Does anyone know if either the red or silver cars are looking towards Michelin in 2001?? Same goes for Jordan?? Considering these are most likely to be the title contenders i would be a little peeved if towards the end of the year Bridgestone started to favour the teams that are not jumping ship. We have seen it before and i am sure that Williams will definately be kept in the dark as long as possible in regards to any Bridgestone improvements.
I've said it before and i'll say it again..... two tyre companies is a bad idea, a very bad idea. All we will hear about next year is the same we heard in 1997 .... i think i heard the words "wider front tyre" muttered 4,000 times in 6 races.
Here's hoping Michelin or Bridgestone decide F1 is too expensive in 2001 and decide not to participate.
Michelin to cause problems
Started by
Alfisti
, Mar 05 2000 08:51
15 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Pascal
-
- 22,897 posts
- Joined: September 99
Administrator Emeritus
Posted 05 March 2000 - 09:11
I've heard rumours that Ferrari was considering making the switch to Michelin. They used to have a great relationship with the French company in a now distant past, and Jean Todt knows most of the top engineers from his days at the helm of Peugeot Sport. Rumour has it that their relationship with Bridgestone is not exactly the best it could be...
#3
The Swerve
-
- 5,702 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 05 March 2000 - 09:20
I heard that the only confirmed teams will be Williams and Prost. I can't wait for the new tyre wars to come and spice things up.
When there is only one tyre company tyre compounds tend to get quite hard and development falls off. We should see increased speed as the tyres get softer again and some interesting developments in strategy.
When there is only one tyre company tyre compounds tend to get quite hard and development falls off. We should see increased speed as the tyres get softer again and some interesting developments in strategy.
#4
Pascal
-
- 22,897 posts
- Joined: September 99
Administrator Emeritus
Posted 05 March 2000 - 09:32
Toyota is almost confirmed as well. Actually, some early tests have been made on a Toyota GT1 Le Mans racer...
[This message has been edited by Pascal (edited 03-05-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pascal (edited 03-05-2000).]
#5
Indian Chief
-
- 2,812 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 05 March 2000 - 10:36
More the tyre manufacturers, more is the variety.
If it wasn't for a tyre war, Hill could not have performed Hungary '97.
If it wasn't for a tyre war, Hill could not have performed Hungary '97.
#6
Wal
-
- 29 posts
- Joined: January 99
New Member
Posted 05 March 2000 - 11:25
Michelin or Bridgstone, the important is to get back to slicks one day!
Catherine
Catherine
#7
Alfisti
-
- 39,796 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 05 March 2000 - 11:34
How you can justify a tyre war is completely beyond me. All you here about is tyres, tyres, tyres bloody tyres. If a team choose the wrong brand their season is all but over.... it's mind numbing having to put up with the continual references to tyres when teams are on different brands.
How manty times in 98 did we have a close race on our hnds only to discover that the Goodyear wore out a little quicker than the Bridgestone?
Bring in a control tyre.
How manty times in 98 did we have a close race on our hnds only to discover that the Goodyear wore out a little quicker than the Bridgestone?
Bring in a control tyre.
#8
Telemetry Man
-
- 254 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 06 March 2000 - 01:32
For those that want only one tire maker, why don't you advocate 1 engine supplier, 1 aerodynamicist as well? That would leave all teams equal in terms of the car with only the human drivers as the variable.
Competition is good no matter what the aspect is. It keeps the competing companies from being complacent.
Competition is good no matter what the aspect is. It keeps the competing companies from being complacent.
#9
kenny
-
- 2,030 posts
- Joined: February 99
Member
Posted 06 March 2000 - 02:57
telemetry man. I think what alfisti is trying to say is that, if a driver performes bad or good, it will all be because of the tires.
If he drove an incredible race, it will be like ' ah ofcourse his tires were better' , or 'the tires suck, ofcourse the other guy has won'
and things like that.
Maybe they should swtich each season, 1 year bridgestone, 1 year michelen, then again bridgestone and so on...
If he drove an incredible race, it will be like ' ah ofcourse his tires were better' , or 'the tires suck, ofcourse the other guy has won'
and things like that.
Maybe they should swtich each season, 1 year bridgestone, 1 year michelen, then again bridgestone and so on...
#10
mono-posto
-
- 1,674 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 06 March 2000 - 03:10
But of course when a tire is known to be inferior and a driver comes out and does extremely well with them, we all stand up and take notice. We need regulations to keep the cars close but the more variabls there are the more unpredictable a race becomes and therefore more interesting IMO.
------------------
"If I had to live my life over again, I'd be a plumber."
-Albert Einstien
------------------
"If I had to live my life over again, I'd be a plumber."
-Albert Einstien
#11
Haz
-
- 281 posts
- Joined: April 99
Member
Posted 06 March 2000 - 03:19
I think a tire war could be good for F1 at the moment. These godforsaken grooves provide very little mechanical grip. When tire development increases some of this grip will come back, and hopefully we will see more exiting racing and overtaking.
However, one problem with tire development is the marbles that build up off line, that make it VERY tough to overtake. I remember some races in 97, when a car would go off line and a huge spray of rubber would fly into the air like rain. But I still think it would be better to have the marbles and more grip than no grip at all.
And to the people that say the tires will be talked about too much, face it, its F1. Whenever ANYBODY wins its almost always down to the car, engine, tactics etc. That is the nature of F1. Whenever your guy loses, you always look to pin the blame on his car, or his oponent's obvious advantage. Nothing will be different when the tire war happens, only now you will have yet another excuse to come up with.
However, one problem with tire development is the marbles that build up off line, that make it VERY tough to overtake. I remember some races in 97, when a car would go off line and a huge spray of rubber would fly into the air like rain. But I still think it would be better to have the marbles and more grip than no grip at all.
And to the people that say the tires will be talked about too much, face it, its F1. Whenever ANYBODY wins its almost always down to the car, engine, tactics etc. That is the nature of F1. Whenever your guy loses, you always look to pin the blame on his car, or his oponent's obvious advantage. Nothing will be different when the tire war happens, only now you will have yet another excuse to come up with.
#12
Sean L
-
- 5,084 posts
- Joined: October 99
Member
Posted 06 March 2000 - 18:21
Alfisti, I agree with you.
I feel we are being robbed when the make of tyre can effect the outcome of the championships. A team can have top designers to build them a good car. They can hire top drivers to win races but they have no control over how their tyres will perform in relation to the competitors. So they have to guess which one will better.
This can make a top team appear mediocre.
I know an unknown variable can make for unpredictable races but I'd rather have one tyre manufacturer so that the performance gulf doesn't widen anymore. Don't we want close racing in this sport we love?
How are we supposed to evaluate a car & drivers performance when another variable is thrown into the mix.
I feel we are being robbed when the make of tyre can effect the outcome of the championships. A team can have top designers to build them a good car. They can hire top drivers to win races but they have no control over how their tyres will perform in relation to the competitors. So they have to guess which one will better.
This can make a top team appear mediocre.
I know an unknown variable can make for unpredictable races but I'd rather have one tyre manufacturer so that the performance gulf doesn't widen anymore. Don't we want close racing in this sport we love?
How are we supposed to evaluate a car & drivers performance when another variable is thrown into the mix.
#13
Telemetry Man
-
- 254 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 07 March 2000 - 06:49
Why do you feel robbed if a tire affects the outcome? Do you feel robbed if a particular engine is stronger than another or if a car is more aerodynamic than the others? Part of winning a championship is using the right components and options to win. If a team uses a non-competitive tire then it will lose just as it will lose if the engine is not up on power or driveability. Do you feel robbed because McL uses Adrian Newey? Tire choice is just another variable in the equation to possible success. It's too bad there isn't 3 or 4 tire manufactures suppling teams.
F1 is about the total package from design, to power to drivers to teamwork etc. It is not just about evaluating a car or driver. What if the pit crew sucks that team will not win regardless of what tires it uses.
F1 is about the total package from design, to power to drivers to teamwork etc. It is not just about evaluating a car or driver. What if the pit crew sucks that team will not win regardless of what tires it uses.
#14
SalutGilles 1
-
- 114 posts
- Joined: January 00
Member
Posted 07 March 2000 - 13:18
I think if Ferrari is going to make the switch, they already have. it's most likely signed and sealed, but they'll never tell until it's too late. they don't want Bridgestone to screw them.
I think it will be good stuff, when Michelin come back. and, ironically, they will do to Bridgestone what Bridgestone did to Goodyear, because they'll ahev all that Bridgestone tyre data, thanx to Williams. Look for the Silver Arrows to be sorely lagging on the Oz grid 2001. MS can cruise to his 4th championship, and then hang it up.
I think it will be good stuff, when Michelin come back. and, ironically, they will do to Bridgestone what Bridgestone did to Goodyear, because they'll ahev all that Bridgestone tyre data, thanx to Williams. Look for the Silver Arrows to be sorely lagging on the Oz grid 2001. MS can cruise to his 4th championship, and then hang it up.
#15
Alfisti
-
- 39,796 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 07 March 2000 - 08:29
I always here this pathetic counter argument that F1 is not supposed to be homologated or "it's the same as only using one engine".
WAKE UP.
Of all the aspects of the car the tyre is the only contact point with the road and has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. Secondly... it's a bit of a guess as someone else rightly mentioned. All that hard work the team does is fruitless if they are on the wrong rubber....now that's madness.
It also provides an excuse for the losing team and whilst it does promote more UNPREDICTABLE results... it does not promote better racing. EG.. if McLaren and Ferarri were on different rubber last year then there is no way the season would have been that close. The other problem is that certain tyres work on certain tracks... so the cars on different rubber never race each other.. it's plain stupid.
Remeber 98?? All we heard about was tyres, tyres + more freakin' tyres. Yes Trulli would not have led in Austria but it was still boring because he buggered off into the distance!!! All we heard for 16 races was this mystery freakin' "wider front tyre"... jeeeeez that's annoying.
Using one tyre brand is not against the spirit of F1 like a homologated chassis or engine would be. The teams can really get involved in the engine development for there needs.. with tyres one major player reaps the rewards... Bridegstones were developed for the Mac and Michelin will be developed for the Williams... now how is that fair?????????????
WAKE UP.
Of all the aspects of the car the tyre is the only contact point with the road and has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. Secondly... it's a bit of a guess as someone else rightly mentioned. All that hard work the team does is fruitless if they are on the wrong rubber....now that's madness.
It also provides an excuse for the losing team and whilst it does promote more UNPREDICTABLE results... it does not promote better racing. EG.. if McLaren and Ferarri were on different rubber last year then there is no way the season would have been that close. The other problem is that certain tyres work on certain tracks... so the cars on different rubber never race each other.. it's plain stupid.
Remeber 98?? All we heard about was tyres, tyres + more freakin' tyres. Yes Trulli would not have led in Austria but it was still boring because he buggered off into the distance!!! All we heard for 16 races was this mystery freakin' "wider front tyre"... jeeeeez that's annoying.
Using one tyre brand is not against the spirit of F1 like a homologated chassis or engine would be. The teams can really get involved in the engine development for there needs.. with tyres one major player reaps the rewards... Bridegstones were developed for the Mac and Michelin will be developed for the Williams... now how is that fair?????????????
#16
narhuit
-
- 223 posts
- Joined: December 98
Member
Posted 09 March 2000 - 22:48
WAKE UP, too.
The engine is the only device that can make the car move. It has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. It is a bit of a guess too: Jaguar picked Ford, Prost picked Peugeot, McLaren picked Mercedes, Williams picked BMW, ..... All the hard work of the team is fruitless if they are on the wrong engine.
The aerodynamics is the only field that can bring downforce to the car. It has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. It is a bit of a guess too: McLaren picked Newey, Ferrari picked R&R, ..... All the hard work of the team is fruitless if they hired the wrong aerodynamist.
"With tyres, one major player reaps the reward". Oh! Let me guess. It was D. Hill at the Hungaroring, second in the Arrows. No-No!! It was Trulli in Austria... Or was it?
You mean, tyres are developped for one team? Well, who runs Mercedes? BMWs? Hondas? Mugens? Peugeots? Fords? Oh yes, Supertecs are used by at least two teams; and Ferraris too... Sauber probably get involved in Ferrari's engine development, don't they?
This is more fair?
The engine is the only device that can make the car move. It has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. It is a bit of a guess too: Jaguar picked Ford, Prost picked Peugeot, McLaren picked Mercedes, Williams picked BMW, ..... All the hard work of the team is fruitless if they are on the wrong engine.
The aerodynamics is the only field that can bring downforce to the car. It has a HUGE effect on the performance of the car. It is a bit of a guess too: McLaren picked Newey, Ferrari picked R&R, ..... All the hard work of the team is fruitless if they hired the wrong aerodynamist.
"With tyres, one major player reaps the reward". Oh! Let me guess. It was D. Hill at the Hungaroring, second in the Arrows. No-No!! It was Trulli in Austria... Or was it?
You mean, tyres are developped for one team? Well, who runs Mercedes? BMWs? Hondas? Mugens? Peugeots? Fords? Oh yes, Supertecs are used by at least two teams; and Ferraris too... Sauber probably get involved in Ferrari's engine development, don't they?
This is more fair?
