I keep hearing this before every race, about how the track will tear apart the tires, and the drivers will have to focus on saving their tires, and how crazy the strategies will be.
Then, 20 laps into the race, the same comments come out from the same people, how it's amazing that the tires haven't gone off yet, how incredible the driver must be to keep the tires in check, etc.
I've yet to see anyone have their tires shred like Hammy's did two years ago. I've only heard one or two transmissions where a driver says their tires have gone off, but they've still remained competitive and have been a challenge to pass.
So where is the crazy excitement that the tires were supposed to bring us? And why aren't the tires falling apart as quickly as everying keeps saying they will?
bridgestone has used the control tire situation as an excuse to put out crap.
it'll get better when michelin come back next year and invite competition.
Bridgestone doesn't care, there is no other choice for teams so they have to use what they bring.
Bridgestone don't want the adverse publicity that follows their tyres wearing out. Who would?
So (dropping the stylus in to that scratched groove again...) the only way you're going to get legitimate interest in the tyres is if you have more than one supplier, which means they have to compete. That pushes the envelope and so sometimes one or other tyre won't suit the conditions, or will wear out too quickly, or the conditions will change during a race or after quali which works for one type of tyre but doesn't suit the other. Then unexpected things happen, the grids get mixed up and the racing's less predictable...
>> sigh <<
...waiting for Yaaay to counter with an argument about tyres shouldn't be the determining factor in a race....
You are right though, Bridgestone don't want to have a bad tyre for a race, as the publicity would be awful. Whereas having a great tyre gives them no publicity at all, so they have made sure they have a conservative tyre that does the job. I'm sure they can come up with some super sticky compound that lasts 5-10 laps and is much faster than what we have now, it would just take someone like Michelin to make them bring it.
Aren't Michelin saying there has to be competition if they return or it's pointless for them to bother?
Personally I used to find it a bit disappointing when MS would say during the post-race interview "My thanks to Bridgestone for......" doing absolutely everything within someone's power/budget to create a tyre (sorry tire) to suit him, his car and his driving. Sometimes it was reported that tyres, I mean... the black things, would be made over the weekend following Fri practice in time for Sunday. That seems a big risk if true, but nonetheless, the Bridgestones weren't the same Bridgestones up and down the pits. Didn't engineering also take place with their Shell fuel which was done in a sepcialised Shell transport over the weekend? As I said, it's only my view. I'm happy with control tires and control fuel and let the chassis engineers, etc work their magic on the cars. I like the pinnacle of engineering based with what everyone has to be play with ie same tires, same fuel, same road surface.
(04-13-2010 10:12 AM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't Michelin saying there has to be competition if they return or it's pointless for them to bother?
michelin does want competition. they're hoping bridgestone will stay and compete with them. i've read that if bridgestone leaves, michelin will provide the control tire (but only one dry compound to reduce cost) but will invite all comers to bring a fight. lots of tire manufacturers out there. michelin are also insisting that wheel diameter be increased to 18 inches to match le mans prototypes. that would make them look better, be more road relevant, and easier for all the tire companies to get involved.
(04-13-2010 10:49 AM)Original JB Wrote: [ -> ]I'm happy with control tires and control fuel and let the chassis engineers, etc work their magic on the cars.
do we have control fuel? i didn't think we did. i thought the fuel was regulated, but different suppliers had wiggle room to find an advantage.
(04-13-2010 11:24 AM)frankdouglason Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2010 10:12 AM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't Michelin saying there has to be competition if they return or it's pointless for them to bother?
michelin does want competition. they're hoping bridgestone will stay and compete with them. i've read that if bridgestone leaves, michelin will provide the control tire (but only one dry compound to reduce cost) but will invite all comers to bring a fight. lots of tire manufacturers out there. michelin are also insisting that wheel diameter be increased to 18 inches to match le mans prototypes. that would make them look better, be more road relevant, and easier for all the tire companies to get involved.
(04-13-2010 10:49 AM)Original JB Wrote: [ -> ]I'm happy with control tires and control fuel and let the chassis engineers, etc work their magic on the cars.
do we have control fuel? i didn't think we did. i thought the fuel was regulated, but different suppliers had wiggle room to find an advantage.
Yeah I'm not sure about the fuel. I knew it wasn't in the past. If control black things are to contain costs, woudn't fuel be in the same category? I would have thought fuel would have big implications on engine software, which means more computers and various areas of engineers = more $$$. In Australia, the V8 tintops run control E85. It causes problems when leaving the pit box due to low revs so as not to exceed the pit speed limit, the cars need bigger tanks and worst of all, no flames from the side pipes.
i don't think cost is as big a concern for fuel as it is for tires for two reasons: 1) the fuel companies aren't hurting for money - their profits are at record highs, recession be damned; and 2) tire testing requires track time and a full team effort, whereas fuel testing can be done on a dyno operated by a couple engineers.
The fuel has to be "regular pump fuel", which is why they have these branded fancy expensive stuff at the pumps.
Michelin used to make race tyres for MotoGP on Friday night after they got the practice data, then fly them out ready for race day. Bridgestone couldn't do it with their tyres being made in Japan, so struggled for a while when they came in. Then the series changed the rules to tyres nominated prior to the event, and all of a sudden Bridgestone dominated as they were already effectively competing to the new rules. I would assume the top F1 teams got the same sort of service where it was possible.
I know Bridgestone used to make tyres for Ferrari and then everyone else got what they were given and had to try and make it work. I don't think I'd like to see those days back, but competition doesn't need to be that specific. The real problem will be stopping suppliers developing their product towards one team more than another.
It will be interesting to see how F1 cars change if they go to 19inch wheels. It will have a fairly big effect on suspension, and probably unsprung weight as well. Sighting road relevance is a bit stupid though. F1 wheels will have no relevance to road cars, except maybe a Caparo T1 or something like that.
Im pretty sure Shell refuses to stock norma Diesel on motorways.
Saying that, I just wack it in the tank and wait for Yaaay's income tax.
(04-13-2010 01:21 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]Sighting road relevance is a bit stupid though. F1 wheels will have no relevance to road cars, except maybe a Caparo T1 or something like that.
agreed that no f1 tire will be road relevant. i think michelin is just saying they would look more road relevant. f1 wheels/tires are ugly and cheap looking by consumer standards.
the real reason is that michelin already has the equipment to make the lmp1 tires, so the closer they can get the f1 tires to those, the less it will cost in time and money to get the f1 tires out. matching the 18 inch diameter means they can use the same molds. that's a big saving.
(04-13-2010 01:42 PM)frankdouglason Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2010 01:21 PM)chemics Wrote: [ -> ]Sighting road relevance is a bit stupid though. F1 wheels will have no relevance to road cars, except maybe a Caparo T1 or something like that.
agreed that no f1 tire will be road relevant. i think michelin is just saying they would look more road relevant. f1 wheels/tires are ugly and cheap looking by consumer standards.
the real reason is that michelin already has the equipment to make the lmp1 tires, so the closer they can get the f1 tires to those, the less it will cost in time and money to get the f1 tires out. matching the 18 inch diameter means they can use the same molds. that's a big saving.
That makes more sense. But only if F1 uses the same width as LMP1, which I can't see happening any time soon.