Would Ferrari be winning so much if they were running on Michelins

Michelins were better a while ago, now it seems to be the Bridgestones. It goes back and forth. But if they were running Michelins, then it would be closer.

 

Tough one...

Bridgestones - super in rain and end of a run.
Michelins - great opening stint tires.

I would agree it would be close, Bridgestone designs the tires specifically for Ferrari. Who knows who will provide tires if all these talks of a single tire manufacturer takes fruit. Guess F1 will then be like NASCAR.

 

Really hope it doesnt go into one tire manufacture...it would be like Nascar of they kep changing this playing feild. As for the tires, I think Ferrari would be at a slight disadvantage if they used the Mich...but would sort it out.

 

Michelin has openly admitted that they will not put in a bid if F1 adopts a single tire system.

Bridgestone on the otherhand have stated that they will work with F1 and Ferrari as long as possiblem. They are honored and very happy to be Ferrari partners. So if F1 does shift to a single tire manufacturer, Bridgestone will be around unless another third party comes into the picture.

The Michelin tires are only good for a few laps in the beginning. Over the long run you can see that the Michelin tires deteriorate and are not that good. Bridgestone are good over the long run and long run reliability matters more.

Bridgestone have been great partners in Scuderia Ferrari's success. It would be very hard to run a car without tires. They do provide Ferrari F1 cars with the best tires they can.

 

I think Ferrari is good because of there work with bridgestone.ther is other reasons they are good of course but they would probably lose from switching tires.

 

Ferrari has the engineering talent to win on any type of tire out there. I think that if they were on Michelins and got a good understanding of how the tires react they would be even further up front. Look at Sauber, Jordan and Minardi. they are running on Bridgestones also and if you watch them on track they are slipping and sliding all over the place. There is more to it than just tires you also have aero downforce, suspension design, spring and shock rates and steering geometry all in place. With out this you will only just slip and slide or grind the tires into rubber dust in short order.

The only weak points i see with Michelins are that they are a thinner tire (More likely to pucture or blow) and seem to flex and vibrate more over kurbs.

 

Agree. Though Ferrari do have an advantage currently in that they work very, very closely with Bridgestone and I do not think Bridgestone make their tyres to suit any other team ... just Ferrari.

All top teams have had this situation in the past ... and you can bet that McLaren, Williams and Renault pester Michelin lots too

Pete

 

Precisely.

A one tire F1 world would be a lot better btw: The tire war costs pointless amounts of $$$ and makes the car go faster every year. A single and hard tire compound would reduce testing requirements, make for closer racing, drive down costs and keep speeds in check.

As a fan I couldn't care less what tires they're on.

As others have said: Ferrari is good enough to work it out and gain a competitive advantage elsewhere.

 

I actually think that the michelin is a better tire but the superior ferrari makes up for it, look at the other bridgstone runners - they are no where near competitive with the minnows of the michelins. I don't attribute that soley to the fact that bridgestone works only with ferrari. so to answer your question I think ferrari would still be winning as much if it was on the michelins

 

This chat is all non-sense. Why are you wasting your time with ifs and buts? they never wrote the history. F1 is a fascinating motor sport only for it's own different nature. Why are you trying to have another championship series like the boring and worthless NASCAR?

You are forgetting that the traction control you are enjoying in your everyday car comes from F1. The clutchless gear box that is in many of your cars comes from F1. The low profile tires you have on your Modenas, with superb wet conditions handling, come from F1.

I stop here but I could go on forever.

Let Michelin and Bridgestone compete and we will have better tires on our everyday drives. Who cares if they spend tons of money in a single season? they do not spend taxpayers money, or our money, rather they invest the money they make selling tires to all of us.

Why are you trying to level the plainfield with one tire for everybody? Don't we have, already, F3 champioship? do we really need another similar championship?

Do not forget guys, we all love this sport because the speed, because, the engine power, the disk brakes getting red hot at turn 1 in Indy or at the hairpin in Montreal, the super-quick pitstops and why not? the risk that is in all of these?

A quick question to all of you in this room before I go to work. Would you be in favor of mandatory exaust mufflers on F1 cars? If you answer is no, well, let the world be what it is.

 

I find the IFs of history quite fascinating, but that's besides the point.

Different tire manufacturers actually distort the image of the team's strengths. But more importantly a tire war as we have it today, takes away important resources:

- True it ain't our money spent, but if the costs escalate into the stratosphere there soon won't be any Minardis, Jordans and Saubers left. These teams don't go for the title, true, but how interesting is a F1 field of say ten cars? I remember the days when there was a prequalification to the qualification. A field of 26 cars is simply more fun.

- Endless tire test series wear down the teams and drivers. I'd rather see them test their cars developments (to get the real car series benefits you mention) or do more GPs. MS himself said, he'd be happy with 20 GPs if he'd spend less time testing. Testing is not something we as the fans can see and it is to some degree boring for the drivers.

However the worst effect of a tire war is the increasing speed (especially in turns) of the cars. To keep it relatively safe you either have to drastically change the cars/engines (expensive!) or add chicanes. Do I care whether they take corner x at 120 or 140 mph because they got superior tires? No. Do I care whether there are corners like Indy turn 13 or the parabolica or whether there are chicanes a la Tamburello? Hell yes.

No, I don't want another NASCAR series. But F1 is still plenty diverse even with one standard tire.


tifosi: I do believe the Bridgestone is THIS year superior. Ferrari worked so closely with Bridgestone, that the tire works for their car, but not for others.

 

Tires make the biggest difference of any single component. If Ferrari were to switch overnight, it would be a disaster since much of the car is designed with the tires in mind.

That said, assuming the F2004 was designed to work with the Michelin rubber, I think Ferrari would definitely still be winning, but perhaps not on the level we are seeing. They do enjoy an advantage of being different.

Keep in mind there has been no consistant challenger this year, BAR Renault Williams and McLaren seem to be taking turns, so in the face of soft compeition like that, I'd say Ferrari would be winning if they were on street tires. It also doesn't hurt that Paolo Martinelli is from a different planet and his motors simply do not fail.

 

Different engines, chassis, aerodynamics, electronics, brakes don't then? I don't think tires distort the image of the teams strength more than any other factor.

True that Minardi might go the way of the Dodo, but the field will always be full. Jordan, Sauber et. al will find the money to continue. If not, its another example of F1 natural selection? You can't compete at the highest level: go home.

Testing is not only for tires. It may be boring, but alas, even being a Formula 1 driver is a job, and sometimes its not all fun.

Hogwash, these cars would continue to go faster and faster on square wheels. Just like any other rule that is added to try to slow it down, F1 will get faster. Do you support removing manufacturer engines and switching to Chrysler V8s? Do you support a standard rear wing? Then why NASCAR tires?

Slippery slope often?

 

Holy smokes, you have a point there!

 

Tyres are and always will be the most important tool in a racing car/drivers tool box.

Tyres control cornering speed, including entry speed and most importantly exit speed. Yes aerodynamics help, but without a good tyre you might as well go home.

In the end the only thing that actually connects with the road is the tyre and thus have the biggest by far effect on handling and grip.

Also with modern race cars they are 80% of the suspension movement.

On top of that at the moment with enforced pitstops we have the tyre consistency issue, which is not just a wear issue but how well the tyres perform over a long period of time and handle the heat, etc.

I very much look forward to the return of a control tyre as a few years ago we had a very poor session from an excitement perspective because the Michelin tyres sucked ... thus masking the true performance of the Williams car ... and handing the championship to the excellent Ferrari team and Bridgestone tyre combination.

Michelins have come on in leaps and bounds since then, but the tyre war IS the cause of the massive performance jump. Without the tyre war the manufactures would just make a reliable tyre that would probably be harder than absolutely necessary because they would be thinking of reducing manufacturing costs more than beating the other tyre company.

Pete's opinion

ps: Remember 2003 ... many blamed the F2003-GA's poor performance on the Bridgestone tyre ... there were other issues, but Ferrari nearly lost that championship. Remember Bridgestone were pinged for running different compounds front and rear and thus had to relearn how to make a single compound work ... it took them a long time and the Ferrari struggled ...

 

ad a) The factors you mention make the image, make the difference and that's what I love about F1. I want Ferrari to win because of their engine, their car, their engineering. But I really really don't give a hoot about what tires they're on. I have a Ferrari for its engine, not for the tires it came on (which by now have been replaced with a different brand anyway).

ad b) Sadly we don't have a full field at the moment. F1 is supposed to be 24 cars or 26 depending on where you set the tradition. 20 cars is definitely 4 too few.

ad c) True, but currently most test time is wasted on this silly tire war. Testing for engines etc is ok of course.

ad d) True, F1 will always go faster, but a simple one brand hard compound spec tire is the easiest and most efficient way to slow things down. Pete made the statement already.

ad e) Could be, but you have to slow them down somehow and I rather see spec tires than spec engines etc.

Bottom line for me is, that I just don't ever get exited about tires. They're like motor oil or fuel to me. Couldn't care less.

PS: This isn't just my opinion. If you read some of the interviews with ex GP drivers, they all come to the same conclusion.

 

Sorry but I can't agree with you on that one. Tires make the biggest difference of any single component... as the saying goes, "only part that touches the road." I know you've seen times in F1 that were as dull as paint while there was only a single tire manufactorer. We all want to see close racing, but a spec tire is not the answer.

 

Surely has to part of the answer?

Pete

 

A spec tire adds to bunch the racing closer together, but that isn't really its strong part, I agree with that. The point of the spec tire is to stop the endless testing war (escalation of costs and abuse of resources) and hold back the increasing speed development.

F1 always needed ways to keep it relatively safe. You can make tracks bigger and wider, which puts the spectators far far away (e.g. current Nuerburgring). You can slow down tracks with ugly chicanes (Imola, lost all its grandeur after 94) or with 3rd gear standard turns (any new Tilke track). Or you can slow down the cars.

Since I really don't care about tire manufacturers, slowing the cars via a spec tire is IMHO the least evil and a very efficient way. Actually for the eye a spec tire could be fun: It could be as wide as in 89 and be a slick, yet still have no grip, which would bring back some of the cool sliding action. Now tell me what's wrong with that please?

 

Pete