Dorna Sports propose single tyre rule for 2008 Motogp season

The beginning of a long discussion I think.

MotoGP commercial rights holder Dorna Sports has proposed a single tyre rule for the 2008 MotoGP World Championship.

http://www.crash.net/news_view~cid~6~id~154758.htm

In WSBK it has played out brilliantly. This season has had some boring races, but was it caused only by a tyre advantage. Looking back, I'm starting to doubt that.

However, I would not mind a single tyre manufacturer.

I hope it will be Dunlop getting the contract :).

i enjoy the variety that moto gp has at the moment, so i dont think it would be a good thing for the sport.

I have mixed thoughts about this. Mainly I think I prefer a "single manufacturer" (not a single tyre, that is) against the current status.

But perhaps I would like a multi manufacturer situation WITH a stricter regulation about tyres (composition, softness) like engines, or aero in F1. That is, a strict set of rules in order that tyres are not the main performance factor (as it is since many, many years ago, in bike and car racing).

I hate when tyre manufacturers (who are a relatively small part in this business) decide the greater part of the laptimes (it is not exclusive of this season). An obscure engineer in Michelin or Bridgestone possibly is more relevant than Hayden's skill or Honda's chassis design. I don't like it at all.

I am going to echo Schummy's thoughts. Both options have their merrits. Certainly it is nice to have the competitive aspects of multiple tire manufacturers. It drives the lap times down. The resulting technology is awesome. With that said, when the swing in results is so radical then it's not so great. Small variables like temperature and track surface are the deciding factors. This is no fun for the fans. And as Rossi said, fans don't cheer for Bridgestone or Michelin.

If I could have my cake and eat it to, I would prefer multiple tire manufacturers coupled with competitive racing. Maybe there is a way to write the tire rules in such a way that it will promote close racing. However, I'm not sure how possible this is.

In the end, a control tire is probably best with two or three compounds available per weekend.

PS: "jhansen" and "Schummy" are my two accounts here. The former for serious posting, the later for the rest.

I vote an emphatic NO!
I see this as a knee jerk reaction during a transitional year with totally new bikes. There have been some dullish races (I never find them boring), but there has also been some great battles.
MotoGP has always been relatively free of artificial means to close the racing up, it has never needed it, and I don't think it needs it now.
Let the teams develop their bikes (they are getting closer) and let Bridgestone and Michelin develop the tyres (they are getting closer) and the racing will take care of itself.

I completely agree with Paul Dennings recent comment -
"There has been a lot of nonsense spoken in MotoGP this year regarding tyre regulations, engine performance, etc. etc. I believe that the difference at the moment is Casey and we're focusing our best efforts to improve our own performance to beat him and that's what everybody should be doing at this time!"

I'd prefer to let next years racing give more of an indication before making a decision because Michelin wont win the title this year. I'd edge towards yes though, not for equality but in an effort to reduce the tyre grip and everything related.

I always preferred a tyre war in F1, but in motorcycles I'm not particularly fussed.

So I'm easy either way really.

This would be way too late to make such a big change. Formula One put it out to tender for a length of time, so that different manufacturers could aim to produce effective tyres within the specifications. If this season had been even on tyres, nobody would be suggesting this. Bridgestone have done a better job, just as Michelin has for many years. 2008 could be completely different. Dorna are probably trying to deflect blame away from the switch to 800cc engines, whcih has made the bikes easier to ride and resulted in fewer mistakes.

No. I concur with a thought above that this a kneejerk reaction because:

1. The Japanese teams have been soundly whalloped by Ducati
2. Michelin are being soundly whalloped by Bridgestone
3. There have been a few snooze races this year

But this was year one of a new category, new regulations and new bikes. Let's remember that the first year of 1000cc MotoGP rules was hardly much excitement with Honda winning everything and no-one else challenged. At least this year we've got a variety of manufacturers at least competing.

IMO this all sounds like the influence of sour grapes from HRC and Michelin.

Socialised rule making, engineering and manufactured, boring racing is looming if this "one-tyre" rule gets up.

These rule makers have a base set of rules - 800cc, 2 wheels, minimum weight. It's an innovative category so let the innovation prevail.

It's only the TV mob that want all 20 riders in one TV camera at a time!!!!!!!

Mike

Personally I would say that a single tyre manufacturer would be a good thing based on this years results. Maybe Michelin will come back stronger next year though and take the fight to Bridgestone and we will have close racing again, if they dont however then I would be in favour of a single tyre manufacturer. If you look at the various motorsport series around the world who have 1 single tyre manufacturer you will usually find that it helps produce close and exciting racing. IMO.

for me i would prefer the tyre war.

Michelin have come back strong already IMO SALEEN. They are starting to look very good again.

It has taken them time to acclimatise to the new regs but they are almost there now.

A tyre war is never a bad thing to me. It is another variable and variables make for good racing, with the risk that you can have a dominant party temporarily. But this can happen in a control tyre format as well.

I have no problem with a tire war. The problem I have is the relative difference between each brand of tire on a given weekend. When Bridgestone is on then Michelin is off. There seems to be very little middle ground.

The relative merit of each rider in any circuit or the fine tuning work on a bike is destroyed or highly enhanced by a minor adjustment in the tyres components. When a single part of a bike or a car has too much weight in the final performance it must be regulated or the racing side of the sport will be eroded.

Except some external dimensions (at least in cars), tyres are largely "free of rules". It's about time to do something about it.

BTW, I agree with those who think 800cc/TC is too tame for the bigger category. Firstly get rid of TC, for god's sake. If there are riders who cannot cope with it, fine, let enter riders who can do it.

BTW, I agree with those who think 800cc/TC is too tame for the bigger category. Firstly get rid of TC, for god's sake. If there are riders who cannot cope with it, fine, let enter riders who can do it.


:yeah:

990cc, no TC. I thank you.

In sidecars every tyre manufacturer could be happy with control tyres: front tyre by Bridgestone, rear by Michelin and lateral by Dunlop.

I hope FIM is not listening, they could do it ;)

It's about time to do something about it.

Yeah, but what?

Personally I think there should not be any qualifying tyres. It doesn't add anything to the racing, they're just really expensive soft pieces of rubber.

Ban dual compound tyres. This will result in an overal tyre that is harder with less grip, which means throttle control will become more important (even with TC).

However, the above will not result in a smaller difference between tyres from different manufacturers.

Banning qualifying tyres is a good start. It's an absurd concept.

In F1 years ago they banned "exotic" material in engines, I think they have to regulate what chemical compounds are allowed. Perhaps mechanical properties (softness for instance) must be limited. Limiting the freedom of development can reduce the input of tyre technology in the results

It is the same that many years ago happened with pole vault in athletics. Around 1970 the most important factor winning a pole vault competition was the particular brand or compound of pole involved. During those years it was a farce from a athletic point of view. Now we have not any significant problem with it and we can admire genuinely Bubka or Isinbayeva's records.

GP tyres are not relevant to every day use, they are far too soft. Surely endurance racing is more relevant (as in cars).

If they cannot regulate tyres adequately, use the one-manufacturer rule.

Ban qualifiers! YES YES YES, Absolutely. Give us real grids not contrived grids.

But no to a control tyre! Why pump millions of dollars into developing all facets of a bike to obtain a fraction of a second gain, when the limiting factor becomes a two inch square piece of rubber on the tarmac. Tyre development needs to progress at the same rate as the development of the rest of the bike or the point of a prototype class is lost.

What constitutes a qualifier though? Could the tire companies just declare a 'soft' race tire? How do you control this? Does the FIM know anything about compound construction and structure? This is an area where I'm not sure how they can proceed. In F1 it was a bit easier. Prior to the control tire we had that season where the tires had to last a race distance. Well, we already do that in Moto GP.

Gerben may have something though. Banning multi-compound tires.

Well, I mean we've had tyre problems for awhile, remember in 2004 the tyres had so much grip we had really ****ty chatter (or "Chadder") problems, which meant that you had to get your head around that to be competitive, which left it to Rossi, Sete and maybe Biaggi?

I think that it's really one way or the other, you can Ban "overnight tyres" and have Bridgestone produce a better product, or you can not have any restrictions and allow the Blue Boys to fly in a race winner on the Sunday morning.

There actually is a way around qualifiers now that I've thought about it. Just require them to qualify on their race tire. Quite a few series do that including sportscars and F1. But it would make race tire selection even more crucial.

And remember the AMA? They banned Q tyres. But they just had "Really Really Really Soft But Not Qualifying Tyres (TM)"

:rofl:

There actually is a way around qualifiers now that I've thought about it. Just require them to qualify on their race tire. Quite a few series do that including sportscars and F1. But it would make race tire selection even more crucial.

I think thats probably the best solution.

And remember the AMA? They banned Q tyres. But they just had "Really Really Really Soft But Not Qualifying Tyres (TM)"

:rofl:

What constitutes a qualifier though? Could the tire companies just declare a 'soft' race tire? How do you control this?

;)

There actually is a way around qualifiers now that I've thought about it. Just require them to qualify on their race tire. Quite a few series do that including sportscars and F1. But it would make race tire selection even more crucial.

For sure this would mean a different qualifying format. Which might not be a bad thing!

Q&A with Carmelo Ezpeleta the Dorna chief who made the one make tyre proposal.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/Shared/PageTemplates/Article.aspx?id=94942http://www.motorcyclenews.com/Shared/PageTemplates/Article.aspx?id=94942

It appear Rossi was behind the one tyre rule proposal.
Here (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2007/Oct/0701004r.htm)

The single tire manufacturer has work brilliantly in SBK, in fact it has made it a far better series in my opinion then MotoGP to watch. That said I think in a pure prototype class such as MotoGP tires should not be restricted, it is just one more factor.

MotoGP is not mainly a prototype series, it's mainly the series that runs the World Championship for riders. I think that is the key point of FIM GPs. FIM (supposedly) choose the formula adequate to run the championship. If the "prototype" aspect of it fatally conflicted with it, then get rid of the technological factor that ruins the sporting side.

Until now 500cc and MotoGP have been pretty good in this respect, but the ugly face of electronics already has appeared and this season tyres tech probably has been an unfortunate factor in some races. Perhaps it's the moment to take decisions before we go down the F1 route.

Please, let's remember that technology is not equal to sport. How many people follows the technological developments in engineering or chemical labs? How many people follows sports without tech like football, basketball, tennis, etc? If technology and sports collide, I know what I'm going to choose to watch on TV.

Please, let's remember that technology is not equal to sport. How many people follows the technological developments in engineering or chemical labs?Most road racing cyclists and athletes these days I'd imagine :laugh:

LOL :laugh:

In sidecars every tyre manufacturer could be happy with control tyres: front tyre by Bridgestone, rear by Michelin and lateral by Dunlop.

[Thinking out of the box mode] Why not make all tyres available to all riders? Riders could test all the different manufacturers tyres on Fridays and decide on Saturday if they want to use Michelin, Dunlop or Bridgestone! Everybody would be happy as there would be a level playing field. The tyre manufacturers would work their ass off to come up with the best goods. [/Thinking out of the box mode]

Right, problem solved! Next item: Traction Control!

Here's some comments from a few of the riders on the tire situation. These are all Bridgestone riders in fact.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2007/Oct/071011b.htm

MELANDRI: Like they say. I think also, the race will be not more fine than now, because we see Superbike is not more fine than us, anyway, for the single tire.

:rofl:

STONER: There's something else I want to say, is that depending on which tire company we end up with, if we do go to a single-tire rule, then basically everybody's not working to improve themselves and get better. So there's going to be a lot of favoritism. And you don't know whether you're getting the same grade of tires as other people. As happened in the past, I think it's been proven, and how are they going to control the single-tire rule? What company? Who's favored and who's not?

WTF? I'm not sure what on earth Casey is trying to say here. I don't think that even he knows. If F1 can manage it then Moto GP can manage it.

Also, a few said the development will suffer. Maybe, but the bikes and riders will continue to move forward despite the tires.

In the end, I don't care what solution is chosen. But I want the racing to take priority.

He's talking about Michelen, where it went Rossi/Sete - Everyone else.

Where Rossi and Sete got the cool non chattering tyres and everyone else got lumped with the bog standard stuff.

He's talking about Michelen, where it went Rossi/Sete - Everyone else.

Where Rossi and Sete got the cool non chattering tyres and everyone else got lumped with the bog standard stuff.

It went back a lot further than Rossi/Sete. This was the case going back to the mid 80s, where only the top riders got the best tyres.

Was that a single tyre situation, or where only one tyre was any good?

In those days Michelin and Dunlop were the two main brands but there was also a large gap between the "best" Michelin and the "standard" Michelin and the "best" Dunlop and the "standard" Dunlop. The top teams and riders got access to the best rubber, while privateers would only be given the standard tyres. There could be up to a second a lap difference between the tyres.

Well thats a bit different then to a single tyre situation, so Stoners favouratism comments dont really fit.

No, but in 2003, what i'm talking about there was only one tire, unless you were in Brazil or Japan, and that was the Michelen, so that's what'd happen.

That still happens today. There are Michelin preferred teams in sportscar racing for instance. However, under a control tire scenario this would not be a problem.

Sounds like the tire war will continue in 2008.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2007/Oct/071012x1-9.htm

Stoner's point about some people favoured with "best" tyres is easily solved by F1 rule: random assignment of tyres to teams and riders.

BTW, Gerben's intriguing idea (seriously said or not ;) ) is interesting: all manufacturers are welcome if they want but riders can choose the brand they want. Great! However, I suspect tyre manufacturers will not be happy with this super competitive scheme (they believe in free market but just if there is some "protection" ;) )

FIM withdraw single tyre manufacturer proposal for 2008.

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/news/156396-0/single_tyre_verdict_announced.html

Make up your minds people!

Hurrah!

Well done FIM!

Why are people saying this is a good thing.

Racing this year has been much less intense and close because of the tyre rule. I dont know if its because Michelin have been caught on the hop y Bridgestone but eitehr way the racing has been poor.

The only comparison is with WSBK where the racing has been much closer. Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Yamaha have all been able to win and race together. This is mainly down to the tyres

I agree Chunder - a genuine equal tyre situation surely would have been better for "the show". I don't really understand the objections behind it - as long as the system was equal for all what would it matter.

Surly this means Rossi to Bridgestone is all but a formality.

I'm glad theyre giving it more time for Michelin to try and catch up so the situation can play out. The whole situation felt too much like Rossi saying "Jump" and Dorna going "How High". But if Rossi really is on Bridgestones next year, Yamaha's development will be split and with another Michelin development rider gone, Honda will be on the backfoot too. Even if they managed to keep up, simply having Rossi outperforming Lorenzo, Hayden and Pedrosa will be seen as the tyres and not the rider, much like it has been this year.

Multiple tires again in 2008. But the allocation has increased. This is fair enough, and it should certainly help the one-bike teams. Dunlop is again exempt. A few key points from the article:

"Instead of selecting 31 tyres (14 front and 17 rear) before the start of each grand prix weekend, riders will be able to call upon 40 tyres (18 front and 22 rear) in 2008, while the tyre companies will also be able to take advantage of extra track time."

"It has been further decided, also for application as from 1.1.2008, that tyre companies competing in the MotoGP class can, prior to the start of the first race of the season, nominate one GP circuit on which they can test for a maximum of 4 days per year, at any time after the GP has been held at that particular circuit. No rider designated by any MotoGP team will be permitted to take part in these tests"

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/news/156789-0/2008_tyre_rules_announced.html

According to Crash.net Dunlop will quit Motogp in 2008 as Tech 3 will ride with Michelin.

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/news/156815-0/tech_3_confirms_dunlop_split.html

I find this change to the tyre rule strange. How is it going to help? As I read it, the riders still have to choose the tyres before they've ridden a single yard in the weekend. Most of the teams (except Rossi in 2008) should (after one year with the current tyre rule) have a programme in place that will allow the rider to do all his tyre testing with the available tyres in place. Therefore, next year they will probably use more qualifying tyres in practice to be able to use all the tyres that is allowed!

I don't see how this will make the performance of both tyre-manufacturers more equal.

I think its going to allow them to bring a wider range of tyres, and perhaps put a 2 way bet on where the weather goes rather than having to commit with similar tyres filling their allocation.

Valentino Rossi: "Tyres are about a matter of feeling and trust," he said. "And I have lost trust in Michelin over the last two years."

"I don't think I can win with Michelin," he said. "I think Michelin will be a lot better next year, and they will have a bigger budget, but it's not my problem. With Michelin you tell them what the problem is, but you can never get a good answer. With Yamaha you sit down and talk and they give you an answer."

Source:

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/motogp/news/156798-0/crashnets_valencian_gp_blog_sunday.html

I am a huge Rossi fan but I must admit to becoming more and more disappointed with some of his comments this year. His tyres are no good, his bike is no good etc etc. That is part of the ebbs and flows of GP racing.

Agree with that to a certain extent. I think last year opened the eyes of Rossi's competitors. He can make mistakes. That took away some of his persona maybe. Stoner wasn't affected by it in the slightest. Rossi tried to rattle his cage in the first few races, but it didn't work. In the end, I think Rossi is trying to push his way forward. But maybe, this is not the best way.

I have gained a lot of respect for Nicky and the way he has conducted himself this year on and off the track. He has had a truly awful season, but apart from some comments about the bike being built for Pedrosa very early in the season, he has IMO conducted himself very well in the media. No major whinges, no excuses, just "we are dong it tough, but will keep trying to improve". On the track he road his heart out all year even though it was obviously a lost cause from very early on.

It will be interesting next year with Rossi and Lorenzo in the same team with different tyres. If Lorenzo starts to beat him (which I think he is capable of doing) will it be because of the tyres?

Lorenzo would be doing wonders to beat Rossi as i'd imagine with the team split on tyre manufacturers, the obvious solution would be to build the Yamaha down to its roots to suit the Bridgestones and keep Rossi happy. I cant imagine after Rossi being so outspoken lately, they'll build the bike for the Michelins (and thus still benefitting Tech 3) and leave Rossi with a bike that regardless of if the tyres are better, cant use them.

Interesting, but the Gresini Hondas managed to be pretty competitive at times despite not being built for Bridgestones and not having the latest HRC bits. I wonder if it's more about learning to tune the bike to the tires, as opposed to building a bike for the tires?

Well i could be massiverly over-estimating the level of engineering needed to tune the bikes to the tyres. Gresini at least had 2 bikes running identical, whereas Yamaha will be running like a pair of single bike teams next year.

Well I agree with that for sure. It makes little sense to split the factory team in this way. This is marginally before I was following Moto GP, but didn't Camel Honda run split tires for Biaggi and Tamada?

Well i could be massiverly over-estimating the level of engineering needed to tune the bikes to the tyres. Gresini at least had 2 bikes running identical, whereas Yamaha will be running like a pair of single bike teams next year.

In his first two years Rossi didn't have a direct teammate, although the team did have a lot of previous knowledge. They got the job done.

During Rossi's first year on the Yamaha they did not have any knowledge at all and again they got the job done.

I don't agree with the switch to Bridgestone, but hey, it makes things interesting.

PS. people who think they made the switch to Bridgestone to have a reason to build that partition wall with Lorenzo's side of the garage... :wibble: wake up.

Yes, Camel did have split tyres.

And also, Rossi did have a direct teamate, Checa, it's just that Checa's livery was different to Rossi, it was Abe/Melandri and Rossi/Checa, with Abe and Rossi and Checa and Melandri with the same livery.

Wierd shmierd stuff.

And also, Rossi did have a direct teamate, Checa, it's just that Checa's livery was different to Rossi, it was Abe/Melandri and Rossi/Checa, with Abe and Rossi and Checa and Melandri with the same livery.

Wierd shmierd stuff.

That was in the Yamaha period. Remember the times when Motogp was called GP500 and Rossi rode a Honda? He did not share a garage with anyone.

Oh. Yeah HONDA.

Well that's different, obviously.

:)

My bad.

Who were on the "factory" bikes then? Japanese guy? And Doohan's teammate? (It's early in the morning, brain no workies.)

Oh. Yeah HONDA.

Well that's different, obviously.

:)

My bad.

Who were on the "factory" bikes then? Japanese guy? And Doohan's teammate? (It's early in the morning, brain no workies.)

Doohan's shadow, Alex Criville. Also Okada and maybe even Gibernau.

I think Gibernau was still at Suzuki during the Doohan era.

That's right, (Doohan) Criville and Okada, with Sete on a V-Twin moving onto a full bike in 2000 before taking his telefonica money to Suzuki in '01.

huh, I'm confused now, I thought the conversation was about who else was riding the Honda when Rossi made his debut. I thought Doohan was already in the pensioners home when VR came to the scene?

I have to lay down now :sleep: