This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Why only one tire manufacturer?

Joined Jan 2023
17 Posts | 5+
USA
I'm a relatively new fan of the sport, only been following it for about 5 years. I watch old races in the off season and I'm wondering when, and more important why, MotoGP stopped offering more than one tire manufacturer. Anyone know?

Thanks.
 
I'm not positive but I think it had something to do with leveling the playing field, so to speak. Personally, I'd like "the tire wars" to return. Let the teams / riders decide what tires to run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvs9932
Tire technology over the last 30 years has progressed such that the performance of the tires cannot be easily controlled.

In the early days, the rules controlled rim width. Then the rules needed to address the tire width. Then the rules were written to extend tire mileage to slow down vehicles. The manufacturers always found way around the rules by developing new tires and compounds. In my opinion, the harbinger of the end of true tire wars was Michelin's Optimised Contact Patch, which was a holistic concept that connected vehicle suspension design, with tire carcass suspension, and tire compounds. The result was a significant increase in the contact patch, particularly during cornering. This technology propelled Renault and Fernando Alonso to consecutive F1 titles in 2005 and 2006. Bridgestone developed their own holistic approach to tire design, as well.

In 2007 the MotoGP rules changed substantially, and performance was more or less governed by fuel efficiency rather than capacity. This put pressure on the tire manufacturers to increase the lateral acceleration of the bikes, particularly during corner entry, since less fuel was available on corner exit. This performance paradiagm was deemed unsafe. In my opinion, a deal was brokered behind the scenes to keep the tire war alive in 2008, but Bridgestone decided to bring some F1 tire technology into the MotoGP fold. Michelin was not interested in following suit, particularly without Rossi, and they withdrew from MotoGP. The 2009 season was not a control tire, rather a single tire supplier, but it's a distinction without much of a difference.. The 2009 season was effectively the end of true tire wars for any form of racing on paved circuits.

The "tire wars" that exist now are mostly technological kabuki. It's more about price point and serving customers, and building tires to fit a certain performance niche that generates publicity for the company. The technological pathways to dominating a sport are limited by the regulations, and the tire manufacturers want it this way. This kind of tire war currently exists in FIM EWC (endurance racing).

World Superbike also had a kabuki tire war arrangement throughout the 80s and 90s, but it was abandoned for different reasons than MotoGP. When grand prix racing moved to 990cc four-strokes (2002), the Flamini Group, who were in charge of World Superbike, wanted to increase tire performance. Pirelli had no presence in the grand prix paddock so they were happy to work with the Flaminis. World Superbike introduced a Pirelli control tire in 2003 to raise the cornering performance of superbikes, and make lap times more similar to MotoGP.
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: Mick D and Havey
Tire technology over the last 30 years has progressed such that the performance of the tires cannot be easily controlled.

In the early days, the rules controlled rim width. Then the rules needed to address the tire width. Then the rules were written to extend tire mileage to slow down vehicles. The manufacturers always found way around the rules by developing new tires and compounds. In my opinion, the harbinger of the end of true tire wars was Michelin's Optimised Contact Patch, which was a holistic concept that connected vehicle suspension design, with tire carcass suspension, and tire compounds. The result was a significant increase in the contact patch, particularly during cornering. This technology propelled Renault and Fernando Alonso to consecutive F1 titles in 2005 and 2006. Bridgestone developed their own holistic approach to tire design, as well.

In 2007 the MotoGP rules changed substantially, and performance was more or less governed by fuel efficiency rather than capacity. This put pressure on the tire manufacturers to increase the lateral acceleration of the bikes, particularly during corner entry, since less fuel was available on corner exit. This performance paradiagm was deemed unsafe. In my opinion, a deal was brokered behind the scenes to keep the tire war alive in 2008, but Bridgestone decided to bring some F1 tire technology into the MotoGP fold. Michelin was not interested in following suit, particularly without Rossi, and they withdrew from MotoGP. The 2009 season was not a control tire, rather a single tire supplier, but it's a distinction without much of a difference.. The 2009 season was effectively the end of true tire wars for any form of racing on paved circuits.

The "tire wars" that exist now are mostly technological kabuki. It's more about price point and serving customers, and building tires to fit a certain performance niche that generates publicity for the company. The technological pathways to dominating a sport are limited by the regulations, and the tire manufacturers want it this way. This kind of tire war currently exists in FIM EWC (endurance racing).

World Superbike also had a kabuki tire war arrangement throughout the 80s and 90s, but it was abandoned for different reasons than MotoGP. When grand prix racing moved to 990cc four-strokes (2002), the Flamini Group, who were in charge of World Superbike, wanted to increase tire performance. Pirelli had no presence in the grand prix paddock so they were happy to work with the Flaminis. World Superbike introduced a Pirelli control tire in 2003 to raise the cornering performance of superbikes, and make lap times more similar to MotoGP.
Thanks for the detailed reply. One of the reasons I prefer MotoGP to F1 is the fact that there are no pit stops. I love that MotoGP riders have to manage their tires or suffer accordingly. F1 with required pits and DRS is just too gimmicky for me, there are too many aspects that manufacture drama rather than just having the race be exciting. I remember Ricciardo winning by a mile in Monaco some years back and a very rare bad pit stop from Red Bull kept him in there for 20+ seconds. I don't even think he made the podium, and he should have won the race easily. F1 should dispense with pit stops and either shorten the races or just require drivers to manage their tires better on the current race duration. Either way, MotoGP, without said manufactured drama, is so much more about actual racing and therefore more exciting.

Thanks again for the great answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick D
Thanks for the detailed reply. One of the reasons I prefer MotoGP to F1 is the fact that there are no pit stops. I love that MotoGP riders have to manage their tires or suffer accordingly. F1 with required pits and DRS is just too gimmicky for me, there are too many aspects that manufacture drama rather than just having the race be exciting. I remember Ricciardo winning by a mile in Monaco some years back and a very rare bad pit stop from Red Bull kept him in there for 20+ seconds. I don't even think he made the podium, and he should have won the race easily. F1 should dispense with pit stops and either shorten the races or just require drivers to manage their tires better on the current race duration. Either way, MotoGP, without said manufactured drama, is so much more about actual racing and therefore more exciting.

Thanks again for the great answer.
I don't have a problem with pit-stops. The driver/rider needs the whole team to work together in order to succeed. But from what I understand, drivers aren't pushing themselves for lap times for most of the race rather, just rolling off laps to a specific pace to ensure the tyre last however long it needs to for their race strategy. It was Hamilton I believe that said something about this, saying he feels he should be getting out of the car knackered from driving hard for the whole race but it isn't the case as F1 currently is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvs9932
Also yes DRS is stupid. Either ban it or let them have free reign with it. The car in front of you not being able to go as fast as you on the straight because they are in front and not in the DRS zone is all kinds of ridiculousness designed to fix a lack of overtaking with the most boring possible overtaking that becomes a formality because of the speed differential created by a stupid rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvs9932
Also yes DRS is stupid. Either ban it or let them have free rein with it. The car in front of you not being able to go as fast as you on the straight because they are in front and not in the DRS zone is all kinds of ridiculousness designed to fix a lack of overtaking with the most boring possible overtaking that becomes a formality because of the speed differential created by a stupid rule.
Exactly right. Well said.