Quote:
Originally Posted by bathurst77
I cant see it as a cost saving. As the major cost is RnD and tooling up etc. Once the design work testing and hardware is paid for, squeezing some steel and chemicals into shape is cheap and are how the get some of the money back.
By having 2 makers, you now have 2 lots of R/D etc, but each maker only able to sell half the product. (yes the tyres are probably provided free or at a loss.. but the profitis in the advertising then) So doubling the cost of expensive stuff and the same number of tyres for the whole field per season.
If the races were alternating Pirelli 1 race... dunlop the next..theres no "competition". No different to C1 on one week and c4 the next.
If it was open that any team can sign a contract and you have mixed tyres on same race like the 80s and earlier, it would add a new interest for the purists and anoraks (us mob) and could shake things up.
but if that lead to a tyre development war with new tyre upgrades back and forth all year r&d testing and tooling costs would sky rocket and thus total cost per tyre go up.
The solution would be freezes or caps on upgrades during a season. Or tyre maker budget caps. And what if 1 make is noticably worse than the other but they are forbidden to change the tyre? Half the field immediately nobbled for a whole year....
|
Yeah. I agree with this. We don't need a tyre war or extreme development anymore.
Major concerns now are cost and if we are actually trying to slow cars down on corners, deliberately trying to cause degradation to stimulate interesting racing, then there is no purpose or point in creating competition in the tyre area.
It's a dead issue and only a marketing tool for tyre companies.
So, tendering for one supplier is the most cost-effective way to manage it.