Didn't they used those tyres to do the burn-out during the Winter Olympus to creat the red smoke on the opening ceremony?
From leaking memory that car had regular tires, but I could be wrong. Also the Chicago car show was about one year before the Winter Olympics.
I know when Michelin first came in they talked about making the tires different colors to match the teams' color schemes. Various objections scuttled the idea. Clearly, from that pic, Bridgestone hasn't quite managed to make the colors match.
It's call house paint and a thick brush. P.S. Going for a quick drive afterwards helps the paint soak into the tires better. P.P.S. I would suggest having the same colour going on the tires as you have on the car though!
Kewl. It really is a piece of history now. I read somewhere that it was Badoer driving, but IIRC he was wearing a MS helmet. Also read that Pininfarina designed the Olympic fire thingy, which really looks a bit like the spaghetti exhaust from a sixties Ferrari F1. All very close to home. Of course with Agnelli basically owning the place they had the games in.
Question: Why must F1 turn to the tires as a source of excitement? Am I the only one who sees that as a bottom-of-the-barrel attempt? If you want the racing to be exciting, then stop dictating what they can use--PERIOD! Let them qualify on low fuel. Let them use whatever tires they want all weekend. Let. Them. Race.
I agree with this. Kind of like NASCAR I suppose. Just one tire choice, correct, no other compounds? They also say when the pit lane window opens. Everyone gets fuel from the same tank that is constantly sloshing around to keep it even. I don't think that last part would work because quite a few oil companies are already involved in F1. Petronas, Petrobras, Shell, what else?
Ah, fuel! I remember back in the turbo era, BMW "rediscovered" the secret formula used during WWII for Messerschmitts. At the same time, the British teams found the old formula used in Spitfires! Even afterwards, companies like Elf were reportedly spending hundreds of dollars per litre to produce race fuel for Williams in the early '90s. They would shut down a whole refinery to produce a special batch.
Can we talk about the rule itself? Seriously we have enough piss-and-moan session/reminice about the good 'ol days/<instert favorite other motorsport here>-is-better discussions already. I confess I haven't seen any CART races with this rule in place, but in principal it sounds like another challenge for the teams with car setup, and will also challenge the driver's skill more when the car is on the less suited compound. Like I said before, I like this rule. Once again in theory, the positives are more interesting qualifing sessions, lesser teams making it up the grid, more passing, and better late race excitement. The biggest backfire in my estimation is that it could turn into a new status quo if it becomes apparent that one option is clearly better than the other. Sort of like fuel strategy- 85% of the field uses the same strategy, and the few cars on alternate strategy usually have only a minor impact on the race overall.
The rule? The rule is stupid. Let the teams use whichever tires they feel give them the best performance. The goal, after all, is good racing. Right? Rules don't create excitement. The reason that this rule didn't turn BridgestonePresentsChampionshipAutoRacingTeamsPoweredByFord (that name still just GLIDES off the tongue!) into pure fandemonium is because the few fans who went to the races were already racing fans who don't need candied-up rules to enjoy and appreciate the on-track action. And those viewers who turn on the TV are going to be the same folks. Rules like this are ridiculous by-products of the video game era.
Rules like this are the byproduct of people complaining for years that there is not enough action in F1. So they create these (I'll agree- artificial) means of "spicing up the show." Fuel strategy, and now this tire rule is more of the same. In general I have found this type of racing interesting. Would I prefer a more pure version of F1? Possibly, but if that formula was perfect it would have never been deviated from in the first place.
What was once the pinnacle of motorsport will soon be another spec series. Nothing against spec racing, I like it, but lets not pretend F1 is something it isn't. Innovation and ingenuity were killed some time ago. The drivers are mere passengers, and the passing is done mostly in pit lane. Yuk.
I think the rules in place today, and those coming in the future are because of the lack of on track competition and escalating costs. I am OK with bringing about better on track competition, but F1 is F1, it sure as heck going to be costly, but that is why it is the epitomy of motor sports.
To a certain extent this discussion has not brought up the issue of safety. It has been very clear over the years that Michelin are an unethical company who have put the livs of racers at risk to increase performance over Bridgestone. Bridgestone has proven that they provide safer tyres and is a dedicated partner. It is clear that the FIA had no choice when deciding which tye manufactuer to select that would keep safety of the racers in mind above all things. After all Michelin are responsible for seriously injurng and almost killing two racers at the USGP. The use of spec tyres from Bridgestone will ensure safety and the hard/ soft choice will ensures that strategy remains a crucial part of F1!
Couldn't disagree more with you: 1) There is plenty of safety in F1 these days. Some people actually call it boring because of that. And even some drivers are mildly complaining that today you can get away with anything because it is so safe. I wouldn't take away from the current safety standards (accidents can still happen), but I wouldn't focus on that aspect right now. 2) Michelin actually played it safe at the USGP by telling everybody their tires aren't safe. Had they allowed for the race to continue, then they would have been unethical. Quite the opposite from your scenario. 3) Tires are coming apart as the margin for the competitive edge is getting smaller and smaller. Point in case: Look at Monza. Tire failure for Michelin and BS. 4) Nobody got "seriously injured" at USGP. Bullocks. Both drivers were released after being examined. True that Ralf came very close to a serious injury, but hey, going 200 mph is never safe. Had the tire on the Aguri in Monza let go a few seconds earlier, the car would have slammed right into the exit walls at Parabolica and it would have been a similar accident like Ralf's in Indy. 5) The FIA chose Bridgestone because Michelin was about to retire anyway. Do you just call any French company unethical because you're biased against the French? I couldn't care less whether it is Michelin, BS, Goodyear, Avon or anybody else providing the tires in F1. They're just tires after all. A piece of rubber that wasn't made by any of the car manufacturers and that can only distort the drivers' abilities. Good thing we have a monopoly again. And yes that will increase safety. But not because it is BS, but because the competitive edge is no longer an issue.
1) The fact that Michelin brought faulty and unsafe tyres to the USGP proves that they are a company that do not care about the safety of racers. 2) Tyre failures at Monza shows that there is still a need for more safety. The run off areas at many tracks given the current speeds is still sub-standard to say the least. 3) I call Michelin unethical because in the past we have see how they cheat with regards to tyre specifcations and dimensional regulations. 4) Bridgestone were chosen because they were a safer choice. They have proven their dedication to F1 as technical partners with Scuderia Ferrari. Bridgestone is not in it just for some quick pubicity like Michelin's one season win and quit marketing strategy! 5) Bridgestone are already thinking about the fans and the sport. They don't want a spec series with no tyre strategy involved. So the hard/ soft tyre choice will keep F1 interesting. Ferrari made the right choice... Great vision on behalf of Jean Todt and Ross Brawn!
Bridgestone is still hoping that F1's governing body adopts its suggestion to impose a red tyre option for the 2007 season. To coincide with its monopoly on tyre supply next year, the Japanese company would like the Champ Car-style regulation to keep some interest in tyres in the sport. The rule would make it compulsory for every driver to use both 'hard' and 'soft' compounds in every race, with red tyre walls differentiating the tyres. At present, the FIA rule for 2007 involves the availability of two tyre specs, but not the requirement to use both. "This decision is made by all the teams and the FIA, so we listen to them and their decisions," said Bridgestone's Director of Motorsport, Hiroshi Yasukawa, at Suzuka on Friday. "But if we are concerned about fairness, then I think it's a good idea." E.A. Source GMM
While I like the idea to visually differentiate between the compounds making the drivers have to pick one each is a ridiculous rule. What's next? Tell them when to do the pitstop? FIA is going the wrong direction with all the ruling and controlling. They really are trying to manage the "sport".
It just adds an extra variable. The racers have to use the hard and soft compound so it will make for interesting strategic decisions.
