Bridgestone advantage... real or imagined?

[gcdugas]

In 2004 Honda switched to Michelin and had their best season straight away. For sure the '04 Honda was their best car, and even their '03 winter testing "concept car" was setting lap records which caused skeptics to accuse then of running without ballast. But when the season began in earnest they took to the new Michelins like a duck to water. And Michelin did not enjoy any signifigant advantage at that time like they did in the pre-Monza (Michelin-gate) summer of '03, nor was it like the race distance tyre advantage that Michelin enjoyed in '05. In fact Ferrari won more races that year on Bridgestones than they ever did, their superior F2004 notwithstanding.

And let us not forget that Williams won in only their fourth race on Michelins at Imola in 2001.

Having said all that, is all this "Bridgestone tyre advantage" talk real or is it just press hype? For sure the former Michelin teams have some adapting to do, but isn't it something that will be well behind them even by the end of January? And even Ferrari, Toyota, Williams et. al. will have some adapting to harder slippery "spec" tyres. Most of the adapting will have to do, I imagine, with carcass construction and rebound characteristics, weight etc. and didn't the teams constantly experiment with varieties during the tyre war?

I think some teams are letting the press do their dirty work by down-playing expectations. Especially BMW which otherwise should be expected to join the fray for a dozen or so podiums which is less than 25% of 3X18.

In a more candid moment, Pat Symonds said that it is to the teams advantage to have a constant tyre spec that they can fine tune the car to the tyre rather than introducing the endless variables that result from constant tyre experimentation. Mind you I think that tyre wars are great and that the FIA treated Michelin unjustly (a mild term for: "shabbily, like the b@$tards they are").

So is this tyre talk all hype or is there something to it? Remember Williams at Imola and Honda in '04.

[DaveKillens]

In 2004 Honda also enjoyed a third car for testing, and I believe that contributed a lot.
Reading between the lines, no team has praised the tires, and thus I believe they are a step back in performance. So that really doesn't give teams like Ferrari any real advantage, they have almost just as much to learn as everyone else.
Rear tyre degradation has been an issue, and it's not going to be easy for the teams. Despite everyone having the same spec tires, I expect them to be an issue, and some teams will have a better handle on them. It's got to be weird for some, having to change the car instead of asking for modified tires. So any advantage will go to the teams that can adapt and change for the better.

[nudge]

[quote="gcdugas"] For sure the '04 Honda was their best car, and even their '03 winter testing "concept car" was setting lap records which caused skeptics to accuse then of running without ballast. quote]


so, the skeptics were not entirely right....but not entirely wrong either.

[Rob W]

I can guarantee that near the end of the season Ferrari would have been giving feedback on early models of next year's tyres. They would have been testing on early specs for sure.

A clear advantage to them. How long it will last is another matter entirely. Maybe the other teams could get up to speed in a matter of weeks speed-wise, but not so fast endurance-wise. Or vice versa.

Rob W

[Jersey Tom]

If the teams do a lot of their baseline setup and 'research' work based on Pacejka or other force/moment interpolating models, I'd imagine most teams would have already dropped the $50-100k on testing and have the data and have an idea how the tires are expected to perform.

On a force/moment machine you could run the tire through an entire cycle as it would see at any specific track, and check out what temperatures its expected to see, wear rates, etc. Anything else can be fine tuned in on-track testing. I'd think previous Bridgestone teams won't really have an advantage from a technical standpoint. Maybe just knowing the ins/outs of Bridgestone and the logistical end of it, but I don't really see much.

[Scuderia_Russ]

I can guarantee that near the end of the season Ferrari would have been giving feedback on early models of next year's tyres. They would have been testing on early specs for sure.

A clear advantage to them.
Rob W

Who do you work for Ferrari or Bridgestone?

[Evil Weasel]

I can guarantee that near the end of the season Ferrari would have been giving feedback on early models of next year's tyres. They would have been testing on early specs for sure.

A clear advantage to them.
Rob W

Who do you work for Ferrari or Bridgestone?

I thought Bridgestone had emphatically assured all teams that the tyres for 2007 wouldn't be released or in any way leaked to the teams until the end of 2006.

[Scuderia_Russ]

They wouldn't have, Rob W is just making some wild assumptions! [-(

[Tom]

Bear in mind this year Bridgestone have nothing to win and nothing to loose.
Whichever car crosses the line first you can bet your house it'll be bridgestone shod so they make a gain either way.

Certainly they would not help one team out over others to produce a tyre better than competition which doesn't exist.

[manchild]

They wouldn't have, Rob W is just making some wild assumptions! [-(

Hope dies last or should I say The first victim of war is truth

[img::]http://www.f1total.com/news/images_big/6857.jpg[/img]

[Scuderia_Russ]

Am I missing something here?

[manchild]

Am I missing something here?

Nope, it's just my traditional Bridgestone-red sarcasm.

[DaveKillens]

While checking some recent pictures of recent testing, it came to me that some cars (Ferrari and SA) still carry the Bridgestone advertising on their cars. And it was missing on other brands. Then, just recently I read an article where there was a rumor that Bridgestone had "deals" with some teams to supply tires free, while charging other teams for the cost of the tires.
So my personal impression that even at this stage of the season, not all teams are treated equally by Bridgestone. The general assumption by the masses is that everyone will get the same package. But maybe some certain teams may have a "favorite" status between themselves and Bridgestone. So much for fair and equal.
This leads to what may already be of concern by certain teams.. that their competitors may enjoy an advantage in the tire regime. Although the tires that come out of Bridgestone may share identical technical specifications, who can really know that a "good" production batch finds itself in the hands of a favored team?

[Carlos]

Manchild - Truth is the first victim of human nature. To adhere with the thread - Can I get tires in WCC Blue with a Yellow sidewall stripe? I mean from a factory - Not from your Graphic Wizardry.

[Evil Weasel]

While checking some recent pictures of recent testing, it came to me that some cars (Ferrari and SA) still carry the Bridgestone advertising on their cars. And it was missing on other brands. Then, just recently I read an article where there was a rumour that Bridgestone had "deals" with some teams to supply tires free, while charging other teams for the cost of the tires...

My feeling on this is that the cut off for given/buy divide is how likely the team is to finish a race.

A photo of a an F1 car in a gravel trap that has lost a couple of wheels with "Bridgestone" has negative connotations, while a photo of all the cars in parc ferme with the same advert looks much better.