interesting .. back to Michelin, or perhaps Dunlop, Hankook ??? Carol * * * autosport Bridgestone will withdraw from Formula 1 at the end of the 2010 season. The Japanese tyre manufacturer announced its decision not to renew its F1 contract early on Monday morning. Bridgestone Motorsport director Hiroshi Yasukawa said in a statement: "The decision made by the board of directors comes after considerable and lengthy evaluations and has been based on the company's need to redirect its resources towards further intensive development of innovative technologies." Bridgestone had been a tyre supplier in Formula 1 since 1997 and had been the sole supplier since the beginning of the 2008 season, following Michelin's departure, winning 156 of the 223 grands prix it entered. "Our sincere appreciation is extended to Bernie Ecclestone and Formula One Management, the Formula 1 teams with whom it has been an honour to work alongside and the many F1 fans who have followed our activities over the past 13 years," added Yasukawa. Bridgestone will continue in its role as partner and tyre supplier to the GP2 Series and GP2 Asia Series, and will also continue as the sole supplier in MotoGP until at least 2011.
This is what happens when there's no competition (single supplier, engine freeze, etc); engine and tire suppliers have no reason to be in the sport any longer. I'd like to see Michelin back, but most of all I'm hoping they get away from a spec tire.
Well I have to agree there needs to be more free thinking in F1, more innovation, however the current rules dont seem to allow for much innovation.
I wonder how interested Michelin will be given that the spec tyre was effectively introduced to punish them for Indy and my recollection (fuzzy at best) is there may have been other similar negative repercussions from the FIA Lets hope they also take the opportunity to remove the two compounds per race rule too
There's nothing left in the sport for them. With no competition wins are meaningless. The only time they get noticed is when something goes wrong. Add to that the restrictions on development the FIA imposes where's the upside?
"The decision made by the board of directors comes after considerable and lengthy evaluations and has been based on the company's need to redirect its resources towards further intensive development of innovative technologies." and this... In addition, its collaboration with F1 has contributed to increased brand awareness and the recognition of Bridgestone as a leader in the global tyre industry. Having achieved these goals, Bridgestone is now poised to take its technological and brand building efforts to the next level. Carol (seems like a slam on F1 as they are taking technology/branding to the next level!!)
I doubt Michelin would be interested as the reason they pulled out of F1 was because of the one make tyre regulation. They argued that there was no serious development incentive without competition from another manufacturer. I always hated the fact that back in the Bridgestone vs Michelin days, if your brand of tyres didn't suit the circuit you were on and just didn't work, you were done for the day regardless of what you tried. So who's likely to come in?, Michelin (doubtful), Goodyear (possible but also just as doubtful), Pirelli (could they afford it/ be interested), Avon (again, cost?), Toyo.....? . How about Wanli?. Based on personal experience, these would be a massive challenge to any driver and create loads of overtaking opportunities, especially in the wet as they could barely keep My BMW on the road (and it's only a 328i!, ditchfinders is not the word for them!). As it stands, it looks like BBS/OZ et all are going to have to beef up the rims so the cars can race without tyres!.
Carol, I think you have the right spin on this. Also, there is no incentive for Bridgestone to remain in F1 without competition. The 2 compound rule means that they are constantly being criticized for one set of tires during a race. Even if the other set works well. It is a no win situation for them. Brad
Again though, would Hankook see any advantage in being in F1 on their own and can they afford to supply that many tyres to all the teams? (this costs Bridgestone tens of millions of dollars every year).
I understand quitting because of the lack of competition, but I prefer one tire supplier instead of another tire war. I really hated the days when the single factor for winning a race was the tire brand.
I don't really care about a "tire war" but the whole thing with 2 compounds was simply to keep the tires as a factor and to get them "talked about". Because otherwise, nobody would care about the tires at all. And if they are not being talked about, then free tires can't be requested in the name of advertising/PR. Another dumb move by Max - squeezing out Michelin in favor of Bridgestone, trying to push false drama on the series through the use of stupid tire rules, only to have it blow up in their face when Bridgestone realizes it wasn't any good for them. The man leaves a legacy of destruction and failure in his wake.
Hankook is also in Korea - here's the motorsports part of their website: http://www.hankooktireusa.com/Motor/Overview.aspx?pageNum=4&subNum=1&ChildNum=1#top Carol
+1 F1 needs rules changes to allow more innovation. It's becoming NASCAR in terms of being a spec car series. Since every major series in the world seems to be spec now, allowing more development, innovation and competition would be a good way for F1 to differentiate itself.
Others have voiced the opinion that wind without competition are meaningless--perhaps so, But a tire manufacture supporting a series withoug testing only sells a fraction of the tires it sells if testing goes on as it were before the testing ban. This amortizes costs of research and development.
post #10 were direct quotes from Bridgestone... maybe they want to be compeititve against Michelin with their Green X Challenge ->>>> The Michelin Green X Challenge mirrors Michelin's lead when it comes to an environmentally respectful approach to motor racing and sets out to promote a balanced performance package that takes fuel consumption, grip and durability into consideration. Sailrat, any thoughts on the above as a plausible reason in their statement: "The decision made by the board of directors comes after considerable and lengthy evaluations and has been based on the company's need to redirect its resources towards further intensive development of innovative technologies." Carol
I am for a single tire maker. It works in World Superbike (Pirelli) and MotoGP (Bridgestone). You no longer have "Bridgestone" tracks, or "Michelin" tracks. It removes perhaps the most invisible aspect of performance. Everyone can somewhat understand aerodynamics or engine layouts, but tires are black and round and go around. Few notice or care different aspects of their performance when compared to another brand. But having a single tire rule for each race wouldn't prevent multiple tire manufacturers from being involved. Especially if a single manufacturer balks at supplying all tires for all teams all season. If you had three viable manufacturers, just break up the brands into three segments of the season. A couple of weeks before the change, allow the teams access to the new tire brand for a two day test at the next track on the calendar. This would also have the effect of shaking up the teams twice in the middle of the season. One team may dominate the first third, then struggle with the new tires in the second third. You might see different drivers at the front throughout the year. On the other hand, you also might see one team adapt and be competitive with all three tires. That would definitely be a marketing point for them to be so adaptable and their car so good no matter what rubber. If you had say Hankook, Michelin, and Bridgestone as teams. you could probably arrange their thirds of the year to coincide with their home GP. There is nothing magical about a year contract. Six races is written in just as easily as eighteen.
Pirelli rules out replacing Bridgestone Wed, 04 Nov 14:00:16 2009 - Crash.net Pirelli has become the first tyre manufacturer to publicly state that it is not interested in replacing Bridgestone as the official supplier to the F1 World Championship from 2011. Bridgestone announced on Monday that it will not be renewing its contract to provide rubber to the top flights competitors after it expires at the end of next season [see separate story click here] a move that will bring down the curtain on a relationship that began with just five teams in 1997, and expanded to take in the entire grid in 2007 following rival Michelins premature withdrawal in the wake of the Indianapolis débâcle two years earlier. That has left F1 desperately seeking a new tyre partner, and with Pirellis proclaimed disinterest and the unlikelihood of Michelin returning following the infamous US Grand Prix episode when governing body the FIA refused to allow eleventh-hour alterations to be made to the track layout following a series of dangerous failures and accidents for cars fitted with the French companys rubber in practice and qualifying the options are narrowing. Pirellis previous position on F1 hasnt changed, a spokeswoman for the Italian organisation told Reuters. Pirelli prefers to develop tyres for racing that will also be used on the road. Pirelli sponsors Superbikes (BSB and WSBK), the World Rally Championship and GT2. Other names mentioned in connection with assuming Bridgestones F1 responsibilities have been Goodyear, Dunlop, Kumho, Avon, Hankook and Continental.
