The Weekly Grapevine

The 'Red Tyre' idea

One of the stranger discussions in Formula One circles in recent weeks has revolved around the possible introduction of a 'red tyre' option after Michelin exits the sport.

Used in Champ Car, which, tellingly, is desperate to 'spice' its show in the face of competition from IRL for the heads and hearts of open-wheeler fans in the US, the gimmicky concept mandates the use of all rubber specifications provided by the tyre supplier for a specific Grand Prix, with the 'optional' tyre type being denoted by a red sidewall to enable fans to identify which compound is being used by which car at a particular stage of the race.

Presently both tyre suppliers provide their partners with two compounds, with teams then evaluating both before nominating their choice for use during qualifying and the race; under the new proposal, teams will be required to race with both specifications, switching during pitstops.

The idea is, of course, to combine the primary advantages of an open tyre brand championship - variable wear and adhesion rates, leading to an element of unpredictability - with the cost-effectiveness and controls made possible by single-supplier regulations. At present, with two tyre suppliers paddock- and, more importantly, broadcast-talk is very much about 'tyres'; next year the situation will certainly be different.

Bridgestone F1 tyre © XPB/LAT

All of which, understandably, goes against Bridgestone's marketing objectives, for the company will be more than doubling up on tyre supply (going from five to 11 teams) while simultaneously losing a massive slice of 'voice'.

True, the company's F1 budget will not expand at the same rate, for Michelin's departure marks the end of a period of astronomical research and development costs brought about by the 'tyre war' - some observers even maintain that expenditure will be reduced despite the increase in partners - but there is no argument that, should the regulations remain the same, Bridgestone's 'bang for buck' will be substantially reduced.

So, yes, Bridgestone deserves sympathy for the impact of Michelin's decision to depart, which decision was, as is well know from the company's releases, taken in a Clermont-Ferrand boardroom, and not enforced by sporting or other regulations. Thus, where one company had hoped for a continuation of intensive brand mentions on global television due to the 'war', a commercial decision taken by a direct market competitor will, for 2007, severely dent that objective.

And, hence the concept, which Bridgestone - official single-tyre partner to Champ Car, and thus in the 'red tyre' loop, and, incidentally, sole rubber supplier to the IRL via its sister Firestone brand - when approached in China, seemed strongly in favour of.

"It is something we are certainly considering," allowed a spokesperson for the company, pointing to some of the arguments above during the subsequent discussion.

However, the other side of the coin is that Bridgestone was fully aware of clauses contained within the present regulations - which permit tyre companies to enter and exit the sport, provided the applicable notice periods are adhered to - and the related implications. Surely Bridgestone factored these into analyses of their F1 programme on a regular basis, reducing Michelin's role in the predicament to no more than an accessory, if even that.

That said, what holds true for next year certainly will not apply in 2008, for F1's much-vaunted new era will bring with it a regulatory single rubber supplier, with Bridgestone's red-capped Black-B having been appointed the favoured brand after the company pulled out all stops to win the open tender.

On that basis, indications are that the company accepted, certainly from 2008 onwards, that their 'voice' would decrease proportionately - and still the company tendered for the contract to supply the entire grid, which, tellingly, will see an increase to 12 teams.

The Bridgestone Champ Car tyre © LAT

For a two-year period after Goodyear's departure at end-1998 to end-2000 (prior to Michelin's arrival at the start of the following season), Bridgestone was F1's only tyre supplier, and seemed none the worse for the experience. The company, after all, campaigned long and hard to be appointed sole supplier come 2008. Why should the situation, now, be any different to earlier this century purely because a market competitor exercised a democratic right to exit?

As such, an increasingly weakening case could be made that F1 introduce 'red tyres' for 2007 alone, with the situation reverting to 'normal' thereafter. Given that the sport has amassed a reputation (possibly oft justified) for introducing ill-thought through regulations, then U-turning immediately thereafter, the introduction of a temporary red-tyre ruling could do the sport serious harm. And, should the sport's welfare not come above a tyre company's marketing aspirations?

The crucial question, though, is not whether the upcoming tyre situation merits any form of sales sop, but whether any form of 'spicing' the show, whether via tyres or other components, does the sport and, hence, its fans' intelligence, justice.

Consider the outcry should F1's teams be reduced to partnering a single engine supplier - whether by design or circumstance - who then suggests engine control units (ECUs) which are set, remotely or otherwise, to 'spice' the show by cutting engine speeds by, say, 2,000 rpm, for half the duration of a Grand Prix, reverting to normal limits for the balance of the event. Then permit said motor company to fit flashing red lights to airbox tops to signify that the ECU's restrictor is activated...