the technological showcase that is F1 to the level of a single-make formula. You would lose the interest of making new discoveries and innovating in a competitive environment.
Is there a relationship between F1, and indeed motor sport in general, and day to day tyre technology?
PD: Without a doubt, yes. This takes different forms according to the type of competition: Top-range motorbikes benefit directly from the technology developed in MotoGP. The Michelin Pilot Power, for example, is a direct descendant MotoGP race tyres we use. In rallying, the same tyres cover a broad variety of surface types and this provides a good basis for research relating to certain high performance tyres. In F1, the link is obviously not so direct, but the understanding of the role and functioning of tyres by engineers who supply F1 with the best tyre of the moment is a school that covers all areas and provides indispensable experience that helps them in their next job. There is frequent, fruitful exchange between the research teams.
If the FIA imposed control tyres, what would Michelin do?
PD: That’s a question you need to ask Michelin management. All I know is that the principle of control tyres in no way corresponds with the vision of Michelin’s Directors, and that goes for all the types of motor sport in which Michelin is involved. Naturally, if it was a question of giving a helping hand to F1, we would certainly assume our responsibilities.
I repeat therefore that, unless you produced a ‘wood-solid’ tyre once and for all for everyone – which is fundamentally contrary to our vision of the tyre but which is something control tyres lead to –the true spirit of racing means having two tyre manufacturers, or even more. It would be possible to achieve significant cost savings by modifying the regulations without compromising driver safety or the interest of the racing.