Bridgestone tendering for future tyre supply contract

[mario]

Back in March, the FIA initiated the tender process for a three year tyre supply contract, which would cover the seasons from 2025 to 2027 (with the option to extend that contract to 2028).

Whilst Pirelli confirmed quite early on that they intended to apply for the contract, it has now emerged that Bridgestone have also submitted an application to become a tyre supplier too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/65920407

From the way that it is being reported, it sounds as if Bridgestone have put quite a bit of effort into their application - it's been described as "highly impressive" - and suggests that Pirelli might find itself with much more competition for the contract than before.

[dr-baker]

Back in March, the FIA initiated the tender process for a three year tyre supply contract, which would cover the seasons from 2025 to 2027 (with the option to extend that contract to 2028).

Whilst Pirelli confirmed quite early on that they intended to apply for the contract, it has now emerged that Bridgestone have also submitted an application to become a tyre supplier too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/65920407

From the way that it is being reported, it sounds as if Bridgestone have put quite a bit of effort into their application - it's been described as "highly impressive" - and suggests that Pirelli might find itself with much more competition for the contract than before.

This does seem promising for the sport. And I personally would like to see a return to a tyre war, although I seriously doubt that will happen.

Does Liberty make money from issuing exclusive contracts like this? Could they make more money by issuing separate licences instead?

[mario]

Back in March, the FIA initiated the tender process for a three year tyre supply contract, which would cover the seasons from 2025 to 2027 (with the option to extend that contract to 2028).

Whilst Pirelli confirmed quite early on that they intended to apply for the contract, it has now emerged that Bridgestone have also submitted an application to become a tyre supplier too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/65920407

From the way that it is being reported, it sounds as if Bridgestone have put quite a bit of effort into their application - it's been described as "highly impressive" - and suggests that Pirelli might find itself with much more competition for the contract than before.

This does seem promising for the sport. And I personally would like to see a return to a tyre war, although I seriously doubt that will happen.

Does Liberty make money from issuing exclusive contracts like this? Could they make more money by issuing separate licences instead?

In the past, the justification given was that a tyre war usually tends to cause significant cost inflation - something not particularly welcome even with unlimited budgets, and likely now completely out of the question given there is a cost cap in place. The smaller teams, and even some of the larger teams, were also not hugely keen on a tyre war given that the tyre manufacturers often would prioritise one or two teams at the expense of everyone else - it's going back a few years, but I recall seeing one ex-Tyrrell engineer stating that Goodyear was effectively even deliberately sabotaging the smaller teams by withholding some technical information from them.

As for the question of whether Liberty Media make money from the contracts - as I understand things, the FIA initially reviews the tender applications and draws up their shortlist of candidates, and that shortlist is then sent to Liberty Media. At that point, Liberty Media then have their own negotiations with the remaining different candidates to agree a set of commercial terms.

There is perhaps an indirect benefit to Liberty Media for a monopoly supply deal, given that we've seen Pirelli also provides trackside sponsorship - it's likely that Liberty Media may be able to get a higher price for a company to have the prestige of being the exclusive supplier for the sport.

[Wallio]

I'm torn on this. Competition, or even the mere threat of it, does improve the product. And Bridgestone probably are less likely to ram the tyre blanket ban down the drivers throats.

But Bridgestone was SO bad in 2008/2009/2010. The two compounds rule was at least partly because teams were tempted to try no stopping.

[mario]

I'm torn on this. Competition, or even the mere threat of it, does improve the product. And Bridgestone probably are less likely to ram the tyre blanket ban down the drivers throats.

But Bridgestone was SO bad in 2008/2009/2010. The two compounds rule was at least partly because teams were tempted to try no stopping.

The tyre blanket ban is still almost certain to go ahead, because the FIA is pushing quite heavily for tyre warmers to go as part of the sustainability drive by the sport to reduce energy consumption. It's part of the reason why other racing series have also seen tyre blankets being removed, such as the WEC (although not without some criticism in that series either).

As for the question of whether it was a good or bad thing between 2008 and 2010 - well, the drivers are likely to want to see the change go ahead, as there is probably a popular perception that it would allow them to drive harder without having to manage the temperatures quite as much. However, the FIA does still have the performance degradation requirements in their tender, so having the tyres be too durable would mean they'd technically be breaching the terms of the contract by not complying with the performance requirements.