noname wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:I highly doubt Kumho could do it.

Bridgeston is leaving, Goodyear, Dunlop, Avon and Pirreli may be busy somewhere else, Michelin... they may want to stay to their word (but crisis could be a good reason to change your mind).

maybe it will not be Kumho but I would not be surprised if some company from the east would step in. Korea, China ore even India. they are more and more exposed in many areas and they have the money, in contrary to white-men world.

How many years did it take Bridgestone to have a working, good F1 program? The years of behind-the-scenes testing, and then a full race season.

That's a tall order to fill for someone to do from scratch, in ONE year.

Jersey Tom wrote:How many years did it take Bridgestone to have a working, good F1 program? The years of behind-the-scenes testing, and then a full race season.

That's a tall order to fill for someone to do from scratch, in ONE year.

from the scratch it would be almost impossible but they do not like to do it this way. I think if they decide to enter F1 they will buy someone having enough experience.

I've been doing jet engines and planes for them, I had the chance to see how the "Chinese" products are being made

edit: Lotus F1 is, I think, quite a good example how East can find his way into F1.

crazy idea...Michelin comes back with Tweel......

as far fetch as it sounds I think it would be interesting...and F1 would serve as a ultimate proving ground for something really ground breaking....

I recon that we are on they way back to 2 suppliers, one beind Michelen as they havnt let their F1 plant go to rack and ruin as they currently have their rubber on the Ferarri powered A1GP cars, and they, i think would like a way back into the sport again. But i think that Khumo is intrested as well for a new venture.

BUT for the 2011 season i think that theytyre company(ies [if theres two]) will be asked to have only 2 specs of tyre, a hard and a soft. Think the current soft that lasts arround 4 laps longer and the current medium that lasts arround 6-8 laps longer that current. Makes a cost saving i think.

But this is a story that will unfold.

EDIT:

Just taken a look at the specs of the new GP3 car thats being produced for the feeder series to GP2 and one manufacturer id not rule out is Perelli as they are going the rubber supplies for GP3 next year.

Cynic Extrordinaire wrote:No more underhand deals with the F.I.A. perhaps?

No, the same shady deals will apply under the Todt regime. Especially as Jean knows where the pre-Monza 2003 "front tire-gate" bodies are buried.

This move is due to the limited publicity that you get without two or more tire companies battling it out on merit. Who cares if there is but one manufacturer? People know that the product could be total crap. People want to see someone win and someone lose. They want competition. Get rid of the std ECU as well. Why not? Now that refueling is gone and economy gets a greater priority, why not allow EFI and ECU development in the name of "being green"?

And besides... if Max was vilifying "manufacturers who come and go" why would he place the sport in jeopardy with only one supplier who could leave F1 high and dry without recourse? Why not have two or more so you have a back-up plan?

And for the positive side of this... it may help bring back limited testing. The test ban IMHO is a total flop. The rich teams with simulators, post rigs and all sorts of bench equipment only increase their advantage over the poorer teams. The test ban was implemented by the teams apart from the FIA. Now that they have lived with it and have seen how little if any it saves, they can rethink it. Plus it really inhibits younger drivers from getting seat time etc. I think they should do full day testing on the following Monday at the race venue about five times a year. Invite the public for a ticket price of 20% what Fri-Sun tickets cost. And have a PR event like they had at Indy in 2006 with autographs, raffles and promo giveaways. Maybe a few old wings or wheels can be auctioned off for local charities etc.

In 2010 lets say, China (a potent new market, don't let it go stale like Istanbul has), Canada (the only North American presence), Silverstone (close to many of the factories), Hungary (a representative tight circuit), and Suzuka (great high speed circuit and a vital market). One three-day pre-season test in Bahrain too about five weeks before the opening race. (This also cultivates and refreshes the middle east regional market.) The rest of pre-season can be mileage limited as usual and conducted anywhere.

FWIW my expectation is on both Michelin and Dunlop to duke it out on the track. And a French GP return in 2011 will attend all this.

RacingManiac wrote:So I am guessing the car performance will continually be shaky for 2011....inevitably some will get more right than others again....looks like 2010 and 2011 maybe as hard to predict as 2009 was...

Guaranteed that whoever comes on as tire supplier will have a VERY HARD time getting the tires to last(except maybe Michelin). I think that it will take at least 1 full year minimum to get a handle on the wear of the tires. Does this mean the tire rules will change? Maybe no more 2 compounds.....hmmm

TRICKLE69 wrote:Guaranteed that whoever comes on as tire supplier will have a VERY HARD time getting the tires to last(except maybe Michelin).

Disagree.

Could brigdestone not share their F1 information with the company that is taking over... It wouldnt benifit them anymore.

I expect that Ecclestone wrote that into their contract somewhere. I'd like to see Pirelli in F1 to be honest, they do the WRC with great admiration. I dont know if they're a big enough company to be able to do both at the same time.

I've got to say I think now is the time for crap tyres. Like '80s crap. That's just what it's going to take to make the no-refueling diffuser beasts interesting to watch.

I say ... come on A V O N

Jersey Tom wrote:

TRICKLE69 wrote:Guaranteed that whoever comes on as tire supplier will have a VERY HARD time getting the tires to last(except maybe Michelin).

Disagree.

Jersery Tom, could you go a bit more in depth? Many of us have read insightful posts of yours regarding tyres. So, unless you are in a position where you can't tell (i.e. working for such a company), could you give us (at least me) more detail about:

• Realistic companies to substitute Bridgestone. You have already discarded Kumho, probably because it's too small. What about Goodyear, Pirelli, Michelin and others?
• How likely is it to see performance degradation in 2011? I suppose not much, because many talented people work outside bridgestone and the tyre war end already brought a slower tyre.
• Is the two compound rule going to stay if F1 switches suppliers?

Regarding the last point, I'd like to hear your point of view regarding the use of multiple compounds throughout the race. I do dislike this rule, since I feel a further, unneeded, set up compromise must be done. We've disagreed in the past, so it's possible I'll see a counterpoint.

Miguel wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:

TRICKLE69 wrote:Guaranteed that whoever comes on as tire supplier will have a VERY HARD time getting the tires to last(except maybe Michelin).

Disagree.

Jersery Tom, could you go a bit more in depth? Many of us have read insightful posts of yours regarding tyres. So, unless you are in a position where you can't tell (i.e. working for such a company), could you give us (at least me) more detail about:

• Realistic companies to substitute Bridgestone. You have already discarded Kumho, probably because it's too small. What about Goodyear, Pirelli, Michelin and others?
• How likely is it to see performance degradation in 2011? I suppose not much, because many talented people work outside bridgestone and the tyre war end already brought a slower tyre.
• Is the two compound rule going to stay if F1 switches suppliers?

Regarding the last point, I'd like to hear your point of view regarding the use of multiple compounds throughout the race. I do dislike this rule, since I feel a further, unneeded, set up compromise must be done. We've disagreed in the past, so it's possible I'll see a counterpoint.

I just don't see why tire wear would be so difficult to manage. There are other race series with much more abusive conditions and race tracks than F1.

With regard to realistic companies.. the fact is, whoever would take the spot would have one year to develop a full line of race tires, dry and wet, that have the right performance and safety margin. That's a large R&D investment, particularly if you're starting totally from scratch (as Kuhmo would).

There are a number of companies or brands who have done F1 or comparable open wheel before that would have a starting point.

I do work for a large race tire manufacturer, so all I can say there are the obvious publicly-known facts. The big driver will just be.. whatever deal FOM wants to work out.. is it worth doing. In a still poor economic environment (even for tire giants such as Goodyear and Michelin), is FOM offering a reasonable deal or is it a terrible business decision?

With regard to performance degradation, who knows. Depends what you mean by performance. Raw speed? Drivability? A tire that's easy to tune your car to? Depends who comes in and how serious they are about it. Could be worse than the current Bridgestone lineup, could be much better. Anything's possible.

Hard to say with the two compound thing. The way F1 has gone with it is to make interesting racing, and Bridgestone was asked to bring two tires basically that they wouldn't ordinarily bring if they were trying to compete with someone. A tire that's appropriate, and a tire that's really not appropriate.

Confused_Andy wrote:Kumho - Probability, they're big in rallying...

Whether they have the expertise or logistics is another matter.


Avon?

What's wrong with Avon? They already provide Coopers in the U.S, A1GP as well as many other championships.

Michelin were more incompetent than worried about the competition. Ask Ralf Schumacher.

Scuderia_Russ wrote:
Michelin were more incompetent than worried about the competition. Ask Ralf Schumacher.

Well there is a good source. Ralf who was beat by everyone of his teammates.

Tell me, how did Michelin beat all their competition in just about every racing discipline? I am not sure how long you have been around but your statement certainly is at odds with actual history.

Except for the whole "Our tires explode at turn 13 of Indy" incident he is likely referring to, citing history actually, that you also should know. Ralf was the victim, Michelin incompetence at fault.

:/

I think Russ is one of the few people here who doesn't need to prove credentials.

gibells wrote:I've got to say I think now is the time for crap tyres. Like '80s crap. That's just what it's going to take to make the no-refueling diffuser beasts interesting to watch.

+1

That is the logical thing to happen. Tyres are completly meaningless to the average fan. Drivers and race car brands are. So ditching the high performance tyres will never hurt the show or the business. They will race on chewing gum if thats what is available.