Comments on: Bridgestone to widen difference between tyres in 2009 – but how will we know?

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:42:32 +0000

I’d rather have slicks but no tyre war, than have a tyre war but with a return to grooves. And these days I think it’s has to be either/or to contain speeds and costs.

By: Influenced

Influenced — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:29:02 +0000

Just bring back the tire war it was much more exciting have a poll on that see what people say. to be honest i know the compound make some difference in lap times. But many of the less hardcore fans couldn’t care as much as when it was michellin vs bridgestone ahhhh the good old days when car didn’t look ugly.

By: DG

DG — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:26:51 +0000

@Bbbut – but it would possibly be cheaper if there were more than one supplier (in fact more than two suppliers), as they would be ‘competing’ in real business terms to provide the best tyres at the cheapest cost (which also benifits road cars). As it is Bridgestone can inflate the prices of their tyres and their services and FIA/FOM or the teams HAVE to pay since they are the only supplier allowed.
@Sush – I know its all in the branding these days, and I can never remember who owns what! I wonder why the tyres aren’t marked as ‘Firestone’ sometimes then – hey ‘Bridgestone’ for the Hard compound and ‘Firestone’ for the Soft!

By: Bbbut

Bbbut — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:31:37 +0000

@Keith
I think it is really unfair, to claim this rule was made for PR reasons only.

This rule change was actually one of the few cases, where the FIA did something that really helped to cut down the cost in F1!

F1 tyres are ******* expensive, especially the transportation to the tracks! Bridgestone is spending millions for that.

Just look at the numbers:

Currently for every race they bring 1120 dry tyres (7×4 “prime” + 7×4 “option” sets for each car) and 560 wets.
From Saturday on every driver has 10 sets available, this means only 5 for every compound.

Now, without this rule the teams would just use half of these. Teams would evaluate the compounds on Friday and then go for the better one. But this would mean Bridgestone had to bring them much more sets of one type because 5 tyres for training, Q1, Q2, Q3 and 3 for the race creates a serious shortage.

So they had to bring at least two sets more maybe even four. Bring another 320 tyres (from which 160 get thrown away) just for keeping the teams happy?

Instead they realised, that forcing the teams to use the
“bad” set once in the race, spares them two sets to bring more. Plus, since the teams know, that they have to prepare for the “bad” tyres, they use them in training as well.

And yes, we are still talking about the tyres and there is also the potential of more overtaking, is that so bad?

This is a real case of a rule, saving money (millions) for FIA’s exclusive tyre supplier.
That is why I find it unfair to discredit this as a sole “PR” rule. It is not or at least not primarily.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:58:04 +0000

Polak – That’s not a million miles away from Bridgestone’s current advertising campaign “the only F1 tyre”. Here’s a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJffmPsyqc

By: Polak

Polak — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:53:28 +0000

Picture a F1 car sitting in the pits with the wheels off…. Then the caption “Bridgestone or nothing”

If this commercial ever appears I want my cut.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:26:39 +0000

That rule is so daft. Seriously I’d rather have the Tyre Wars back but with more than 2 manufacturers. And it can be done, let the teams pick their own tyre suppliers for the next 3 years and those companies cannoth be Bridgestone/Firestone or Michelen. After the 3 years those two/three companies are permitted to sell their tyres again.

Would be good to see the likes of Goodyear and Pirelli return. Who knows maybe Dunlop, Avon and Continental might be interested.

By: Pingguest

Pingguest — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:17:29 +0000

I think the mandatory compound switch makes the sport unnecessarily complicated. Just get rid of it and make the drivers decide what compound they want to take.

But as said in the article, this rule is the logic consequence of the control tyre. I never like the idea of the control tyre. Let’s get rid of it.

By: George

George — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:04:22 +0000

Why does the rubber have to be black? Why not have hot pink for the ‘soft option’ and baby blue for the ‘hard option’

LOL just thought about the Ferrari cars with Clashing hot pink rubber, sounds like something Max might enjoy as well LMAO

Gawd I crack me up!

but seriously, I don’t have an issue with the tyre rules at the moment, when we had multiple suppliers in the sport the tyre war was getting very dangerous, just ask Ralf Schumacher

By: Tengil

Tengil — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:42:06 +0000

One of the reasons they didn’t paint the sidewalls is that one compound can be “option” one weekend and “prime” the next and they don’t want to throw any tyres away.
They must be able to mark the tyres quickly in the pits, I think Steve K has the best solution so far.