34 replies to this topic

[abc02]

These days in F1 we're hearing so much about the Pirellis and how they've affected the racing. Did Goodyear ever get that sort of attention in the days of Senna, Prost etc? Or were they just taken for granted?

[Paul Hurdsfield]

I think they were round and black.......sorry, I'll get my coat.

[Allan Lupton]

In those days (and for most of previous recorded time) the tyre manufacturers and the car designers were "allowed" to work together and use whatever combination of tread pattern and compound they thought appropriate for the conditions. Oh and as there was a choice of tyre manufacturer the work of each could/would spur on the other(s).
Now that tyres are controlled with so much rigour, racing is poorer for it and IMO no cheaper.

[uechtel]

It depends. In former times the tyre companies used to choose certain teams to cooperate with, while other teams had to get along with 'wooden' tyres, which made them virtually chanceless. This is always a problem if one manufacturer achieves a massive superiority and can concentrate on a few teams only. On the other hand it was nice to see the competition between Goodyear and Pirelli in 1989 which brought some interesting results for some of the smaller teams. But the low point was for sure that Indianapolis race where one manufacturer saw no chance and recommended his contracted teams to retire their cars at the start of the race. So free choice of tyres can really be 'two-faced'.

[kayemod]

But the low point was for sure that Indianapolis race where one manufacturer saw no chance and recommended his contracted teams to retire their cars at the start of the race. So free choice of tyres can really be 'two-faced'.

That's very unfair on Michelin, their decision wasn't about performance, whether they could win or not, it was about safety. The effect on the race was unfortunate and bad for F1, but despite the criticism they got from the FIA and others, I think it was a brave decision.

[Stephen W]

I think they were round and black.......sorry, I'll get my coat.

Bugger! You beat me to it!

[cpbell]

I always liked the Goodyear Eagle lettering on the sidewalls...think I'll join you in donning my coat.

[Paolo]

It depends. In former times the tyre companies used to choose certain teams to cooperate with, while other teams had to get along with 'wooden' tyres, which made them virtually chanceless. This is always a problem if one manufacturer achieves a massive superiority and can concentrate on a few teams only.

True. I had a first hand account that some years ago Ferrari tyres had THREE times the longitudinal stiffness than Minardi tyres of theoretically the same specification.

[kayemod]

True. I had a first hand account that some years ago Ferrari tyres had THREE times the longitudinal stiffness than Minardi tyres of theoretically the same specification.

'Schumacher Specials'.

[uechtel]

That's very unfair on Michelin, their decision wasn't about performance, whether they could win or not, it was about safety. The effect on the race was unfortunate and bad for F1, but despite the criticism they got from the FIA and others, I think it was a brave decision.

Do you think, that if they had been sole supplier of the whole field, they would have behaved the same way, too?

[kayemod]

Do you think, that if they had been sole supplier of the whole field, they would have behaved the same way, too?

Well yes, I do think that. The problem was the way that Indy had treated the track surface since the year before, and with no testing allowed, it came as a shock to Michelin whose tyres were failing due to the stresses imposed by that last banked corner, Bridgestone were fortunate in that they weren't affected, but it could just as easily have been the other way around. This is where the nasty side of F1 came into play. There were quite reasonable suggestions for slowing cars through the problem corner, from memory I think that Bernie and all the Michelin teams were in favour of that, but the Bridgestone runners, for which read those ultra-sportsmen Ferrari, the only opinion that really counted and more importantly Max Mosley said "No!", and that in my opinion was how F1 had one of its 'Days of Shame', which could so easily have been avoided. The cost to Michelin, both in monetary terms and damage to their reputation was enormous, it was a disaster for the standing of F1 in the USA, but despite this they had the balls to do the honourable thing in the name of safety. They were already very well regarded within the sport, and they moved up in the estimation of most of the people who mattered after that.

[Option1]

I'm sorry Rob, that's one interpretation only. I for one, thought that the push to change the track configuration to slow cars through the "problem" corner was ludicrous and rightly rejected. If a team or teams turn/s up with equipment incapable of running the race then I see no reason why others should have been penalised. Yes it wasn't good for the sport, but as far as I'm concerned the blame lay firmly, fairly and squarely on Michelin. They're the ones who had cut the margin between safety and performance too fine.

Neil

[kayemod]

Neil, you're right to say that the track change Michelin wanted, in effect a fast chicane which was supported by Bernie, would have been a bit 'Mickey Mouse', but you could say that about the entire infield section of that track. What caught Michelin out was the fact that the goalposts had been moved since they'd raced on that same track the year before, the track surface was significantly different, Bridgestone runners could live with that, but the Michelin runners couldn't, with results that we all know, I don't think that there were any serious suggestions that Michelin had consciously ditched safety to gain performance.

[Option1]

Fair comment, Rob.

Neil

[ghinzani]

Their tyres has a 'y; in them. Damn colonials....

Edited by ghinzani, 12 April 2011 - 14:14.

[uechtel]

Well yes, I do think that. The problem was the way that Indy had treated the track surface since the year before, and with no testing allowed, it came as a shock to Michelin whose tyres were failing due to the stresses imposed by that last banked corner, Bridgestone were fortunate in that they weren't affected, but it could just as easily have been the other way around. This is where the nasty side of F1 came into play. There were quite reasonable suggestions for slowing cars through the problem corner, from memory I think that Bernie and all the Michelin teams were in favour of that, but the Bridgestone runners, for which read those ultra-sportsmen Ferrari, the only opinion that really counted and more importantly Max Mosley said "No!", and that in my opinion was how F1 had one of its 'Days of Shame', which could so easily have been avoided. The cost to Michelin, both in monetary terms and damage to their reputation was enormous, it was a disaster for the standing of F1 in the USA, but despite this they had the balls to do the honourable thing in the name of safety. They were already very well regarded within the sport, and they moved up in the estimation of most of the people who mattered after that.

I don´t want to blame Michelin or any other instuitution, but my intention was to state, that it would not have happened this way if there had been only one tyre manufacturer. I am sure in this case they would have found some workaround.

If there are two contrahents it is logical, that if one runs into problems the other one is looking for terms to benefit on this.

Also the tendency is, that the on has an advantage, who can concentrate on one top team rather than to have to satisfy the demands of a whole field. The effect is, that every supplier will concentrate on one or perhaps two 'contracted' teams, while the rest of the 'customers' will have to live with what they get offered.

[JtP1]

I think they were round and black.......sorry, I'll get my coat.

and all different diameters!

[David M. Kane]

I personally think the '70s with Firestone and Goodyear competiting against each other was a very good situation that made for good racing. I think it's called a competitive marketplace. This over-spec current formula sucks IMO.

[D-Type]

They were good enough to score 358 wins from 493 races according to this site.

[elansprint72]

I think they were round and black.......sorry, I'll get my coat.

Amen to the last sensible post.... ummm... posted on this thread. Nostalgia forum, not present day vs. recent history forum; guys.

[Lee Nicolle]

Free tyres were good for the sport, but only when the tyres are the same for all customers. personally I would love to see competition with tyres but only if they are a spec tyre advailable to all teams. eg A non contracted team can BUY the same tyres as supplied to the contracted teams and the tyres are the same all season.
That way it will level the playing field and we wont have the stupid current situation where a set of tyres last 10 laps.

[Arjan de Roos]

It depends. In former times the tyre companies used to choose certain teams to cooperate with, while other teams had to get along with 'wooden' tyres, which made them virtually chanceless.

And pennyless. For instance in 1978 GY chose to work with only 8 teams. Others could buy tyres in England, had to pay for them, transport and mount all by themselves. At the time a cost for about $25.000 for one car for one year. Often a big chunk from the budget, if not all. Times.

[Amphicar]

While researching something totally different recently, I noticed that in two seasons during the 1950s (1954 & 1958) five different tyre companies provided tyres for cars involved in F1 championship races: Avon; Continental; Dunlop; Englebert; and Pirelli. If you include the Indianapolis 500, which was at that time, a round counting towards the Championship, you can add Firestone too. 1958 was the high water mark as the number of tyre manufacturers involved then started to fall year by year. By the 1961 season only Dunlop was still supplying F1 rubber, a situation that lasted until 1964, when Mário de Araújo Cabral's Derrington-Francis broke the de facto Dunlop monopoly by running on Goodyears at the Italian GP.

[arttidesco]

Goodyear were in F1 for several decades so it very much depends on which era your talking about, I seem to remember Firestone had a good reputation in the wet over the Goodyears in the early 1970's, and I remember the era of the 'wooden' Goodyear qualifiers when Michelin appeared on the scene in 1977/78.

[Paolo]

I remember the era of the 'wooden' Goodyear qualifiers when Michelin appeared on the scene in 1977/78.

Do you mean all Goodyear qualifiers were "wooden" at the time, or that just some for the less privileged were?

[Arjan de Roos]

Do you mean all Goodyear qualifiers were "wooden" at the time, or that just some for the less privileged were?

Certainly not. See my post, they worked with teams (meaning they developped for them). Others just had to buy of the shelf slicks. GY at times moved about with special sets for special drivers. Annoying team mates/competitors who found out, etc. Also stories are known of GY sets that went missing at Italian border when a certain Italian team ran Michelin's.

Edited by Arjan de Roos, 13 April 2011 - 17:16.

[Roger Clark]

While researching something totally different recently, I noticed that in two seasons during the 1950s (1954 & 1958) five different tyre companies provided tyres for cars involved in F1 championship races: Avon; Continental; Dunlop; Englebert; and Pirelli. If you include the Indianapolis 500, which was at that time, a round counting towards the Championship, you can add Firestone too. 1958 was the high water mark as the number of tyre manufacturers involved then started to fall year by year. By the 1961 season only Dunlop was still supplying F1 rubber, a situation that lasted until 1964, when Mário de Araújo Cabral's Derrington-Francis broke the de facto Dunlop monopoly by running on Goodyears at the Italian GP.

Who was using Avon in 1954 and 1958?

[RCH]

Who was using Avon in 1954 and 1958?

Weren't Vanwall running on Avon? Aston Martin used them but not obviously in F1 in '58.

[Sharman]

Tyre of Choice for Aston Martin

[Roger Clark]

Vanwall didn't use Avon and Aston Martin didn't run in Grand Prix during 1958. Strangely, Moss and Brooks did wear Avon overalls when driving Vanwalls!

[Amphicar]

Who was using Avon in 1954 and 1958?

1954: The Scuderia Ambrosiana Ferrari driven by Reg Parnell at the British Grand Prix (retired on lap 26)

1958: Bernie Ecclestone's Connaughts at the Monaco Grand Prix (driven by Bernie himself, Bruce Kessler & Paul Emery - all three DNQ) and the British Grand Prix (driven by Jack Fairman & Ivor Bueb - retired on laps 8 & 20)

Edited by Amphicar, 14 April 2011 - 09:57.

[Roger Clark]

1954: The Scuderia Ambrosiana Ferrari driven by Reg Parnell at the British Grand Prix (retired on lap 26)

1958: Bernie Ecclestone's Connaughts at the Monaco Grand Prix (driven by Bernie himself, Bruce Kessler & Paul Emery - all three DNQ) and the British Grand Prix (driven by Jack Fairman & Ivor Bueb - retired on laps 8 & 20)

Thank you. I hadn't heard that.

[paulsenna1]

driven by Bernie himself

This will be written in stone one day...

[ryan86]

In 1997 they had problems in some races with bad blistering. Spain, Canada and Hungary spring to mind

[arttidesco]

Do you mean all Goodyear qualifiers were "wooden" at the time, or that just some for the less privileged were?

IIRC Rolf Stommelen coined the term 'wooden tyres' in South Africa in 1978 when he got inferior tyres during qualifying to his Arrows team mate Patrese.

Waits for hail of wooden spoons as he stands to be corrected