Just when you think things can't get more stupid, they do :(
Does this mean that you don't care what quality of oil or fuel you put in your Ferrari? Tire competition in racing isn't about making better racing -- it's about making better tires. When Goodyear was supplying the F1 rain tires, there were no better street tires than the Eagle VRs. By 2002, when I replaced the VRs on my 328 with Pole Positions, it was a huge improvement. By todays' standards, VRs are pretty lame. Tires keep getting better, when the tire manufacturers have to come up with better tires. I think Michelin is dropping out, because by the end of 2005, it was pretty obvious that Michelin were making their F1 tires competitive by making them dangerously thin. Whichever team was hardest on their rubber on a given race were going to have problems. Toyota had tire problems at a large number of races. And weren't they one of the first teams to announce that they were going to switch to Bridgestones? (That would also explain why it was harder to get BSs up to temp on single lap qualifying.) But you can only get just so thin before it all goes wrong ... like it did at Indy. And it's a technique that doesn't improve street tires at all. They don't need to change the number of tire suppliers -- they need to change the number of tires per weekend. No tire changes? Oh, puhleese. My street tires wouldn't stand up to an F1 race distance at 10/10s. If they really want to stir things up in F1, implement emissions standards. Now that's a technology that applies to real hardware. (And emissions controls would likely make the cars quieter, which could address the complaints around Imola.)
Too bad, I'm a big Michelin fan but I saw this comming too. You guys are right, the conditions were really against them, with all the rule changes and everything. I guess F1 didn't want to have the best tyres anymore.
Basically yes. If it has the octane level and viscosity etc the manufacturer suggests then I'm satisfied. If you look at where fuel is coming from and what makes it a brand fuel (Exxon vs Shell) IMHO the differences are cosmetic and marketing related. Very similar to say VHS cassettes (I heard there are only a handfull of factories worldwide who slap on different labels). I got rid of the tires on my Ferrari because the rubber was old. Then I put new ones on that the dealer recommended and they're just fine. I already forgot what they are. That's how much it matters to me. Ferrari has used Agip and Shell, Michelins, Brigestones and Goodyears over the years. They have sucked and been victorious with all these brands. Given a plain playing field it doesn't matter. The car, the engine and the driver matter. Not the tires, the fuel or the oil. To me at least. PS: I'm not saying you can't get an advantage/disadvantage through the tires. I know you can. That's my point: I don't want them to win or loose because of the tires. I want them to win because of the chassis, engine and driver combo. Rubber is a consumable.
Agree, now we will see more even racing, instead of this track suits Michelin and this one suits Bridgestone processions. Pete
Talk about a direct slap in the face of Max Mosley. Good: I hate that guy. Now that we're going to a single tire supplier can we PLEASE get rid of those stupid grooves?
Racing is about getting the advantage by bvetter technology. If a tire offers better technology then it should be an advantage. makes no sense to ban advances in technology.
Sad day. It's only one more step towards "spec" wing, spec ECU, spec engine, spec shocks, spec brakes, spec chassis, spec........NASCAR WTF/TFS!
i don;t agree. the stupid 1 tyre rule damaged the sport terribly, and it's still a bleak day in F1 after that incident in INDY. if u asked me, michelin had only themselves to blame. furthermore, i think that damn 1 tyre rule is stupid and dangerous in 330 km/h sport. michelin sacrificed safety for speed. look how many incidents michelin had compared to BS this year. plus, i think this whole 1 tyre rule thing was to bring Ferrari down, not as a cost cutting measure.
I didn't like the rule either but i wonder if it would have been back next year if BS and Ferrari won in a walk.
F1 used to be a "manufacturer's series", and used to be about the technology used to improve vehicle technology. The proliferation of "spec" racing just reflects the modern era: manufacturers don't care about performance. They care about government regulations and loopholes. They care about building big cheap "SUV" boxes that they can sell for big bucks to incompetent schlebbs who just sit out in gridlock on highways that aren't being upgraded, flow managed, or even patched regularly. After all, it's much easier to impose new restrictions on the vehicles than to make autobahns to let traffic actually move, and where vehicle performance might matter. (Heck; if the gov really worried about reducing emissions, then why are we sitting idling at all these unsynchronized traffic lights every two blocks?) Making good roads would take money out of the pork barrel. So in an era where "green" hybrid cars (filled with eco-disaster lead-acid batteries) are being hyped to the public, what manufacturer wants to spend money on the race track finding better performance? (Well, this is a Ferrari chat page, after all. ) Ferraris are politically incorrect. Competence is elitist. Freedom is slavery. Ketchup is a vegetable. Danger Will Robinson.
IMHO you're off the mark with that statement. It's the FIA herding the field towards a spec series not the manufacturers. You don't think BMW wants to kick Merc butt with superior technology ? Of course they do. And the fact that the FIA will have so many spec components only fuels the GPMA fire.
You guys are overreacting. We had one tire manufacturer in the past and it wasn't the end of the world. The fact that Michelin leaves doesn't mean there isn't a 2nd supplier showing up at some point. I just hope nobody else will. Tire wars only distort the picture of real performance by car/engine/driver. Furthermore they increase speeds and hence risks. With only one tire in 2007 BS can make that compound as hard as they want hence lowering cornering speeds and increase durability (read safety). Ergo the call for spec wings, spec engines etc will actually go down because we have already lowered risks and speeds. Also most of the testing and its related expenses was down to the tire war. With that gone in 2007, there will be more focus on testing what really matters: Engine and chassis. That also will lead to cost reductions in a nice way as opposed in a demanded way by FIA or some silly "gentlemen's agreement". It is a good thing. Seriously. Dubai Vol: Quite the opposite. Mad Max will love the fact that Michelin quits. For safety reasons and because he has won another round in a power battle.
I think it's a good thing for a number of reasons, especially as it will help Ferrari regain their position at the top: 1) Very one sided testing at the moment - 5 top teams testing with Michelin, 1 with Bridgestone. 2) Increase safety, decrease costs: increased safety because with a spec tyre you don't have to push the boundaries of what's safe, lower costs obviously with less testing needed. 3) Then we don't have to have stupid one tyre per race rules, as everyone is on a spec tyre, who cares how many time sthey have to change during the race. 4) The best team to utilize the spec rubber with their chassis setup, wins. 5) No more fiasco's like Indy - Michelin should have been kicked out then.
will definitely be interesting to see how it unfolds. I can see plusses and minuses. Hope it works out for the best but my gut is telling me I dont like a lack of competition; however, it still seemed lame for M to pull out of Indy because their tires werent safe-WTF? Im sure Im over simplifying or perhaps even misrepresenting and more knowledgeable fchatters will clue me in but thats the bottom line way I remember it.
Incorrect. 3 top teams are on testing with Bridgestone: Ferrari, Toyota, Williams http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=26735 False. I'm assuming you've never raced a car or Kart. The perception of wrecking at 200mph or 190mph through O'Rouge is safer is just laughable. And that's the type of difference we're talking about with harder rubber brought about by a one tire manufacturer rule. Also race drivers aren't employed because they take it safe. They're employed to take risks. Granted they're calculated risks but risks none the less. Any race driver worth his salt will always be pushing his or her car to and over it's limits. That's how the limits are found and it's then up to the engineers to figure out how to extend those limits even further. And they will. That's how it works. Test sessions are full of off road excursions by drivers. The test session is arguably more dangerous to a driver than a race. Why? Because that's when the cars are really being pushed to the breaking point. As far as less testing needed... race teams will always try to spend as much time on the test (or these days on the test bench) as they can afford. It's always the last 1% of performance that takes up 90% of the budget. But it's that 1% that puts you on the top podium at the end of the race. One tenth of a second per lap is more expensive than you think and teams will spend what ever they need to in order to get it out of their cars. I for one loved the one tire rule. With the one tire rule any short comings in the chassis were shown. What do I mean by that? Well, with a one tire rule the chassis must utilize the tires throughout the entire tires performance range. Something last years Ferrari did extremely poorly. I suspect the performance Ferrari's of years past had more to do with tire performance than chassis and engine performance. They made the car to utilize the tires optimum performance window and when it began to move out of that window, chuck on some new tires! Good engineering is about problem solving. By allowing multiple tire changes you're simply eliminating problems the engineers must overcome. Which is my argument above. I really don't have a problem with one tire manufacturer in the series. But if they kept the one tire rule we'd be able so really see who has the chassis as was evident from this past years series. The fiasco at Indy was the FIA's fault through and through. Instances such as that are plentiful throughout motor racing history and even within one tire supplier series. If Michelin is soooo incompetent then let's think about something. What do the winners of the F1 constructors a & drivers championship, World Rallying Championship, 24hr of LeMans, MotoGP all have in common? They were all on Michelin tires. Bridgestone's accomplishments pale in comparison. my .02
If it keeps costs down so that more teams can afford to race in F1 that will be great. But there should be sticky's for qualifying and no limit during the race. F1's biggest problem is a lack of cars on the grid.
