The data sample is miss leading tbf. The merc sample takes the horrors (or joy for me :) of the 2014-16 seasons and combines that with the 17 and 18 seasons which haven't been too bad. If chainbear was trying to get dominance across he should have just used 14-16. It takes into account one one extra season compared to the 01-02 pie chart and paints a cleared picture
@@danielo7985 also the math looked wrong. If you look at the wins ferrari had in 2001 and 2002, it looked like more than 59%. It's 24 wins out of 34 which is 70%. He said 20 but it's 24, I just counted it twice. Michael and Rubens won 24, not 20.
Mercedes are still statistically more dominant than Ferrari ever were. And that doesn't even account for the fact that Ferrari were willing to sacrifice one drivers race to secure a win whereas Mercedes haven't needed to do that for most of the past five season (not that that stopped them in some unnecessary cases)
@@finbarallan The main reason why the Ferrari era was lots worse. At least Bottas can try to beat Hamilton, and Rosberg on a good day actually challenged/defeated him. Aggravated by Ecclestone's latest money grubbing idea of not showing on-board footage at all for years, and keeping them for a paid service. I was napping a lot at that time, during races.
Kimi's engine failure at Nurburgring cost him the title that year . Remarkable that Kimi only finished 2pts behind Michael in a slightly updated 2002 car is quite something . Also Schumacher's WDC that year was also saved by the fact the rain came at Indianapolis on race day and meant Schumacher could exploit Bridgestone's then far superior intermediate tyre. to make up for a bad qualifying Without the rain in the US GP he may have lost the WDC.
Had Kimi kept his Brazil GP win is also another point to talk but its overshadowed by the fact a Jordan won it which everyone likes but definitely cost Kimi the title
I have to disagree. Schumacher won more races than Kimi in 2003. In 2005 although he was the faster driver with the faster car and could not win the WDC due to all Mclaren's reliability issues. That year was painfull to watch, at least he went to Ferrari and won in 2007.
@@joaolima120 Schumacher won more races because he had the fastest car(walks all over McLaren) and had a lot experience. Kimi was amazing the whole year despite a minor mistake in Canada. He almost won the championship with ONE win. He was so consistent and that's why I believe he deserves it more.
The data sample is miss leading tbf. The merc sample takes the horrors (or joy for me :) of the 2014-16 seasons and combines that with the 17 and 18 seasons which haven't been too bad. If chainbear was trying to get dominance across he should have just used 14-16. It takes into account one one extra season compared to the 01-02 pie chart and paints a cleared picture
The formula is the same for everybody, they could always do better and invest more in their personnel. Rules have been changed twice and Mercedes have done their homework. That's life.
@eoe123321 That's not true though, Red Bull won 68% of all races back in 2013. And while you are not wrong and Mercedes is certainly more dominant , stats do not always tell the whole story. I would argue that Red Bull should have won much more races in 2010 and 2011 as well but made quite a lot of mistakes (at least in 2010 but partially in 2011 as well though Vettel was flawless in 2011)
@@jagenaught They can't (most of them). Mercedes can just poor billions, because since they keep winning it comes back, and that's not counting the positive PR it creates for them. Only the two other top teams have similar budgets. But Ferrari is not a big car-industry complex like Mercedes, and certainly not as well organized. And Red Bull only has the F1 team, which needs to source engines.
Less focus on tyres. Goodyear seemed to have it right back in the early-mid 90's when they were the sole supplier. Hardly got mentioned unless one exploded in spectacular fashion.
I have another theory about Michelin's miraculous 3 week turnaround time - they knew they were bending the rules and so had the other spec already ready in case they were found out. That would also explain their eagerness to comply without protest.
Or they are that good and just changed the sidewall tire mixture in order to make it stiffer. They don´t have to change the tooling or the molds, it´s all about the rubber components really.
knowing how companies operate this is probably the truth. it doesn't have to be nefarious its just about having a backup and knowing the nature of f1 politics. Everyone pushes the rules where they can it seems
I think the best era of tyres were the early 2010s tyre-cliff ones. Non-linear degradation allowed full racing of the tyre constantly, and introduced a nail-biting decision of when to pit, because the tyre would *suddenly* become several seconds slower a lap. So, with recourse to safety, and avoidance of blowouts if possible, tyre-cliff single-supplier tyres are best, imo
Regit seriously? the early 2010 were bullshit. Worst ever in relation to tyres. It was a lottery, not racing...if degradation of tyres is not linear, but just a matter of getting a better or worser tyre - that has nothing to do with racing...its a lottery. And winning races or championships is a matter of luck or bad luck. And that is not what racing is about...
JPM might have been fast at times but he was a loose cannon though. His temper often got in the way. Kimi was burdened with Mclaren's unreliability. Mclaren may have been faster but it was also unreliable. But Alonso vs Shumi was epic esp in 2006 since the two cars were evenly matched (in fact the Ferrari ended up being faster in the straights).
I remember the press conference when Ross Brawn at the time was detailing why he had asked the FIA to change the tyre compounds, and I just remember what Patrick Head had said to his face: "Ross, we've been racing with the exact same tyres since 2001. Why are you complaining about it now?"
@@tl8211 They had been using those tyres for fricking ages, yet when Ferrari start losing, they look to complain. Ferrari were perfectly fine with the Michelin tyres for the whole 2002 season, yet only 'asked for confirmation' on the tyres when it was looking likely for them to lose the championship.
@@thomaslucock8066 They literally only found about the problem with the tyre walls in 2003. It's not like Michelin was announcing they were using a very suspicious interpretation of the rules (at best).
Patrick Head's question is as superfluous as it is hypocritical. Because for one thing - when a team does something illegal but despite that doesn't pose a threat (as was the case in 2001 and 2002 with any Michelin Team from Ferraris point of view), you don't complain. Why should you? You beat these teams in spite of it. Instead, you play that trump card only when you have to. That is, when one of these teams suddenly pose a threat. So Head's comment is superfluous, because the answer is obvious. Why should I slow down a slower competitor who is not a threat in any way? That would be stupid. Instead I save this trump for when I need it, namely when he gets faster and suddenly poses a threat to me. And this has always been common practice in F1 and Head wouldn't have done it any other way. So his question is pure hypocrisy. But that's nothing new either. In 2001 he complained because Ferrari's new drum-brake intakes could hide a fan...which they didn't. And grumbled about it...only to actually and himself put some kind of fan underneath in 2002.
We need this point system back for 2021 regulation for better title fights. Maybe a little change with 1st-15pts 2nd-12pts 3rd-10pts 4th-8 5th-6 6th-5 7th-4 8th-3 9th-2 10th-1 Or something like that. It'll really bring competition much closer even in the midfield
Oh dear, how short is your memory? What will happen is the drivers in 2nd and 3rd place will *turn their engine down* and just coast to the finish line as there's no incentive to chase 1st place since there isn't much points difference. You gotta give them a reason to keep racing until the end, that's why the FIA also re-introduced the extra point for the driver who gets the *fastest lap.*
If the points don’t reward a win significantly over other positions, you’ll cheapen the value of a win (as you make it more likely that a driver will settle for second in their championship fight). Back in pre-2003 days, winning a race alone was significant for a championship, ever since, it’s lost that emphasis.
@eoe123321 it's nowhere near as bad as it was when they were supporting Ferrari (tbh they still give them such a huge helping hand in the historic teams payout aka the Ferrari tax, that it's probably worth more than the help they give merc.)
i really like these chain bear videos. as someone who's not brilliant but a racing/car enthusiast these are very informative, digestible and i feel like i genuinely learned something i'll retain everytime.
You people seem to forget that tires behave as FIA decides. If the Pirellis have such parameters is because they were so asked, not because they can’t do any better.
As much as I respect Chain Bear, some things are exaggerated here. 1) Schumacher's 6 wins didn't get favoured because of the change in point system and consistency got "overly" favoured - If Schumacher was brilliant in winning those 6 races, he also had his terrible lows that year, crashing in Brazil, colliding with Trulli in Malaysia and spoiling his race, being slower than Barrichello in Nurburgring , Great Britain where Barrichello won the race and Schumacher was only 4th whereas the absolute stinker showdown with Raikkonen where he finished a lowly 8th where Barrichello won the race. If those crucial mistakes and lows were not there, Schumacher would've won the championship comfortably . 2) Williams and Mclaren were brought to the title fight that year - No, Williams and Ferrari had the right to fight for that championship that year, Mclaren didn't. Williams overall had the fastest car that year on the grid , with Ferrari the second fastest after there new car was launched. Mclaren before the new car of Ferrari was launched was arguably the 2nd fastest, but afterwards, they had no right for fighting for championship where Raikkonen's brilliant performances kept him in the hunt for the championship as evident from the performances of DC in the same car as Mclaren couldn't even release there new car 3) After the rule change, the championship was " over" as Ferrari went on to win 3 straight victories - Again did he even watch that season? Schumacher/ Ferrari were only dominant and you could say " benifitted " by the rule change in Monza, but in Indianapolis and Japan, Raikkonen and Montoya should've won the race. Schumacher got saved by the semi- wet conditions where Bridgestone intermediates were far superior to Michelin wets as evident from the performances of Button and Frentzen and " stole " that victory from Raikkonen. In Japan, Montoya was looking set for victory when his engine exploded while leading. So no, that wasn't as dominant as he is portraying. The only thing I can agree with his video was Michelin - Bridgestone appeal, except that it was just a consequence of Ferrari not producing the fastest overall car that year and Raikkonen's brilliant performances .
I would like to contest about your notion that Michael got saved by the weather because during qualifying for Japan, he went out when the track was starting to get wet and thus forcing him to only lined up in 14th instead of near the front. And that ultimately led to a series of troubles as he had to content with the antiques of Sato and Da Matta in the midfield. Eventually, he managed to get the job done albeit clumsily. At Indy, during the initial phase of the rainfall, Schumi struggle with the car so much that JPM easily breezes by on the last corner due to Michael having to lift off the throttle. By the time the track had stabilised slightly, Michael was already down in 6th and having to work his way to the front. Yes, Montoya could easily won the race but he did not help himself when he decide to get into a tussle with Rubens which led to Juan getting a drive through
@@theempires5 I would probably agree with you on Japan, but still his race was nothing incredible or special I would say from that grid slot, which suggests to me that Williams and even Renault were faster than Ferrari in that race. But still he got into incidents with Ralf and Da Matta in the race and barely made into 8th position when his teammate won a comfortable race. I don't agree with US gp though, Schumacher was slower than Barrichello in qualifying. The only thing he did well was stay out of any kind of trouble. Barrichello was hit by Montoya, because of which Montoya deservedly got the penalty and also Montoya made a terrible start from the grid. After the rain hit the track and it was semi- wet conditions, and Bridgestone intermediates were a far superior tyre than Michelin Wets and still somehow Raikkonen pushed the car to 2nd position and kept his championship hopes alive. So he was heavily favoured by that. Thus, I don't see how Ferrari " won 3 races in a row and won the championships " because it wasn't as easy as it sounds.
Saw chain bear and instantly clicked! His videos are amazing :) well done. Without this video, I wouldn’t have found out about this, so thank you Autosport and Chain Bear
While I'm a Kimi fan, even recently named my new cat Kimi, I don't agree. Sure, Kimi was impressive and very consistent, and would have won it if it wasn't the one engine failure he had. But that's the thing, if then it wasn't for Schumacher's other miss-fortunes that year, which were more, title might have been wrapped up by the season break.
Just a little correction: it's true indeed that the Michelin were better performing on high temperature conditions (from San Marino GP to Hungarian GP), but confronting the overall points scored it's misleading. Due to the fact that Bridgestone supplied just one competitive team (the Ferrari itself), while Michelin had 3 top teams (McLaren, Williams and Renault).
saine414 Kimi was a beast in his McLaren days shame the reliability stopped him being champion in 03 and 05 he really should be a triple world champion
@@dxfifa This wasn't a cheat. Ferrari knew from 2002 already what was the structure of the tyre. So they started the season being ok with it, and when they started losing ground to Williams, right before Monza they protested. And the then pro-Ferrari FIA of course mandated that tyres should be changed. Of course so late in the season, the teams that designed the car with that tyre in mind couldn't bring updates to counter the loss of grip
Bring back the tire war, and refueling. Both will add multiple options to a race strategy, which is totally missing today. Pitting for the undercut isn't the same as starting on 1/2 fuel tanks and having some excitement, instead of what we have today.
F1 is supposed to be all about pushing tech and boundaries... my feeling is that 1 tyre manufacturer just simply gives the FIA control (again) and stunts innovation. Your example of 2003 is a great case in point - where it added drama and intrigue. Personally I think asking Michelin to change so quickly was unfair to their teams, but otherwise it did create better racing. Why not have 4 tyre manufacturers on the grid? Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin and ?.. give another manufacturer a chance to experiment and try new tech.
@therreal Steeevo What if teams were allowed to make, under emergencies (like USA 2005 or if one tire is extremely disadvantaged or advantaged) that makes a competitive team uncompetitive, make mid-season changes or even at a race if possible? That way if one tire does extremely badly or if another USA 2005 happens there's no huge negative? Not sure if it would work or not, just an idea.
I think one tire manufacturer is probably the best way to go about it. You raised excellent points about how teams could just get screwed if they choose the wrong tire, and I know the engine is the same situation, but that feels different somehow.
Awesome video, I remember this story very well. In addition: I am not really a fan of tyre war. Because whatever tyres they bring up, they do all look the same. I am more a fan of competition in engine department (with more diverse engines as they had in the mid 80's, early 90's or in WEC from '14-'17) or in aerodynamics developement (e.g. 2009-2012), because this leads to clearly more diversed cars.
I'm a bit torn on how I felt about tbe tyre wars, as yeah it gave advantages and disadvantages to teams, but that constant development race is part of why F1 was so much more fun back then.
Yeah but then someone could also say the higher the gap the more rewards for a driver who wins a race and then DNF vs a driver who finishes 3rd and 5th within 2 races. I think it's very subjective and it's about what your definition of a champion is. Is the champion a driver/team who is more consistent or a driver/team who wins more races over the course of the season. I feel the current system gives a good balance of both as someone who wins then DNF gets 25pts but someone who finishes 3rd and 5th also gets 25pts cumulatively.
yeah. 1st and 2nd gap is too big. 7 points??. i know that 1st and podium position must be rewarded, but 7 points gap is just too wide. 5 points gap is acceptable
A manufacturer designs their tyres so that they increase the contact surface during the race against a rule that specifies the exact contact surface area. And all of a sudden the other manufacturer finding out this situation and bringing out to attention gets bashed and the decision made as a result to prohibit teams cheating gets percepted as scandal.. That makes so much sense thank you..
Well, it wasn't exactly outlawed and F1 is just as much, if not more, about finding loopholes then developing the car. The main issue was the timing of the rule change with no time for most teams to change and with the season nearly over. They should've changed the rule by 2004 but, in my opinion, let Michelin keep the same tire and allow Bridgestone to change their tire to do the same thing if they choose, that way no one is significantly disadvantaged and if they are its from their own decisions (if Bridgestone decided to change it obviously). At that point, it appeared Bridgestone and Ferrari were doing anything to try and slow down the other teams instead of making their own car faster.
"let Michelin keep the same tire and allow Bridgestone to change their tire to do the same thing if they choose, that way no one is significantly disadvantaged" If it was done like you said, they would disregard the disadvantage that Bridgestone users had throughout almost the whole season. Michelin tried to find out a loophole yes, but it was against a spesific rule and they were forced to pay the price for that just for 3 races not the whole season. It would be plain unjust the other way around. "At that point, it appeared Bridgestone and Ferrari were doing anything to try and slow down the other teams instead of making their own car faster." Public opinion was forced to perceive like this by Michelin and the Michelin using teams. But actually what was happening was a party finding out that the opposition party is acting outside the rules and bringing it out to attention. "The main issue was the timing of the rule change with no time for most teams to change and with the season nearly over." Rule changed just after the illegality was found. It's timing on the race calendar is just luck. It didn't leave Michelin and Michelin users enough time to take action but it's the price they had to pay because they had unfair advantage the whole season. If there's an evidence that shows Bridgestone and Ferrari knew about the situation the whole season it would be an another discussion for sure. Then we could talk about the timing. But there's nothing to show that. With these types of arguments we are missing the fundamental point of the situation. Which was Michelin trying to find out a loophole to improve performance but got caught. It's just simple as that.
@@cemcantekin It was a loophole that they used and technically was allowed, which in most scenarios in F1 they fix the loophole for the next season if it will have a huge impact which is the issue with timing and everything else etc. Otherwise, yes I agree with what you said, but F1 is about technicalities in development and the technicalities allowed the tires originally, F1 didn't say they were illegal but instead changed the regulations to make them illegal that's the difference for me. At the time that's what Ferrari did a lot of, and now it's Mercedes which I think possibly has a little to do with Brawn be a bit dodgy but that's pure speculation more than anything and probably incorrect, which is what upset most people. Look at all the hate Mercedes gets now for much smaller rule changes.
@@sparqqling No, he wasn't, he was blocking Michael during the first stints because during the V10 era, the Renault cars had better traction and the Renault V10 engine had more torque than the others.
Would be nice to see more than one supplier but for a twist have the teams pick the tyres in Friday practice after they have tried out the tyres from the suppliers on a first come first served basis so if back field team get its choice in ahead of the front runners tough.
Aah I remembered this season. My local motorsport pundit reported that Michelin tires had "V-shaped" tread, while Bridgestone's had conventional "U-shaped" tread. Michelin's tread shape made the tires more grippy toward the end of their lives (as the tread got shallower, the tires' contact patch got wider).
@@jamesstone123 The 2006 Ferrari was faster than Renault esp down the straights. Renault started out faster but by race 4 Michael and Ferrari had caught up. Also, JPM was fast at times but the guy was a loose cannon with an even worst temper.
It would be nice if the teams could choose from several tyre providers each race. Maybe one brand would find better results on wet, other on softs and other on hards. It would up for teams to find the best performing tyre for the day. Eventually one tyre brand would show dominace and the teams would tend to use it. It would be great marketing for the dominant tyre brand. Fair competition between tyre manufactures would increase development of tyres which pretty much do not exist right now.
Have two tire suppliers develop a range of tires to fixed specifications, just as Pirelli does now. Teams select tires per race, just as they currently do for the distribution of compounds, but now they also have a choice of supplier. This then becomes a team strategy issue, picking the right supplier as well as the right compound. They could even mix and match, say the Pirelli soft suits their car, but the other brand's medium works better for them. This should add more variability, as an underdog team that picked the right tire when others didn't could shine, but also means there isn't the downsides of being locked into getting tires from the worst supplier. If one of the manufacturers completely messes up on their tires, the teams can simply select the other manufacturers tires and no harm done.
I don't see this tire regulation change as the main reason that Ferrari won the last three races that year. In Monza Montoya really gave Schumi a push throughout the race, and Ferrari had been strong in high-speed circuits like Canada that year. At Indianapolis, Kimi was on pole with Schumi only 7th, it was the SUPER Bridgestone intermediate tyres that helped Schumi win that chaotic race. And Suzuka, the qualifying was also heavily impacted by rain, with Schumacher 14th and Kimi 8th. And I remember Montoya easily passed pole-man Barrichello at the start of the race, but his car broke down. So actually the Michelin teams were still very competitive, it was a mix-up of many aspects that helped Schumi win the title.
Very good analysis, evidence as to why F1 should not have multiple tire suppliers. Putting aside the excitement of the season, the final championship outcome post the rule clarification proves the season results were due a tire manufacturer. That's part of the F1 equation that should not determine either the constructors or drivers championship. With a single tire supplier, currently Pirelli, whether their tires are good or bad is a mute point when deciding winners and losers. Everyone is on the same tire and kudos to teams that use the tire better than others. That's competition in F1 and is fair.
To add to this - the Michelin tire war was the deciding force behind the 2005 Alonso WDC with Renault. Thereby ending the Schumacher Ferrari domination... I believe the tire wars were a net positive. Love to see more of it
Mashiat99 If that’s true then where’s the big rule change designed to stop the 5 straight titles for Mercedes? If anything it got worse this year with the tyres.
@@fulldump9834 Because what regulation can you introduce that will knock Mercedes off the pedestal? Honestly, answer that. They have been the best team in 3 different regs now, 2014-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-
It's a very good thing we only have 1 tyre supplier. Otherwise the midfield teams will never be able to close the gap to the big 3 anymore. And without competition pirelli can focus on designing the tyres in a way that leads to exciting races
The one point not mentioned here is that a tire war creates more interest and relevance. With a single supplier all Pirelli has to do is not make a bad tire, but if they had competition from Michelin, Bridgestone, Continental, whoever, that creates a comparison and competition between the two, forcing them to not just make a tire that's good enough. With mandated tolerances geared towards creating good, safe competition, now fans can cheer on their tire provider of choice, and get the benefit of that data on their road car. And if F1 attracted more than just two suppliers, you would have more cars getting tires designed for them, less teams likely to be negatively affected by a manufacturing snafu (side note, imagine if ALL the tires at the '05 American GP had been Michelin), and with the current model, likely feeder teams would get some benefit from their engine supplier's relationship. It would need to be carefully regulated for sure, but I think the biggest gains would be in fan interest, something every motorsport needs right now.
The biggest problem was the FIA demanding that the tires fall apart quickly. This was stupid and typical of the FIA. I so wish the FOA had gone off and ran the series without the FIA as they threatened to do at one time.
And people talk shit about Pirelli as in they are horrible which they aren't. They can make tires last 500 laps if they want to, it's just those idiots at FIA don't want F1 to have tires that can live many laps. FIA + Ecc...
could you next make the 1999 season? I mean that time mclaren was superior and schumacher broke his leg yet the championship are absolute carnage down to the wire
When it’s listing which driver won which race and you’re there thinking “blimey how many drivers were names Schumacher in 2001?!” 🤦♂️ Edit: *Named not “names”
you mentioned that the points system change was intended to make the championship closer. related to that, i'd like to know whether the current point system is good in that regard. it seems like the fact that the top three get so many more points than everyone else the gap in points between the top teams and the rest of the pack is much greater? or is that just me?
Michelins tyres were designed to give a bigger contact patch deeper into a stint providing superior grip to the Bridgestone shod runners. They got away with it for all but three races. How this isn't a huge scandal i do not know. They wouldn't have been asked to change their tyres if they were within the regulations. They were not.
They should stick with one concept of tyre for at least 5 years. Every time they change concept and teams have to work really hard to adapt their cars to the new tires. If they stay on the same concept for a good amount of time, no team will complain about them and they will be focusing more on car upgrades than adapting the car to the tyres
In the WEC you get pretty good competition from multiple tyre suppliers (excluding LMP1 of course). It just goes to show that a sole supplier is not always the best option.
Control tyres make sense. You level the playing field in this extremely complex area, and force teams to make their car work well with the tyres they are given. Rather than build whatever they like and have the tyre company focus all their efforts on a sole entrant as with the likes of Bridgestone and Ferrari back in the day.
Chain Bear. It would be a Very Interesting video regarding how does repairs from crashes takes place, sometimes in such short periods of time. Thank You.
Each team and tyre partner gets x amount of money to make some tyres at various softness at the start of the year they are all then given to the fia to be distributed at each race and allow 3 updates during the year
A tire war just doesn't make sense anymore because F1 isn't actually pushing tire companies to innovate in creating the best performaning and durable tire. F1 restricting Pirelli's durability with artificially accelerated tire wear in cliffs to push increased tire strategy racing variety is an example of this.
"But one tyre manufacturer will bring stability and equality to the sport!" Yeah, sure. Just like it's not possible for a manufacturer to take bribes and give out the info of the tyres to a contender before anybody has the time to prepare. *Cough Cough* GOODYEAR *Cough cough* FIRESTONE *Cough Cough*
Id like the combination between the current tire rules with multiple tire suppliers. So x weeks before the race the teams decide on the tires. But not only type, also brand. There should be strict rules against specific agreements between teams and tire suppliers, and the basic size of the tires should be strictly regulated. But then maybe the first stint of a race would be on Pirelli softs, with the second stint on Michelin hards.
Tire wars are a horrible idea for all the negative reasons Chain Bear explained. Perrelli should simplify the tires even further with only 5 (actually 5) tires compounds available; hard, medium soft, intermediate and wet. No C-1,2,3,4, bs! Yes, too much tire talk and a tire war would make things so much worse.
I see it in a slightly different way... Schumacher was very good in the first 3/4ths of the season, to reap the most from his less performant Bridgestone tyres... the difference in points btw Bridgestone and the "slightly irregular" Michelin is really emblematic. Then the trick from Michelin was discovered and they paid the price for the advantage they got for the majority of the championship... that's how competition works. Regarding the tyre competition, it surely would be a further element of variability added to the mix, but I think the most importante trans of each tyre manifacturer would mold the tyres to their needs... as Mercedes does to Pirellis since 2014
Man, seeing that a new video of yours has been posted is such a nice moment. I always appreciate the calming and sultry tones of your voice. One of the best motorsport channels around.
This was also the reason Renault took EZ championship in 2005, even though the soft sidewalls made the US grand prix impossible for the Michelin teams...
Really interesting - any chance of discussing other times the rules were quickly changed mid-season? For example the banning of the tuned mass dampers Renault used in 2006. Also I recall reading aromatic fuels were banned midway through 1992.
Rules state the tires must be within the allowed dimensions at all times. Tires were normally only inspected before races but when it was brought to ferraris attention that michelin tires might be widening during races, they had the right to ask they be inspected after the race. Michelin teams didnt have a leg to stand on.
I think each team should have a bingo lottery of where all the types of tires are in a pot so C1, C2, C3 etc. They pick out three types and they must use those three for the weekend. It would spice up practice as they would have to see how the tires react at certain circuits and it would massively change the stragety for each team
In 2017 Pirelli brought in the wider-spec tyres into F1 and immediately Mercedes had problems heating them up whilst Ferrari didn't. Event though Mercedes won that years constructors and drivers championship it proved to be a more competitive season with Ferrari and Red Bull getting more chances at winning and suddenly, they switch back the smaller tyres. Reason? Mercedes complained that they could not heat them up properly whilst everyone else could. It is a bit suspicious isn't it...
7:03 It could add flavor without ill effects if it's done well: Instead of contracts the teams should order arbitrary compounds of arbitrary tire suppliers for all races. With some reasonable order deadline and quantity limit of course.
2003 was one of the greatest seasons of formula 1 🏎 of all time Micheal Schumacher proved that he is the greatest of all time by winning a record braking 6th world 🌍 title in a Ferrari car that wasn’t that great that year The racing was epic full of drama and made you feel like you had to be on the edge of your seat every second All in all WHAT A MAGNIFICENT SEASON
I would’ve liked the FIA to introduce 18” wheels sooner or for them to just extend Pirelli until the 18’s were introduced. Then opened up the contract to other suppliers, let’s see what Yokohama or Hankook could’ve done as sole supplier
I think instead of a tire war, the FIA should make all teams run on different companies tyres each race. Make all teams run bridgestoens one race, michellins next and so on. Shake up these teams oh so perfect set ups
Well if having more than one tyre supplier is problem because it brings differences between teams, maybe we should have only one engine supplier too (costs have escalated there too and are much more expensive than tyres). An spec series would show the best driver, but multiple manufacturers and suppliers show the best package, that is more in line with F1 history
Unpopular opinion: Barrichello could’ve been a proper title contender in 2003 if not for the engine failure in Brazil, suspension problem in Hungary, and clash with Ralf Schumacher. He outperformed Michael at times, especially late in the season, his performance in Silverstone was legendary.
The fact that whenever Ferarri felt threatened in that decade suddenly lead to an FIA ruling, or random and ruthless penalties to it's competitors says a lot. Alonso got hit hard in Monza 06, and let's not forget Hamilton in Spa in 08. Ferarri were always quick run to daddy when they're not getting what they want.
You are really funny. A little biased or just misinformed and clueless? The 2003 rules were designed to curb Ferrari's dominance. Ferrari's F2002 due to the technologies they had developed (including a tank that allowed the center of gravity of the car to shift backwards during the race to counteract the natural oversteer that occurs during the race) and the far forward weight distribution that could be modified with more weight (lighter chassis construction etc). great advantages the car perfect for qualifying (more weight forward) and for racing (more weight backwards). The rule changes for 2003 were introduced so late that nothing could be modified, which greatly benefited other teams, but took away this advantage from Ferrari. The 2003 rule changes were clearly designed to weaken Ferrari and take away the advantages of their concept. And thanks to the late introduction, Ferrari was prevented from changing anything. 2005 was even clearer. Ferrari's concept was that of a sprint car, small tank, multiple pit stops, tires with high degradation but plenty of grip. Bridgestone built cross-ply tires, which had big disadvantages in wear compared to Michelin's radial tires. This is by design and everyone knows it. Just the fact that in 2005 they introduced tires for which the Bridgestones were completely unsuitable while the Michelins had the perfect construction and philosophy (and were partly already developed for this, because Michelin often did not change the front tires in 2004!) shows very clearly that these rules were completely aimed at harming Ferrari. If you also know that the diffuser was strongly cut, the area in which Ferrari had great advantages thanks to its innovative, miniaturized and perfectly integrated rear end and gearbox because you could let it rise earlier and steeper, you see clearly that these rules of the FIA were a pure construct against Ferrari. So this "FIA has always helped Ferrari" is total nonsense. And can only come from people who a) don't look and think carefully b) who have no idea about technology and developments or c) who are simply biased and believe the equally biased crap that some media and people circulate. Especially Ron Dennis was predestined for this, where the team that beat his McLaren team has always cheated... And to your phrase "Ferrari were always quick to run to Daddy" - it was McLaren and Ron Dennis or Patrick Head and Williams who were always complaining and running to Daddy, if you want to use that expression (which is equally stupid). 1998 - Ferrari does something illegal with the brakes. Finally, Ferrari had a spring installed that delayed the "let go" allowing them to do just that...completely legal and then copied by McLaren. 2001 Drum-Brakes-Intakes - Ferrari could hide a fan in it. They didn't. Head put one in the 2002 Williams instead when he and all the other teams copied the drum-break intakes as they were called then, which are still used today. 1998-2001 Ferrari has traction control - they didn't. They just had a separate "throttle" per cylinder bank that used clever legal engine electronics to make the engine more drivable along with other legal things like ignition timing control, etc. After the introduction of traction control Ferrari's lead became bigger instead of smaller, which clearly shows that it couldn't have been Ferrari that had traction control.... so instead of believing all the nonsense that was constantly being spouted by the British F1 media at the time, especially thanks to Ron Dennis, it's better to look at the facts and make up your own mind. And the facts speak for themselves and show very clearly that this was nothing more than propaganda/mind ganmes and politics. Which by the way belongs to F1 like racing and qualifying. Therefore the expression "quick to run to Daddy" is also something that only shows that the above mentioned a, b or c is the case with you. Regarding propaganda/mind games and politics, everyone had their own methods. And I prefer in fact the way Ferrari took at that time if something was, like 2003 with the Michelin tires, to ask the FIA for clarification instead of constantly accusing others of cheating in press conferences and interviews. The Ferrari way is by the way common practice today... which is also the reason why there are hardly any more public accusations of cheating, as it was common back then thanks to Dennis and Head.
10-8-6. It was changed because it was widely thought that it didn't reward race winner as much as it should. Only 2 points difference between 1st and 2nd. Same amount of point difference as with 7th and 9th, which, fair to say, wasn't that good. I guess the best system was the pre-2002. 10 for the win, 6 for the 2nd, 4 for the 3rd, and so on.
Dark times in your head shadowing the favouritism towards the English teams... And let's not start with Spygate, which McLaren still benefitted in designing it's 2018 winning car off it.
For what I've seen (I've taken 4 years away from my Formula 1 adiction) this one tyre manufacturer rule is more damaging than anything ever before. The last races have been a burden to watch since most the drivers are more focused on saving their tyres than drive fast and overtake each other. Another thing is thtat tyre walls are really thin these days, hardly any race contact goes by without a puncture. So IMO all tyre manufacturers who wanted should be allowed to showcase in Formula 1. There were times when we had 3 tyre manufacturers... If FIA wants "normalization" build an engine, a chassis and every team races the same...
if you want tyre unpredictability then slash the amount of time teams get to use race tyres during a weekend. Give them generic compounds to use in practice that won't be used in the race, and deny them that data that allows them to map the race out to the nth degree. As seen again this year, races where race day has significantly different temperatures or conditions to the rest of the weekend produce unpredictable strategies and better races.
that little showing of mercedes dominance was hilarouis!
The data sample is miss leading tbf. The merc sample takes the horrors (or joy for me :) of the 2014-16 seasons and combines that with the 17 and 18 seasons which haven't been too bad.
If chainbear was trying to get dominance across he should have just used 14-16. It takes into account one one extra season compared to the 01-02 pie chart and paints a cleared picture
@@danielo7985 also the math looked wrong. If you look at the wins ferrari had in 2001 and 2002, it looked like more than 59%. It's 24 wins out of 34 which is 70%. He said 20 but it's 24, I just counted it twice. Michael and Rubens won 24, not 20.
Mercedes are still statistically more dominant than Ferrari ever were. And that doesn't even account for the fact that Ferrari were willing to sacrifice one drivers race to secure a win whereas Mercedes haven't needed to do that for most of the past five season (not that that stopped them in some unnecessary cases)
@@finbarallan hold my "Valtteri, it's James"
@@finbarallan The main reason why the Ferrari era was lots worse. At least Bottas can try to beat Hamilton, and Rosberg on a good day actually challenged/defeated him. Aggravated by Ecclestone's latest money grubbing idea of not showing on-board footage at all for years, and keeping them for a paid service.
I was napping a lot at that time, during races.
2019: F1 is too dependent on tyres
2003: hold my michlaan
Quick Five Michelin 😂
*michlaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan*
It's a French tire manufacturer, isn't it? So how is his pronunciation wrong?
@@raffa4456 It's nothing new. People moaned when Murray Walker started pronouncing Ayrton the Brazilian way, not the Anglicised way.
@@GetOverHereMK Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
F1 2010....5 drivers fighting for the championship, what a season that was...
And the even more infamous season that was 2012
2012 tho😍7 different winners in the first 7 races
Lee Terry even Pastor bagged himself a win
@64Fabby Brazil 2012, all time classic
Regatta69 and Abu Dhabi 2010
Kimi's engine failure at Nurburgring cost him the title that year . Remarkable that Kimi only finished 2pts behind Michael in a slightly updated 2002 car is quite something . Also Schumacher's WDC that year was also saved by the fact the rain came at Indianapolis on race day and meant Schumacher could exploit Bridgestone's then far superior intermediate tyre. to make up for a bad qualifying Without the rain in the US GP he may have lost the WDC.
Had Kimi kept his Brazil GP win is also another point to talk but its overshadowed by the fact a Jordan won it which everyone likes but definitely cost Kimi the title
@Alan Ali 11 yeah true but you know, Kimi deserves 2003 than anyone else.
@@aghilesharasu3077 bwoah
I have to disagree. Schumacher won more races than Kimi in 2003. In 2005 although he was the faster driver with the faster car and could not win the WDC due to all Mclaren's reliability issues. That year was painfull to watch, at least he went to Ferrari and won in 2007.
@@joaolima120 Schumacher won more races because he had the fastest car(walks all over McLaren) and had a lot experience. Kimi was amazing the whole year despite a minor mistake in Canada. He almost won the championship with ONE win. He was so consistent and that's why I believe he deserves it more.
That cheeky pie-chart at 1:13 though 😂
Add 2019 and it'll be 85%
That pie chart highlighted the sorry state of F1 dominance currently carried out by Merc.
The data sample is miss leading tbf. The merc sample takes the horrors (or joy for me :) of the 2014-16 seasons and combines that with the 17 and 18 seasons which haven't been too bad.
If chainbear was trying to get dominance across he should have just used 14-16. It takes into account one one extra season compared to the 01-02 pie chart and paints a cleared picture
Daniel O the chart for 17/18/19 would still look bad enough
The formula is the same for everybody, they could always do better and invest more in their personnel. Rules have been changed twice and Mercedes have done their homework. That's life.
@eoe123321 That's not true though, Red Bull won 68% of all races back in 2013.
And while you are not wrong and Mercedes is certainly more dominant , stats do not always tell the whole story. I would argue that Red Bull should have won much more races in 2010 and 2011 as well but made quite a lot of mistakes (at least in 2010 but partially in 2011 as well though Vettel was flawless in 2011)
@@jagenaught They can't (most of them). Mercedes can just poor billions, because since they keep winning it comes back, and that's not counting the positive PR it creates for them. Only the two other top teams have similar budgets. But Ferrari is not a big car-industry complex like Mercedes, and certainly not as well organized. And Red Bull only has the F1 team, which needs to source engines.
Less focus on tyres. Goodyear seemed to have it right back in the early-mid 90's when they were the sole supplier. Hardly got mentioned unless one exploded in spectacular fashion.
_Manzell_
Which I guess was the problem for them - what is the benefit of being in F1 if only your failures get publicity?
I have another theory about Michelin's miraculous 3 week turnaround time - they knew they were bending the rules and so had the other spec already ready in case they were found out. That would also explain their eagerness to comply without protest.
Thats not bad of an idea
Or they are that good and just changed the sidewall tire mixture in order to make it stiffer. They don´t have to change the tooling or the molds, it´s all about the rubber components really.
knowing how companies operate this is probably the truth. it doesn't have to be nefarious its just about having a backup and knowing the nature of f1 politics. Everyone pushes the rules where they can it seems
I think the best era of tyres were the early 2010s tyre-cliff ones. Non-linear degradation allowed full racing of the tyre constantly, and introduced a nail-biting decision of when to pit, because the tyre would *suddenly* become several seconds slower a lap.
So, with recourse to safety, and avoidance of blowouts if possible, tyre-cliff single-supplier tyres are best, imo
Regit seriously? the early 2010 were bullshit. Worst ever in relation to tyres. It was a lottery, not racing...if degradation of tyres is not linear, but just a matter of getting a better or worser tyre - that has nothing to do with racing...its a lottery. And winning races or championships is a matter of luck or bad luck. And that is not what racing is about...
Damn...we should have had a few years of JPM vs Kimi vs Alonso after Schumi retired...bad decisions and bad cars robbed us of that
we had vettel and hamilton instead lol
JPM might have been fast at times but he was a loose cannon though. His temper often got in the way. Kimi was burdened with Mclaren's unreliability. Mclaren may have been faster but it was also unreliable. But Alonso vs Shumi was epic esp in 2006 since the two cars were evenly matched (in fact the Ferrari ended up being faster in the straights).
@@danielstark7239 AKA dominant cars.
teams in 2003 "theres always next year!"
*F2004 has entered that chat*
I remember the press conference when Ross Brawn at the time was detailing why he had asked the FIA to change the tyre compounds, and I just remember what Patrick Head had said to his face: "Ross, we've been racing with the exact same tyres since 2001. Why are you complaining about it now?"
Because they only found out about it now?
@@tl8211 They had been using those tyres for fricking ages, yet when Ferrari start losing, they look to complain. Ferrari were perfectly fine with the Michelin tyres for the whole 2002 season, yet only 'asked for confirmation' on the tyres when it was looking likely for them to lose the championship.
@@thomaslucock8066 They literally only found about the problem with the tyre walls in 2003. It's not like Michelin was announcing they were using a very suspicious interpretation of the rules (at best).
@@thomaslucock8066 even if they only reported it because in 2003 they were losing...it was illegal, so it was absolutely right to ban those tyres
Patrick Head's question is as superfluous as it is hypocritical. Because for one thing - when a team does something illegal but despite that doesn't pose a threat (as was the case in 2001 and 2002 with any Michelin Team from Ferraris point of view), you don't complain. Why should you? You beat these teams in spite of it. Instead, you play that trump card only when you have to. That is, when one of these teams suddenly pose a threat. So Head's comment is superfluous, because the answer is obvious. Why should I slow down a slower competitor who is not a threat in any way? That would be stupid. Instead I save this trump for when I need it, namely when he gets faster and suddenly poses a threat to me. And this has always been common practice in F1 and Head wouldn't have done it any other way. So his question is pure hypocrisy. But that's nothing new either. In 2001 he complained because Ferrari's new drum-brake intakes could hide a fan...which they didn't. And grumbled about it...only to actually and himself put some kind of fan underneath in 2002.
We need this point system back for 2021 regulation for better title fights. Maybe a little change with
1st-15pts
2nd-12pts
3rd-10pts
4th-8
5th-6
6th-5
7th-4
8th-3
9th-2
10th-1
Or something like that. It'll really bring competition much closer even in the midfield
1 2 4 8 10 14 18 22 26 30 (last to first) and 2pts for fastest lap
10th-first*
Oh dear, how short is your memory? What will happen is the drivers in 2nd and 3rd place will *turn their engine down* and just coast to the finish line as there's no incentive to chase 1st place since there isn't much points difference. You gotta give them a reason to keep racing until the end, that's why the FIA also re-introduced the extra point for the driver who gets the *fastest lap.*
Back? This was never a point system in F1 as far as I can recall.
If the points don’t reward a win significantly over other positions, you’ll cheapen the value of a win (as you make it more likely that a driver will settle for second in their championship fight).
Back in pre-2003 days, winning a race alone was significant for a championship, ever since, it’s lost that emphasis.
@3:08 Fernando Alonso actually lapped Michael on his way to his first win.
GigglingChinchilla then he was almost a whole lap ahead of everybody the year after
Imagine if they hadn’t won 2003. What would’ve the impact been?
Williams deserved it.. Ferrari are cheats
Schumacher 6 time world champion Kimi 2 time world champion.
Montoya would have been champion.. Kimi is over-rated.. he should have won 2005 instead of 2007..
@@tydawidowski6245 Cheats? Have you watched the Video Mate? Michelin cheated in 03 not ferrari
Tyson John Dawidowski McLaren and Williams also cheat
They don't call the FIA, "Ferrari International Assistance" for nothing.
@eoe123321 it's nowhere near as bad as it was when they were supporting Ferrari (tbh they still give them such a huge helping hand in the historic teams payout aka the Ferrari tax, that it's probably worth more than the help they give merc.)
i really like these chain bear videos. as someone who's not brilliant but a racing/car enthusiast these are very informative, digestible and i feel like i genuinely learned something i'll retain everytime.
I’m down for bringing back Bridgestone as the sole supplier.
Sole supplier? How's that going to change anything for the better?
The fact that it's Bridgestone, that's how.
@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva and they'll do what the FIA wants them to like Pirelli is doing right now
@@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva yeah right let's bring back the tire that lasts a complete race in one stint sounds like a smart idea
You people seem to forget that tires behave as FIA decides. If the Pirellis have such parameters is because they were so asked, not because they can’t do any better.
As much as I respect Chain Bear, some things are exaggerated here.
1) Schumacher's 6 wins didn't get favoured because of the change in point system and consistency got "overly" favoured - If Schumacher was brilliant in winning those 6 races, he also had his terrible lows that year, crashing in Brazil, colliding with Trulli in Malaysia and spoiling his race, being slower than Barrichello in Nurburgring , Great Britain where Barrichello won the race and Schumacher was only 4th whereas the absolute stinker showdown with Raikkonen where he finished a lowly 8th where Barrichello won the race. If those crucial mistakes and lows were not there, Schumacher would've won the championship comfortably .
2) Williams and Mclaren were brought to the title fight that year - No, Williams and Ferrari had the right to fight for that championship that year, Mclaren didn't. Williams overall had the fastest car that year on the grid , with Ferrari the second fastest after there new car was launched. Mclaren before the new car of Ferrari was launched was arguably the 2nd fastest, but afterwards, they had no right for fighting for championship where Raikkonen's brilliant performances kept him in the hunt for the championship as evident from the performances of DC in the same car as Mclaren couldn't even release there new car
3) After the rule change, the championship was " over" as Ferrari went on to win 3 straight victories - Again did he even watch that season? Schumacher/ Ferrari were only dominant and you could say " benifitted " by the rule change in Monza, but in Indianapolis and Japan, Raikkonen and Montoya should've won the race. Schumacher got saved by the semi- wet conditions where Bridgestone intermediates were far superior to Michelin wets as evident from the performances of Button and Frentzen and " stole " that victory from Raikkonen. In Japan, Montoya was looking set for victory when his engine exploded while leading. So no, that wasn't as dominant as he is portraying.
The only thing I can agree with his video was Michelin - Bridgestone appeal, except that it was just a consequence of Ferrari not producing the fastest overall car that year and Raikkonen's brilliant performances .
I would like to contest about your notion that Michael got saved by the weather because during qualifying for Japan, he went out when the track was starting to get wet and thus forcing him to only lined up in 14th instead of near the front. And that ultimately led to a series of troubles as he had to content with the antiques of Sato and Da Matta in the midfield. Eventually, he managed to get the job done albeit clumsily.
At Indy, during the initial phase of the rainfall, Schumi struggle with the car so much that JPM easily breezes by on the last corner due to Michael having to lift off the throttle. By the time the track had stabilised slightly, Michael was already down in 6th and having to work his way to the front. Yes, Montoya could easily won the race but he did not help himself when he decide to get into a tussle with Rubens which led to Juan getting a drive through
@@theempires5 I would probably agree with you on Japan, but still his race was nothing incredible or special I would say from that grid slot, which suggests to me that Williams and even Renault were faster than Ferrari in that race. But still he got into incidents with Ralf and Da Matta in the race and barely made into 8th position when his teammate won a comfortable race.
I don't agree with US gp though, Schumacher was slower than Barrichello in qualifying. The only thing he did well was stay out of any kind of trouble. Barrichello was hit by Montoya, because of which Montoya deservedly got the penalty and also Montoya made a terrible start from the grid. After the rain hit the track and it was semi- wet conditions, and Bridgestone intermediates were a far superior tyre than Michelin Wets and still somehow Raikkonen pushed the car to 2nd position and kept his championship hopes alive. So he was heavily favoured by that. Thus, I don't see how Ferrari " won 3 races in a row and won the championships " because it wasn't as easy as it sounds.
Raikkonen was about to win Nurburgring when his engine gave up
Saw chain bear and instantly clicked! His videos are amazing :) well done. Without this video, I wouldn’t have found out about this, so thank you Autosport and Chain Bear
While I'm a Kimi fan, even recently named my new cat Kimi, I don't agree. Sure, Kimi was impressive and very consistent, and would have won it if it wasn't the one engine failure he had. But that's the thing, if then it wasn't for Schumacher's other miss-fortunes that year, which were more, title might have been wrapped up by the season break.
Just a little correction: it's true indeed that the Michelin were better performing on high temperature conditions (from San Marino GP to Hungarian GP), but confronting the overall points scored it's misleading.
Due to the fact that Bridgestone supplied just one competitive team (the Ferrari itself), while Michelin had 3 top teams (McLaren, Williams and Renault).
2003 should have been Kimi's year. Only 2 year in F1 and Almost beat Shumi in his prime, that says alot.
With a 2 years old car... And two retirements, one of them while leading at the Nurburgring
saine414 Kimi was a beast in his McLaren days shame the reliability stopped him being champion in 03 and 05 he really should be a triple world champion
@@SpFres1 He actually had 3 retirements : Nurburgring, Hockenheim and Spain
@@SpFres1 The Michelin cheating was so bad they allowed a 2002 McLaren to be the best car
@@dxfifa This wasn't a cheat. Ferrari knew from 2002 already what was the structure of the tyre. So they started the season being ok with it, and when they started losing ground to Williams, right before Monza they protested. And the then pro-Ferrari FIA of course mandated that tyres should be changed. Of course so late in the season, the teams that designed the car with that tyre in mind couldn't bring updates to counter the loss of grip
Bring back the tire war, and refueling. Both will add multiple options to a race strategy, which is totally missing today. Pitting for the undercut isn't the same as starting on 1/2 fuel tanks and having some excitement, instead of what we have today.
Tim Linerud the tire war I guess but refueling absolutely not
F1 is supposed to be all about pushing tech and boundaries...
my feeling is that 1 tyre manufacturer just simply gives the FIA control (again) and stunts innovation.
Your example of 2003 is a great case in point - where it added drama and intrigue. Personally I think asking Michelin to change so quickly was unfair to their teams, but otherwise it did create better racing.
Why not have 4 tyre manufacturers on the grid? Pirelli, Bridgestone, Michelin and ?.. give another manufacturer a chance to experiment and try new tech.
@therreal Steeevo What if teams were allowed to make, under emergencies (like USA 2005 or if one tire is extremely disadvantaged or advantaged) that makes a competitive team uncompetitive, make mid-season changes or even at a race if possible? That way if one tire does extremely badly or if another USA 2005 happens there's no huge negative? Not sure if it would work or not, just an idea.
I think one tire manufacturer is probably the best way to go about it. You raised excellent points about how teams could just get screwed if they choose the wrong tire, and I know the engine is the same situation, but that feels different somehow.
Awesome video, I remember this story very well.
In addition: I am not really a fan of tyre war. Because whatever tyres they bring up, they do all look the same.
I am more a fan of competition in engine department (with more diverse engines as they had in the mid 80's, early 90's or in WEC from '14-'17) or in aerodynamics developement (e.g. 2009-2012), because this leads to clearly more diversed cars.
I'm a bit torn on how I felt about tbe tyre wars, as yeah it gave advantages and disadvantages to teams, but that constant development race is part of why F1 was so much more fun back then.
I think the points system nowadays needs to be revised. The lower the gap the more rewards for consistency. Agree?
Yeah but then someone could also say the higher the gap the more rewards for a driver who wins a race and then DNF vs a driver who finishes 3rd and 5th within 2 races. I think it's very subjective and it's about what your definition of a champion is. Is the champion a driver/team who is more consistent or a driver/team who wins more races over the course of the season. I feel the current system gives a good balance of both as someone who wins then DNF gets 25pts but someone who finishes 3rd and 5th also gets 25pts cumulatively.
yeah. 1st and 2nd gap is too big. 7 points??. i know that 1st and podium position must be rewarded, but 7 points gap is just too wide. 5 points gap is acceptable
@@koneksilemot9049 its 7 points to reward winning, which is the whole point of sport
Depends what you want to reward.
Personally, I’d prefer to reward race winners. Nobody gets excited about consistency.
Bring back the pre-2003 system.
But I'm not sure if that's what we want...
Nice work here. Can you make a video on what happened at the end of Monza 2019 Q3
The 1st F1 season I watched and one of the best I've seen in over 15 years of following the sport
A manufacturer designs their tyres so that they increase the contact surface during the race against a rule that specifies the exact contact surface area.
And all of a sudden the other manufacturer finding out this situation and bringing out to attention gets bashed and the decision made as a result to prohibit teams cheating gets percepted as scandal.. That makes so much sense thank you..
Well, it wasn't exactly outlawed and F1 is just as much, if not more, about finding loopholes then developing the car. The main issue was the timing of the rule change with no time for most teams to change and with the season nearly over. They should've changed the rule by 2004 but, in my opinion, let Michelin keep the same tire and allow Bridgestone to change their tire to do the same thing if they choose, that way no one is significantly disadvantaged and if they are its from their own decisions (if Bridgestone decided to change it obviously). At that point, it appeared Bridgestone and Ferrari were doing anything to try and slow down the other teams instead of making their own car faster.
"let Michelin keep the same tire and allow Bridgestone to change their tire to do the same thing if they choose, that way no one is significantly disadvantaged"
If it was done like you said, they would disregard the disadvantage that Bridgestone users had throughout almost the whole season. Michelin tried to find out a loophole yes, but it was against a spesific rule and they were forced to pay the price for that just for 3 races not the whole season. It would be plain unjust the other way around.
"At that point, it appeared Bridgestone and Ferrari were doing anything to try and slow down the other teams instead of making their own car faster."
Public opinion was forced to perceive like this by Michelin and the Michelin using teams. But actually what was happening was a party finding out that the opposition party is acting outside the rules and bringing it out to attention.
"The main issue was the timing of the rule change with no time for most teams to change and with the season nearly over."
Rule changed just after the illegality was found. It's timing on the race calendar is just luck. It didn't leave Michelin and Michelin users enough time to take action but it's the price they had to pay because they had unfair advantage the whole season. If there's an evidence that shows Bridgestone and Ferrari knew about the situation the whole season it would be an another discussion for sure. Then we could talk about the timing. But there's nothing to show that.
With these types of arguments we are missing the fundamental point of the situation. Which was Michelin trying to find out a loophole to improve performance but got caught. It's just simple as that.
@@cemcantekin It was a loophole that they used and technically was allowed, which in most scenarios in F1 they fix the loophole for the next season if it will have a huge impact which is the issue with timing and everything else etc. Otherwise, yes I agree with what you said, but F1 is about technicalities in development and the technicalities allowed the tires originally, F1 didn't say they were illegal but instead changed the regulations to make them illegal that's the difference for me.
At the time that's what Ferrari did a lot of, and now it's Mercedes which I think possibly has a little to do with Brawn be a bit dodgy but that's pure speculation more than anything and probably incorrect, which is what upset most people. Look at all the hate Mercedes gets now for much smaller rule changes.
2004 French GP is an example of brilliant strategy that required refueling and a tire war. Schumacher beats Alonso with 4 pitstops!
Or a display of the F2004's dominance ...
@@SpFres1 They couldn't beat Alonso with a normal strategy on Magny Cours, he was faster.
@@sparqqling No, he wasn't, he was blocking Michael during the first stints because during the V10 era, the Renault cars had better traction and the Renault V10 engine had more torque than the others.
Bridgestone only developed those tyres because of Michelin's cheating leading to the whole midfield going to Michelin
Would be nice to see more than one supplier but for a twist have the teams pick the tyres in Friday practice after they have tried out the tyres from the suppliers on a first come first served basis so if back field team get its choice in ahead of the front runners tough.
Aah I remembered this season. My local motorsport pundit reported that Michelin tires had "V-shaped" tread, while Bridgestone's had conventional "U-shaped" tread. Michelin's tread shape made the tires more grippy toward the end of their lives (as the tread got shallower, the tires' contact patch got wider).
This should've been Montoya's year. He got screwed by the stewards in the US and lost a couple of wins due to reliability throughout the year.
Couldn't agree more. He was one of the only drivers since Mika left who managed to actually fight Schumacher in an arguably worse car. One ballsy man.
Agreed
@@jamesstone123 The 2006 Ferrari was faster than Renault esp down the straights. Renault started out faster but by race 4 Michael and Ferrari had caught up. Also, JPM was fast at times but the guy was a loose cannon with an even worst temper.
It would be nice if the teams could choose from several tyre providers each race. Maybe one brand would find better results on wet, other on softs and other on hards. It would up for teams to find the best performing tyre for the day. Eventually one tyre brand would show dominace and the teams would tend to use it. It would be great marketing for the dominant tyre brand.
Fair competition between tyre manufactures would increase development of tyres which pretty much do not exist right now.
Very nice video. Keep up the good work.
Have two tire suppliers develop a range of tires to fixed specifications, just as Pirelli does now. Teams select tires per race, just as they currently do for the distribution of compounds, but now they also have a choice of supplier. This then becomes a team strategy issue, picking the right supplier as well as the right compound. They could even mix and match, say the Pirelli soft suits their car, but the other brand's medium works better for them. This should add more variability, as an underdog team that picked the right tire when others didn't could shine, but also means there isn't the downsides of being locked into getting tires from the worst supplier. If one of the manufacturers completely messes up on their tires, the teams can simply select the other manufacturers tires and no harm done.
1:14
Wow so true LOL
I don't see this tire regulation change as the main reason that Ferrari won the last three races that year.
In Monza Montoya really gave Schumi a push throughout the race, and Ferrari had been strong in high-speed circuits like Canada that year.
At Indianapolis, Kimi was on pole with Schumi only 7th, it was the SUPER Bridgestone intermediate tyres that helped Schumi win that chaotic race.
And Suzuka, the qualifying was also heavily impacted by rain, with Schumacher 14th and Kimi 8th. And I remember Montoya easily passed pole-man Barrichello at the start of the race, but his car broke down.
So actually the Michelin teams were still very competitive, it was a mix-up of many aspects that helped Schumi win the title.
im so happy that we only have one tyre manufacture these times.
I swear down the FIA need to stop making in-season rule changes, they always make it worse
Very good analysis, evidence as to why F1 should not have multiple tire suppliers. Putting aside the excitement of the season, the final championship outcome post the rule clarification proves the season results were due a tire manufacturer. That's part of the F1 equation that should not determine either the constructors or drivers championship.
With a single tire supplier, currently Pirelli, whether their tires are good or bad is a mute point when deciding winners and losers. Everyone is on the same tire and kudos to teams that use the tire better than others. That's competition in F1 and is fair.
This
To add to this - the Michelin tire war was the deciding force behind the 2005 Alonso WDC with Renault. Thereby ending the Schumacher Ferrari domination...
I believe the tire wars were a net positive. Love to see more of it
The 2005 season was a joke. They made tyres have to last a whole race just to fuck Ferrari on purpose to appease the fans.
@@fulldump9834 Compared to all the times that they made regulations just to help Ferrari win.
Mashiat99 If that’s true then where’s the big rule change designed to stop the 5 straight titles for Mercedes? If anything it got worse this year with the tyres.
@@fulldump9834 Because what regulation can you introduce that will knock Mercedes off the pedestal? Honestly, answer that. They have been the best team in 3 different regs now, 2014-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-
Mashiat99 There’s definitely something that could be done and it would probably be too severe and lead to a bogus championship like 2005.
It's a very good thing we only have 1 tyre supplier. Otherwise the midfield teams will never be able to close the gap to the big 3 anymore. And without competition pirelli can focus on designing the tyres in a way that leads to exciting races
I would like to see a larger gap between the lap times for the Soft and Med tyres, and the Med tyres being able to go much farther. Just a thought.
Bring back tyre wars and refuelling, I think what happened in 03 was exactly what the sport needed. A bit of random is a good thing
The one point not mentioned here is that a tire war creates more interest and relevance. With a single supplier all Pirelli has to do is not make a bad tire, but if they had competition from Michelin, Bridgestone, Continental, whoever, that creates a comparison and competition between the two, forcing them to not just make a tire that's good enough. With mandated tolerances geared towards creating good, safe competition, now fans can cheer on their tire provider of choice, and get the benefit of that data on their road car. And if F1 attracted more than just two suppliers, you would have more cars getting tires designed for them, less teams likely to be negatively affected by a manufacturing snafu (side note, imagine if ALL the tires at the '05 American GP had been Michelin), and with the current model, likely feeder teams would get some benefit from their engine supplier's relationship. It would need to be carefully regulated for sure, but I think the biggest gains would be in fan interest, something every motorsport needs right now.
The biggest problem was the FIA demanding that the tires fall apart quickly. This was stupid and typical of the FIA. I so wish the FOA had gone off and ran the series without the FIA as they threatened to do at one time.
Huh, it actually was the FIA. I always thought it was Ecclestone.
And people talk shit about Pirelli as in they are horrible which they aren't. They can make tires last 500 laps if they want to, it's just those idiots at FIA don't want F1 to have tires that can live many laps. FIA + Ecc...
could you next make the 1999 season? I mean that time mclaren was superior and schumacher broke his leg yet the championship are absolute carnage down to the wire
3:40 - That 2003 McLaren design looks incredible! Shame it never got finished.
Sebastian Vettel has left the chat
When it’s listing which driver won which race and you’re there thinking “blimey how many drivers were names Schumacher in 2001?!” 🤦♂️
Edit: *Named not “names”
Why didn't you just edit the typo 👀
you mentioned that the points system change was intended to make the championship closer. related to that, i'd like to know whether the current point system is good in that regard.
it seems like the fact that the top three get so many more points than everyone else the gap in points between the top teams and the rest of the pack is much greater? or is that just me?
Been like that for many years now.
Michelins tyres were designed to give a bigger contact patch deeper into a stint providing superior grip to the Bridgestone shod runners. They got away with it for all but three races. How this isn't a huge scandal i do not know. They wouldn't have been asked to change their tyres if they were within the regulations. They were not.
They should stick with one concept of tyre for at least 5 years.
Every time they change concept and teams have to work really hard to adapt their cars to the new tires.
If they stay on the same concept for a good amount of time, no team will complain about them and they will be focusing more on car upgrades than adapting the car to the tyres
I agree. Stability helps everyone.
In the WEC you get pretty good competition from multiple tyre suppliers (excluding LMP1 of course). It just goes to show that a sole supplier is not always the best option.
GTE Pro as well.
The only good Autosport content is when it's a Chain Bear video.
1:13 genius 😂
Very cheeky.. Can't blame Mercedes or Lewis for it, same goes for the previous decade with Ferrari and Schumi
Control tyres make sense. You level the playing field in this extremely complex area, and force teams to make their car work well with the tyres they are given. Rather than build whatever they like and have the tyre company focus all their efforts on a sole entrant as with the likes of Bridgestone and Ferrari back in the day.
Chain Bear. It would be a Very Interesting video regarding how does repairs from crashes takes place, sometimes in such short periods of time. Thank You.
Each team and tyre partner gets x amount of money to make some tyres at various softness at the start of the year they are all then given to the fia to be distributed at each race and allow 3 updates during the year
A tire war just doesn't make sense anymore because F1 isn't actually pushing tire companies to innovate in creating the best performaning and durable tire. F1 restricting Pirelli's durability with artificially accelerated tire wear in cliffs to push increased tire strategy racing variety is an example of this.
"But one tyre manufacturer will bring stability and equality to the sport!"
Yeah, sure. Just like it's not possible for a manufacturer to take bribes and give out the info of the tyres to a contender before anybody has the time to prepare.
*Cough Cough* GOODYEAR *Cough cough* FIRESTONE *Cough Cough*
Id like the combination between the current tire rules with multiple tire suppliers. So x weeks before the race the teams decide on the tires. But not only type, also brand. There should be strict rules against specific agreements between teams and tire suppliers, and the basic size of the tires should be strictly regulated. But then maybe the first stint of a race would be on Pirelli softs, with the second stint on Michelin hards.
There needs to be some standardising or baseline to build on and the rubber on the ground is one of those things in my opinion
Tire wars are a horrible idea for all the negative reasons Chain Bear explained. Perrelli should simplify the tires even further with only 5 (actually 5) tires compounds available; hard, medium soft, intermediate and wet. No C-1,2,3,4, bs! Yes, too much tire talk and a tire war would make things so much worse.
I see it in a slightly different way... Schumacher was very good in the first 3/4ths of the season, to reap the most from his less performant Bridgestone tyres... the difference in points btw Bridgestone and the "slightly irregular" Michelin is really emblematic. Then the trick from Michelin was discovered and they paid the price for the advantage they got for the majority of the championship... that's how competition works.
Regarding the tyre competition, it surely would be a further element of variability added to the mix, but I think the most importante trans of each tyre manifacturer would mold the tyres to their needs... as Mercedes does to Pirellis since 2014
Man, seeing that a new video of yours has been posted is such a nice moment. I always appreciate the calming and sultry tones of your voice. One of the best motorsport channels around.
9:53
Or maybe replace Pirelli with a manufacturer with less blunders.
This was also the reason Renault took EZ championship in 2005, even though the soft sidewalls made the US grand prix impossible for the Michelin teams...
McLaren also had Michelin tyres but they had a ton of reliability issues
I actually wish tires like fuel and so on can be purchased by anyone who wants to build and sell some same with any other part of the vehicle
against the f1 philosophy ..which u have to produce at least xx% of all the parts of your own chassis
thats why they have constructors championship
Really interesting - any chance of discussing other times the rules were quickly changed mid-season? For example the banning of the tuned mass dampers Renault used in 2006. Also I recall reading aromatic fuels were banned midway through 1992.
Rules state the tires must be within the allowed dimensions at all times. Tires were normally only inspected before races but when it was brought to ferraris attention that michelin tires might be widening during races, they had the right to ask they be inspected after the race. Michelin teams didnt have a leg to stand on.
We need a point system where every driver get points. So that even Russel and Kubica have a reason to fight until the end of the race.
In thar case they could just make it that the wdc goes to the driver with the best average position
@@merlinbotha363 No, because that would make it lineal. They still should give points exponentially.
I think each team should have a bingo lottery of where all the types of tires are in a pot so C1, C2, C3 etc. They pick out three types and they must use those three for the weekend. It would spice up practice as they would have to see how the tires react at certain circuits and it would massively change the stragety for each team
Even then because they have simulation data and data from previous races they will make similar choices
Would have loved Montoya to have stayed much longer he could have been a champion
In 2017 Pirelli brought in the wider-spec tyres into F1 and immediately Mercedes had problems heating them up whilst Ferrari didn't. Event though Mercedes won that years constructors and drivers championship it proved to be a more competitive season with Ferrari and Red Bull getting more chances at winning and suddenly, they switch back the smaller tyres. Reason? Mercedes complained that they could not heat them up properly whilst everyone else could. It is a bit suspicious isn't it...
Frontrunners International Assistance
I would love to see more than only Pirelli in F1.
i don't think you understand how terrible tire wars are for the sport
7:03
It could add flavor without ill effects if it's done well: Instead of contracts the teams should order arbitrary compounds of arbitrary tire suppliers for all races. With some reasonable order deadline and quantity limit of course.
2003 was one of the greatest seasons of formula 1 🏎 of all time
Micheal Schumacher proved that he is the greatest of all time by winning a record braking 6th world 🌍 title in a Ferrari car that wasn’t that great that year
The racing was epic full of drama and made you feel like you had to be on the edge of your seat every second
All in all WHAT A MAGNIFICENT SEASON
I would’ve liked the FIA to introduce 18” wheels sooner or for them to just extend Pirelli until the 18’s were introduced. Then opened up the contract to other suppliers, let’s see what Yokohama or Hankook could’ve done as sole supplier
Yeah, stick with the sole tyre supplier. On balance, I think it's worked out pretty well.
More competition is always better.
I think instead of a tire war, the FIA should make all teams run on different companies tyres each race. Make all teams run bridgestoens one race, michellins next and so on. Shake up these teams oh so perfect set ups
Well if having more than one tyre supplier is problem because it brings differences between teams, maybe we should have only one engine supplier too (costs have escalated there too and are much more expensive than tyres).
An spec series would show the best driver, but multiple manufacturers and suppliers show the best package, that is more in line with F1 history
Why is it we see tyres spelled as tires sometimes. Which countries do this
Bring back Goodyear Firestone Bridgestone Avon Michelin as tire suppliers in F1
No Dunlop?
How about one cheap Chinese knock off just for fun.
@@Igbon5 , would be funny to see the cheap knock off, out perform the premium 😂
@@Igbon5 Dunlop is owned by Goodyear
@@g3n3ralkim23
Oh well, Bridgestone owns Firestone and Cooper owns Avon.
Unpopular opinion: Barrichello could’ve been a proper title contender in 2003 if not for the engine failure in Brazil, suspension problem in Hungary, and clash with Ralf Schumacher. He outperformed Michael at times, especially late in the season, his performance in Silverstone was legendary.
The fact that he wasn't able to make himself a contender perfectly illustrates why Rubens was always a mediocre performer despite having great talent.
The fact that whenever Ferarri felt threatened in that decade suddenly lead to an FIA ruling, or random and ruthless penalties to it's competitors says a lot. Alonso got hit hard in Monza 06, and let's not forget Hamilton in Spa in 08. Ferarri were always quick run to daddy when they're not getting what they want.
Michelin tires were illegal, period.
You are really funny. A little biased or just misinformed and clueless? The 2003 rules were designed to curb Ferrari's dominance. Ferrari's F2002 due to the technologies they had developed (including a tank that allowed the center of gravity of the car to shift backwards during the race to counteract the natural oversteer that occurs during the race) and the far forward weight distribution that could be modified with more weight (lighter chassis construction etc). great advantages the car perfect for qualifying (more weight forward) and for racing (more weight backwards). The rule changes for 2003 were introduced so late that nothing could be modified, which greatly benefited other teams, but took away this advantage from Ferrari. The 2003 rule changes were clearly designed to weaken Ferrari and take away the advantages of their concept. And thanks to the late introduction, Ferrari was prevented from changing anything. 2005 was even clearer. Ferrari's concept was that of a sprint car, small tank, multiple pit stops, tires with high degradation but plenty of grip. Bridgestone built cross-ply tires, which had big disadvantages in wear compared to Michelin's radial tires. This is by design and everyone knows it. Just the fact that in 2005 they introduced tires for which the Bridgestones were completely unsuitable while the Michelins had the perfect construction and philosophy (and were partly already developed for this, because Michelin often did not change the front tires in 2004!) shows very clearly that these rules were completely aimed at harming Ferrari. If you also know that the diffuser was strongly cut, the area in which Ferrari had great advantages thanks to its innovative, miniaturized and perfectly integrated rear end and gearbox because you could let it rise earlier and steeper, you see clearly that these rules of the FIA were a pure construct against Ferrari. So this "FIA has always helped Ferrari" is total nonsense. And can only come from people who a) don't look and think carefully b) who have no idea about technology and developments or c) who are simply biased and believe the equally biased crap that some media and people circulate. Especially Ron Dennis was predestined for this, where the team that beat his McLaren team has always cheated...
And to your phrase "Ferrari were always quick to run to Daddy" - it was McLaren and Ron Dennis or Patrick Head and Williams who were always complaining and running to Daddy, if you want to use that expression (which is equally stupid). 1998 - Ferrari does something illegal with the brakes. Finally, Ferrari had a spring installed that delayed the "let go" allowing them to do just that...completely legal and then copied by McLaren. 2001 Drum-Brakes-Intakes - Ferrari could hide a fan in it. They didn't. Head put one in the 2002 Williams instead when he and all the other teams copied the drum-break intakes as they were called then, which are still used today. 1998-2001 Ferrari has traction control - they didn't. They just had a separate "throttle" per cylinder bank that used clever legal engine electronics to make the engine more drivable along with other legal things like ignition timing control, etc. After the introduction of traction control Ferrari's lead became bigger instead of smaller, which clearly shows that it couldn't have been Ferrari that had traction control.... so instead of believing all the nonsense that was constantly being spouted by the British F1 media at the time, especially thanks to Ron Dennis, it's better to look at the facts and make up your own mind. And the facts speak for themselves and show very clearly that this was nothing more than propaganda/mind ganmes and politics. Which by the way belongs to F1 like racing and qualifying. Therefore the expression "quick to run to Daddy" is also something that only shows that the above mentioned a, b or c is the case with you. Regarding propaganda/mind games and politics, everyone had their own methods. And I prefer in fact the way Ferrari took at that time if something was, like 2003 with the Michelin tires, to ask the FIA for clarification instead of constantly accusing others of cheating in press conferences and interviews. The Ferrari way is by the way common practice today... which is also the reason why there are hardly any more public accusations of cheating, as it was common back then thanks to Dennis and Head.
why was the point system of 10 - 9 - 8 changed to 25 - 20 -18 ?
10-8-6. It was changed because it was widely thought that it didn't reward race winner as much as it should. Only 2 points difference between 1st and 2nd. Same amount of point difference as with 7th and 9th, which, fair to say, wasn't that good. I guess the best system was the pre-2002. 10 for the win, 6 for the 2nd, 4 for the 3rd, and so on.
1. Single tyre supplier is just bureaucratic.
2. Refueling adds strategy brilliance and planning cleverness.
3. Success ballast maybe a way forward.
Yeah, between 1998 and 2008 the cooperation of the FIA and Ferrari is well known. A shame truly, but thankfully these dark times are over now.
Dark times in your head shadowing the favouritism towards the English teams... And let's not start with Spygate, which McLaren still benefitted in designing it's 2018 winning car off it.
I'm happy with Pirelli being the sole supplier.
Because of 2003 season, ferrari created one of the best f1 car that dominated the sport like no other..
That cough in 1:15 😂😂
For what I've seen (I've taken 4 years away from my Formula 1 adiction) this one tyre manufacturer rule is more damaging than anything ever before. The last races have been a burden to watch since most the drivers are more focused on saving their tyres than drive fast and overtake each other. Another thing is thtat tyre walls are really thin these days, hardly any race contact goes by without a puncture. So IMO all tyre manufacturers who wanted should be allowed to showcase in Formula 1. There were times when we had 3 tyre manufacturers... If FIA wants "normalization" build an engine, a chassis and every team races the same...
Is anyone else only subscribed for the chainbear videos ?
Subscribe to chain bears individual channel then!
Good video
This channel is to F1 insight as Tifo Football is to football insight.
if you want tyre unpredictability then slash the amount of time teams get to use race tyres during a weekend. Give them generic compounds to use in practice that won't be used in the race, and deny them that data that allows them to map the race out to the nth degree. As seen again this year, races where race day has significantly different temperatures or conditions to the rest of the weekend produce unpredictable strategies and better races.