Bridgestone has just announced that they will not supply tires to F1 after the 2010 season.

Who and/or what will replace them?

From a spectator's perspective and assuming another single supplier steps in, does it even matter who makes the tires if they are safe? As long as the tires don't catastrophically fail at speed, create berms of marbles on the edges of the racing line and everyone has equal access to the same rubber, even if they are 5 seconds a lap slower than 2009 it shouldn't affect the outcome much. Some teams will adapt better and succeed, no doubt the same teams that would if any other maker had supplied the tires. Hoosier, Avon, Carlisle, whomever- make a deal and get on with it.

I have to disagree with desmo. I am sure the teams do not want a tire supplier with no prior formula1 knowledge stepping in. I am sure bridgestone put a lot of development into there formula1 specific tires. Personally, I would like to see Michelin return as the tire supplier for formula1.

Hi George.
I have recently join this site and this is nice idea for providing us information about this news. Would you mind to let us know more about this? Thanks!

By now there are many articles telling the whole story.

I think that the tire issue is much bigger than we initially thought.

Tire performance characteristics are key to the whole car design so while it will have no impact on 2010 the design cycle for the 2011 cars will be starting in March or April and confusion about the tire will delay all the teams. Once again some design teams respond better to the challenge of change so 2011 is already up in the air.

I wonder even more about F1 after the Bridgestone annoucement of quiting at he end of 2010. "Everybody" in F1 was apparently having a great time at the AD GP courtsey of the AD governements largesse. "They all wanted to get post qualifying over so they could get to the Kings of Leone concert" was one report. "The track is amazing etc etc". was another

Meanwhile the supplier of the one thing that every F1 car has to have, and the single most complex element in the whole car dynamics area ( and therefore arguably the biggest single issue in design) is annoucing, in effect, party over guys!.

All the teams have CFD and all the fabrication capacity they could probably wish for. Most of them have a tame manufacturer ( or are a mfr. ) with engine capacity, none of them can make tyres or design tyres so this may well be the biggest F1 story in years.


Of course there are some other tyre makers of Bridgestones size and calibre but they are only called Michelin and Goodyear. Michelin could afford it if really want to but Goodyear is in such financial trouble that they may be very unwilling to commit to the cost.

Some of the Korean brands ( Kuhmo and Hancock ) could probably both afford it and make a marketing case as a way of reaching Michelin/Bridgestone credibility, but I think it would be a big technical and logistics ask for them in just 14 months.


SO it could all get solved by a kind Michelin or it may be there is only a commercial only route going forward to avoid the cars racing on alloy rims. In that case a very big new design limit will be on F1 drawing boards very soon. If you start design on the 2011 cars in say May 2010 then you would like to know, or must second guess , the 2011 tyre performance data in 26 weeks time.

Hrrrrm, maybe this will put F1 on DOT tires like I always wanted

Who wants to supply F1 with tires? One of the many emerging Pacific Rim tire manufacturers with a huge marketing budget and wanting to make an impression in the global retail markets. It's worth much more $$$ to one of them than to any of the established European tire makers -- the exercise is mainly in branding and name recognition.

Is there some reason why supplying F1 with tires, particularly as a single supplier with no competition, would be any more difficult or costly than supplying any other major motorsport series? I think if as a tire supplier your answer is yes, you are overthinking the whole thing. If F1 can't easily entice/recruit a willing tire supplier, they really really suck at what they do.

I don't know this at all, just making it up as I go along, but I would presume the Bridgestone announcement was timed and arranged to clear the field for final negotiations among the active suitor(s) -- signalling that the process is now live and in play. A successful bidder would have no problem, I would think, hiring top technical people with immediate expertise from a company or companies with a surplus of such personnel.

It's early, but I call Chen Shin.

I'll go with Kumho, but with a spread bet on Pirelli.

Although Goodyear would be excellent, just for making everyone have to work a little harder. It's not quite my dream scenario of an all-weather bias-ply tire, but it's a start.

I will go with Falken.

I worked on a car at Bathurst in the early 90s that run on Falken tyres. They were Falken good.

Falken = Goodyear

One of the shortest but most accurate answer on any of the threads on this issue.

My money's on Hankook or Kumho.

Ben

Wrong.

Falken = SRI

SRI own Dunlop who are in a joint venture with Goodyear in Europe. Goodyear Dunlop is 75% Goodyear and 25% Dunlop in Europe. It was 75% Dunlop and 25% Goodyear in Japan, but SRI bought back so Dunlop in Japan (and therefore Falken) is 100% SRI.

Ben

If the teams are going to not want to work with anyone who has not been in F1 lately, but Bridgestone or Michelin do not want to continue - what choice do they have really?
Aren't they just afraid of losing any knowledge or the place in the F1 top 10 hierarchy they currently have and using 'safety' as an impregnable argument?

Who the teams want to work with as a tire supplier seems entirely unimportant.