45 replies to this topic

[A Wheel Nut]

I thought it would be interesting to compare Michelin and Bridgestone after each race and see where we end up at the end of the season.

NB: Fastest lap set: Number of laps in relation to pitstop.

These figures cannot take in to account the disparity between engine outputs and aerodynamic efficiency. However, as the season progresses we will hopefully see a trend develop between races.

Australian Grand Prix

Track surface: Smooth
Compound: Medium
Max. track temp: 28 Degrees
Max. air temp: 20 Degrees
Pole: Bridgestone
Win: Bridgestone
Fastest Lap: Bridgestone

Bridgestone Top Three

Driver: M. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:24:125
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:27:168

Driver: R. Barrichello
Fastest Lap: 1:24:179
Fastest Lap Set: -3
Average Lap: 1:27:402

Driver: G. Fisichella
Fastest Lap: 1:26:282
Fastest Lap Set: -5
Average Lap: 1:29:861

Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 3.282

Michelin Top Three

Driver: F. Alonso
Fastest Lap: 1:25:088
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:27:766

Driver: J. Montoya
Fastest Lap: 1:25:286
Fastest Lap Set: -2
Average Lap: 1:28:350

Driver: R. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:25:824
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:28:210

Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 2.709

M. Schumacher's fastest lap was 0.963 faster than F. Alonso's fastest lap. Both set their fastest lap one lap before a pitstop. What I found interesting was that the Bridgestone's average lap time was 3.282 seconds, whereas Michelin's average lap was 2.709 seconds. That suggests Michelin runners were capable of running at a more consistant pace than Bridgestone. It must be taken in to account however that the two top Bridgestone runners cruised for the last 13 laps or so.

[Daniel Lester]

Nice idea, the difference in average lap times was due to MS backing off, his slowest lap was a 32.5 or something similar, or about as fast as JVi's 96 pole time and you could tell he was cruising. Tyres and development have made a massive difference.

But 1 to BS and Ferrari - 0 to Michelin and all 6 of their teams.

The 4 Ferrari powered cars were the four fastest through the speed trap so theres no lack of grunt from the new Ferrari engine.

[TT6]

In addition we should have some kind of description of the track surface, I guess. Some tracks are more abrasive, some more slippery (etc) than the others.

Knowing if it's Michelin or Bridgestone weather isn't enough.

[logic]

Originally posted by TT6
Knowing if it's Michelin or Bridgestone weather isn't enough.

What's that? We cannot assume that there is Michelin and Bridgestone weather by last year :
If it will be cold summer i europe, do we see only Bridgestone weather

[Mat]

good thread, this could be interesting to follow throughout the year.

[Daniel Lester]

I'll still can't understand this cold/warm thing the tyre companies seem to spout. Surely Europe was as cold or colder than it was in Melbourne for much of winter testing (track temp was 25 in Aus, air temp 18). During winter testing the Michelin teams were breaking records and seemed very fast, but they show up in Australia and it's cool so it's bridgestone territory, so what were Michelin testing during winter? or would Ferrari have knocked another second of Sato's Barcelona lap record had they taken the F2004 there instead of Imola for the last test.

[TT6]

Originally posted by logic

What's that? We cannot assume that there is Michelin and Bridgestone weather by last year :

That's correct. But even if it did, it wouldn't be enough to watch for the temperatures only because there is more influencing factors than temperature.

In Australia for example, the temperature was lukewarm, not typical Michelin nor Bridgestone weather. Was there something in the track surface that maybe favoured Bridgestone?

I'm pretty sure that we will hear parroting about Michelin being favoured by hot weather until (and if) the season proves the assumption wrong.

[davegp3]

It would be better do count average lap not from all laps (because some drivers backs off, have problems with traffic etc.) but from let's say from 20%-60% of his fastest laps.

Can anyone count it please, I don't have access to lap charts.

[Mat]

Originally posted by TT6
In Australia for example, the temperature was lukewarm, not typical Michelin nor Bridgestone weather. Was there something in the track surface that maybe favoured Bridgestone?

Albert Park is definately a Bridgestone track. Im not sure technically how it works, but the style of track, and grip levels (which are low) somehow point it quite obviously towards bridgestone. Dupasquier (sp?) admitted as much last week. .

[tripleM]

I think Michelin dropped the ball & so did the teams.
According to PH
the Englishman noted of Australia. 'All the Michelin runners suffered from heavy graining of the front tyres.'

Maybe that explains the lack of pace between Ferrari & the Michelin runners after the 1st coupla laps esp. the FW26.

[Scoots]

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
Driver: M. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:24:125
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:27:168

Driver: R. Barrichello
Fastest Lap: 1:24:179
Fastest Lap Set: -3
Average Lap: 1:27:168
[/B]

If their avg lap times were exactly the same they would have crossed the finish line much closer together.

[maclaren]

According to Turun Sanomat Ferrari was the oly team to use widr Bridgestones, and those Bridgestones are ow in fact´wider than Michelin because they don't get wider in use


Any photo specialist to support/deny these claims?

[Daniel Lester]

You can be certain Michelin is watching very closely...I'm sure they'd like to get even

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
Driver: M. Schumacher
Average Lap: 1:27:168

Driver: R. Barrichello
Average Lap: 1:27:168

How is it possible? RB finished 10s behind MS, over 58 laps that would make 0.15s difference in the average lap times. Still, they are identical up to 0.001s

[SalutGilles]

Originally posted by Scoots


If their avg lap times were exactly the same they would have crossed the finish line much closer together.

yeah, that puzzled me as well, although it's not a huge deal, but Ruben's average lap should be listed as: 1:27.402

what if we compare qualifying time (best of the two on saturday) to average laptime? I don't know what this will show...

MSchu
race avg.1:27.168
qual best.1:24.408
+ 2.76 seconds

RBarr
race avg. 1:27.402
qual best. 1:24.482
+2.92 seconds

GFizz
race avg.1:29.861
qual best.1:26.286 (first qualifying)
+3.575 seconds

average gap = 3.085

and the Michelin boys

FredAlonso
race avg. 1:27:766
qual best. 1:25.699
+2.067 seconds

JPM
race avg.1:28:350
qual best. 1:25.226 (first qualifying)
+3.124 seconds

RSchu
race avg. 1:28:210
qual best. 1:25.445 (first qualifying)
+2.765 seconds

average gap = 2.652

and in order, least to most
F.Alonso M
Mschu B
rSchu M
rBarrichello B
JPM M
Fizzy B

nicely alternating. So overall, the Michelin runner's performance dropped least from qual. to race, even if we exclude Fizzy and JPM (becuase Fizzy has the biggest gap, and is not driving a front runner) - the averages are still in Michelin's favor.

And I have absolutely no idea what any of this means.

[SalutGilles]

well, hare's a conclusion that makes some sense: Alonso was prolly pusing harder than anybody else on sunday...

[Scoots]

Originally posted by Vagabond

How is it possible? RB finished 10s behind MS, over 58 laps that would make 0.15s difference in the average lap times. Still, they are identical up to 0.001s

If the average lap time was identical to the thousandth of a second they could not be more than .05 seconds apart, let alone 10 seconds.

[A Wheel Nut]

My bad!

[ASD]

Rubens Barrichello, after noting that Ferrari know exactly what tyre they will take for Malaysia:

"I know other teams and some people in the media are hoping that we will not go as well in Malaysia as we did in Australia, but I am afraid I am just going to have to disappoint them."

..and I don't think Rubens is notorious for generally overstating the position.

[Teez]

Originally posted by ASD

Rubens Barrichello, after noting that Ferrari know exactly what tyre they will take for Malaysia:

Excellent news! Source, please.

[ASD]

Teez - I got it from Autosport:

item headed "Rubens sends Malaysia tyre warning"

or try this: http://www.autosport...sp?id=26321&s=5

[Teez]

Thanks, ASD. It's on Atlas now too.

[A Wheel Nut]

Malaysian Grand Prix

Track surface: Abrasive
Compound: Medium
Max. track temp: 45 Degrees
Max. air temp: 35 Degrees
Pole: Bridgestone
Win: Bridgestone
Fastest Lap: Michelin

Bridgestone Top Three

Driver: M. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:34:819
Fastest Lap Set: -3
Average Lap: 1:37:634

Driver: R. Barrichello
Fastest Lap: 1:35:350
Fastest Lap Set: -3
Average Lap: 1:37:877

Driver: F. Massa
Fastest Lap: 1:36:570
Fastest Lap Set: -2
Average Lap: 1:39:767

Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 2.850

Michelin Top Three

Driver: J. Montoya
Fastest Lap: 1:34:223
Fastest Lap Set: +2
Average Lap: 1:37:723

Driver: J. Button
Fastest Lap: 1:34:967
Fastest Lap Set: +2
Average Lap: 1:37:840

Driver: J. Trulli
Fastest Lap: 1:35:039
Fastest Lap Set: +2
Average Lap: 1:38:301

Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 3.262

It was a rather interesting race to watch on the Formula One official website, following the times set each lap. Michelin runners were fastest on their first flying lap on new rubber, with all the top three Michelin runners setting their fastest lap after a pitstop. The Bridgestone's were also quick out of the pits, yet appeared to drop off then come back to the drivers towards the end of the stint. It would seem that the Michelin was a faster tyre over one lap, Montoya held the fastest lap over Schumacher by a little under 6 tenths. Last race Schumacher was almost a second faster than Alonso.

Bridgestone on the other hand seemed more consistant. The average difference between fastest lap and average lap for the top three Bridgestone runners was 2.85 seconds. Michelins average difference for the top three was 3.262 seconds. It's not much, but over a 13 - 20 lap stint, it would work out around anywhere between 5.2 seconds and 8 seconds.

It appears then that Bridgestone was the better tyre at both Australia and Malaysia - for different reasons. In the cool weather of Australia, which is a smooth track, they were clearly faster which managed to offset the advantage Michelin had with consistancy. In the heat of Malaysia, which is an abrasive track, they were slower yet their pace was not as far behind as Michelin were in Australia. They were more consistent than Michelin.

After two races it seems that the Bridgestone is a more consistant tyre in the warmer weather, whereas the Michelin is more consistant in cooler weather.

However the Bridgestone seems to have a grip advantage in the cooler weather, whereas the Michelin has a grip advantage in the warmer weather.

[ckkl]

A few things to nitpick...

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
Malaysian Grand Prix

Driver: M. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:34:819

Driver: J. Montoya
Fastest Lap: 1:34:223

It would seem that the Michelin was a faster tyre over one lap, Montoya held the fastest lap over Schumacher by a little under 8 tenths.

I believe the difference is more like 6 tenths but still massive.

It appears then that Bridgestone was the better tyre at both Australia and Malaysia. In the cool weather of Australia, which is a smooth track, they were clearly faster and more consistent. In the heat of Malaysia, which is an [b]abrasive track, they were not as fast as the Michelin, yet the were more consistant.

Why do you think Malaysia is more abrasive? Sepang is a dedicated F1 facility and Albert Park is a public road around a lake with some fences around it. Though I have to admit, Albert Park road is very smooth as far as Australian public roads go.

[Schuperman]

A word or two from Michelin boss Pierre Dupasquier :

"Bridgestone will never be ahead of us," . Do not confuse Ferrari and Bridgestone. If they (Ferrari) had Michelin tyres on their car there would be no championship any more."

[A Wheel Nut]

Originally posted by ckkl
Why do you think Malaysia is more abrasive? Sepang is a dedicated F1 facility and Albert Park is a public road around a lake with some fences around it. Though I have to admit, Albert Park road is very smooth as far as Australian public roads go.

I personally have no idea what the surfaces are like, I only rely on what Bridgestone/Michelin said prior to the Grand Prix.

Btw, thanks for pointing out the error!

[The Vulcan]

It really feels like Bridgestone has upped their performance especially with a good performance in Sepang. If they again do well in Bahrain, the combination of Ferrari and Bridgestone will bring the championship to a foregone conclusion - a dominating year of the Ferraris!!

[A Wheel Nut]

Last year BAR were fighting it out with Sauber, Toyota and Jaguar for fifth place. BAR and Sauber were both on Bridgestone tyres, Jaguar and Toyota were on Michelin.

With their move this year to Michelin, BAR have clearly surpassed Sauber, Toyota and Jaguar and are now capable of fighting for podium finishes with Williams, Renault and McLaren. Michelin must therefore be a better tyre. If Sauber were on Michelins, would they jump to the front as well? Probably. If Jaguar and Toyota were on Bridgestone's, would they be back among Minardi and Jordan?

The real question however is all about Ferrari. Where would they be on Michelins? Would they be so far ahead of everyone else that "there would be no championship any more"? Or is Ferrari's advantage in the Bridgestone tyres? If it's an advantage for Ferrari, why isn't it an advantage for the rest of the Bridgestone runners? Are Ferrari that far ahead of everyone else?

The Ferrari on Bridgestone tyres seem to be stronger than ever. The rest of the Bridgestone runners seem weaker than before. That comes back to the question though of whether or not it is the tyres or Ferrari? Could it be that Ferrari are getting better tyres than the rest of the Bridgestone runners? Surely not? If Ferrari are gaining such an advantage from a certain tyre, it would be in their best interests, along with Bridgestones to supply that same tyre to the rest of the Bridgestone runners so they could challenge the Michelin teams.

So it would seem then that Ferrari are somehow that far ahead. But how?

[ckkl]

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
If Sauber were on Michelins, would they jump to the front as well? Probably.

Well they'd probably have no engine and no chassis but that's a different can of worms.

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
If Jaguar and Toyota were on Bridgestone's, would they be back among Minardi and Jordan?

I think so.

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
The real question however is all about Ferrari. Where would they be on Michelins? Would they be so far ahead of everyone else that "there would be no championship any more"? Or is Ferrari's advantage in the Bridgestone tyres? If it's an advantage for Ferrari, why isn't it an advantage for the rest of the Bridgestone runners? Are Ferrari that far ahead of everyone else?

This "what if" is more far fetched than it sounds; the Bridgestone tyres that are used on the Ferrari are so fine-tuned for the car that it'd be hard to imagine any other combination of chassis and tyre. If BAR had troubles fine-tuning their car to suit Michelins (and bear in mind the Bridgestones they were using weren't particularly tailored for their car) then one can imagine the Michelins wouldn't simply plug-and-play for a Ferrari (though admittedly it is a problem Ferrari could work to solve with Michelin).

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
The Ferrari on Bridgestone tyres seem to be stronger than ever. The rest of the Bridgestone runners seem weaker than before. That comes back to the question though of whether or not it is the tyres or Ferrari? Could it be that Ferrari are getting better tyres than the rest of the Bridgestone runners? Surely not? If Ferrari are gaining such an advantage from a certain tyre, it would be in their best interests, along with Bridgestones to supply that same tyre to the rest of the Bridgestone runners so they could challenge the Michelin teams.

As always, the answer is not one or the other... in this case, it's clearly both. Yes Ferrari is stronger than ever (as evidenced by expert opinions of Patrick Head and Geoff Willis) and this is not due solely to tyres. But it's obvious that Bridgestone is supplying a much stronger tyre than last season, for Ferrari (and perhaps Sauber -- Jordan and Minardi are still getting the old thin front tyres designed for the F2003-GA).

It's a fact that Bridgestone puts Ferrari as its priority (it seems to have worked quite well). Bridgestone does not have an infinite budget and they prefer to use most of it to produce results in the Ferraris. Jordan and Minardi are unlikely to produce points with the best of tyres anyhow. Tyres are expensive and my impression is Bridgestone does not have a policy of wastage (e.g. in '03 BAR testing on used ex-Ferrari rubber used in the previous weekend's GP). So it is not unbelievable that they do not give the best rubber to everyone; it probably wouldn't suit the unoptimised car anyway (Sauber ofcourse decided the best way is to copy Ferrari).

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Schuperman
A word or two from Michelin boss Pierre Dupasquier :

"Bridgestone will never be ahead of us," . Do not confuse Ferrari and Bridgestone. If they (Ferrari) had Michelin tyres on their car there would be no championship any more."

Makes you wonder what drugs Pierre is on. And where to get them! We could all use them soon if this turns out to be another 2002...

[HSJ]

A Wheel Nut, that's has to be among the Nuttiest claims in a while. That because BAR are doing well it means Michelins are the better tyres. Talk about jumping to conclusions! Renault for example stayed on the same tyres as last year but are now 2nd best on race pace (although they fumbled in Sepang, they had the potential). How does that fit your "theory"? It doesn't. How about Sauber being on McLaren's pace in Melbourne?

Whatever, last year BAR finished as the best of the rest on Bstone tyres, and they didn't get any freak points due to Bstone intermediate tyres in Interlagos and Indy either. No, they scored all their points legitimately and finished ahead of Jag, Toyota and the rest of them. And of course Sauber was right behind them in 6th, although that was thanks to Bstone intermediates mostly. So why couldn't BAR improve on that for this year?

In any case if you bothered to follow winter testing it was apparent already back in January and February that Bstone had levelled with Michelin, and with their latest tyres (which include the wider fronts, only used by Ferrari btw AFAIK because they don't suit the other cars' aero, like Sauber's C23 for example probably for the same reason they didn't suit F2003 last year) they took a huge jump forward, effectively well ahead of Michelin.

It really is incredible how last year certain people were talking about how it is all down to Michelin tyres blah blah blah, and now trying to claim that suddenly it isn't about tyres blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways! IMO in 2002 the tyres were roughly equal. Ditto 2003, with Michelin being slightly ahead (except in the wet of course), and now Bstone are at least as much ahead as Michelin last year.

[TAB666]

Originally posted by HSJ


Makes you wonder what drugs Pierre is on. And where to get them! We could all use them soon if this turns out to be another 2002...

Ofcourse mr Pierre doesnt have a clue. He dont have any facts and test data to look at before saying anything. We on the bb's on the other hand have massive amounts of information regarding tire consistancy, amount of fuel etc etc

[ckkl]

Originally posted by TAB666
Ofcourse mr Pierre doesnt have a clue. He dont have any facts and test data to look at before saying anything. We on the bb's on the other hand have massive amounts of information regarding tire consistancy, amount of fuel etc etc

PD is also paid by Michelin.

[Daniel Lester]

HSJ: I think Jacques actually finished at Interlagos and even more surprisingly it was 6th for 3 points.

Tyres a fun to talk about.

Cleary the Michelin teams closed the gap to Ferrari in Malaysia. The single biggest change between Melbourne and Sepang was the weather and track surface and as the cars engine, areo and drivers aren't as critically dependant on the weather as the tyres, I suspect Michelin had a better day thanks to the heat and surface.

Four scenarios in Malaysia:

1) Tyres were equal. Leaving Ferrari with a small car advantage.

2) Cars were equal. Leaving Bridgestone with a small tyre advantage.

3) Ferrari are ahead in terms of car design compared to rivals but tyres were behind. Leaving Ferrari with a car advantage.

4) Ferrari are behind in terms of car design compared to rivals but tyres were ahead. Leaving Ferrari with a tyre advantage.

5) The other drivers simply think the Sporting regs state the MS must be P1 and drive accordingly.


4 and 5 seem unlikely, 1-3 all plausible depending on who you believe, but personally I think Ferrari are still edging it in the car department making 1 and 3 most likely. Add to this what we saw in Australia with Ferrari's mammoth advantage plus what I wrote at the top about the only change being the weather (minor developments as well but nothing huge given the distances back to Europe) I think in Malaysia Michelin edged the tyre war, but Ferrari's general advantage with it's car is large.

In contrast the conditions amplified Ferrari's advantage by favouring the Bridgestones big time.

Should we gat a race with a track temp between 28-32 (which is about where I feel it's even) then I think (baring problems) Ferrari should win by ~25secs unless someone pulls out some fantastic development or a great drive.

below 25 it's all Bridgestone, above 35 Michelin come into their own more and more. Problem is I can see Bridgestone pulling Michelin in on hot tracks, but Michelin have made no progress on cold ones.

[Scoots]

It's possible the only advantage Ferrari had in Malaysia was MS and team and that the car/tyre package was equal or worse than the Williams.

5 seconds is not much time at the end of a race.

I don't actually believe this, but it's interesting nobody is talking about it as a possibility.

[A Wheel Nut]

Originally posted by HSJ
A Wheel Nut, that's has to be among the Nuttiest claims in a while. That because BAR are doing well it means Michelins are the better tyres. Talk about jumping to conclusions! Renault for example stayed on the same tyres as last year but are now 2nd best on race pace (although they fumbled in Sepang, they had the potential). How does that fit your "theory"? It doesn't. How about Sauber being on McLaren's pace in Melbourne?

Whatever, last year BAR finished as the best of the rest on Bstone tyres, and they didn't get any freak points due to Bstone intermediate tyres in Interlagos and Indy either. No, they scored all their points legitimately and finished ahead of Jag, Toyota and the rest of them. And of course Sauber was right behind them in 6th, although that was thanks to Bstone intermediates mostly. So why couldn't BAR improve on that for this year?

In any case if you bothered to follow winter testing it was apparent already back in January and February that Bstone had levelled with Michelin, and with their latest tyres (which include the wider fronts, only used by Ferrari btw AFAIK because they don't suit the other cars' aero, like Sauber's C23 for example probably for the same reason they didn't suit F2003 last year) they took a huge jump forward, effectively well ahead of Michelin.

It really is incredible how last year certain people were talking about how it is all down to Michelin tyres blah blah blah, and now trying to claim that suddenly it isn't about tyres blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways! IMO in 2002 the tyres were roughly equal. Ditto 2003, with Michelin being slightly ahead (except in the wet of course), and now Bstone are at least as much ahead as Michelin last year.

It is natural that a team will progress themselves, thats exactly what Renault have done this year to leap frog Williams and McLaren. Yet for BAR to leave the "mid field" battle and suddenly find themselves on the podium suggests that they either developed their car far better than anyone else - when there were no major regulation changes - or that they benefitted from a change of tyre.

Renault were reletively close to the top three last season. They even scored a pole postion and a race win. It would not have taken much for Renault to surpass Williams and McLaren. Its obvious that Renault developed their car well between seasons, whereas it seems as though Williams and McLaren have dropped the ball slightly. Thats all it took for Renault to move up the grid. BAR on the other hand struggled to keep pace with the top four in 2003 and for them to suddenly be among the front runners suggest they made massive gains somewhere.

If you're suggesting that BAR would have been on the podium with Bridgestones you are the nutty one. "My theory" was based around the ONLY team to have changed tyre between seasons. The fact that last season they were fighting with Jaguar and Toyota at almost every race and now this season they are battling with Williams and Ferrari, leaving both Jaguar and Toyota behind, provides a pretty strong argument that the Michelin is a better tyre than the Bridgestone. The BAR005 was a strong car let down by its tyres.

It is not that difficult to understand my claim. In 2003 Ferrari were hampered by an unfortunate car design that was the exact opposite of what the new regulations required. McLaren were in the same situation yet they chose to first delay the introduction of their car to address the issues raised by the new regulations, then decided to not introduce a car at all. (A big mistake IMO and it is probably why they are struggling THIS season. They would've been better off introducing their 18 at the start of the season as intended and reacted to the regulation changes in 2004, like everyone else.) Ferrari's struggle was amplified by a superior Michelin tyre.

In 2004, Ferrari addressed the problems of F2003GA and Bridgestone produced a tyre that was more competitive against Michelin. The competitiveness of the 2003 season was due to the design flaws of F2003GA and the Michelin tyre. What we have seen so far this season is what the Ferrari/Bridgestone combination would have been capable of in 2003 if the car and tyres had been more competitive.

After only two races there is no way to know which tyre is better in 2004. Winter testing means absolutely nothing - little is known about what is actually being tested. I'd much rather base an opinion on what I have seen in the races of 2003 and 2004.

[ckkl]

Bridgestones for Ferrari and Bridgestones for non-Ferraris are very different.

That's where your opinion and mine deviate. I do agree that BAR made a leap but we can't gauge how much of it was due to tyres, engine (Honda's RA004E has improved in all aspects -- weight, power, reliability and CofG) and manufacturing. All teams make jumps in aero (though obviously Ferrari have made more than some others).

However, BAR switched from Bridgestones for non-Ferraris to Michelins. If Ferrari were to swap from their bespoke high-end Bridgestones to Michelins, I have to wonder how much performance they can gain. If we start assuming Michelin will favour Ferrari similarly to how Bridgestone does, then perhaps it's another story...

I've no doubt if Michelin were to favour Ferrari heavily over other teams, they'd run away with the championship because the Michelins are that much stronger. Ofcourse Michelin choose not to operate that way (thank goodness because the championship would be a 1 or 2 horse race instead of 4-5 teams like it is now).

[A Wheel Nut]

Bahrain Grand Prix

Track surface: Smooth
Compound: Medium
Max. track temp: 45 Degrees
Max. air temp: 35 Degrees
Pole: Bridgestone
Win: Bridgestone
Fastest Lap: Bridgestone

Bridgestone Top Three

Driver: M. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:30:252
Fastest Lap Set: -2
Average Lap: 1:33:243

Driver: R. Barrichello
Fastest Lap: 1:30:876
Fastest Lap Set: +2
Average Lap: 1:33:267

Driver: G. Fisichella
Fastest Lap: 1:32:329
Fastest Lap Set: -3
Average Lap: 1:35:259

Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 2.771

Michelin Top Three

Driver: F. Alonso
Fastest Lap: 1:30:654
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:34:176

Driver: R. Schumacher
Fastest Lap: 1:30:781
Fastest Lap Set: -1
Average Lap: 1:34:264

Driver: J. Button
Fastest Lap: 1:30:960
Fastest Lap Set: [i]-2
Average Lap: [i]1:33:712

[b]Average Difference between Fastest and Average Lap times: 3.252

Bridgestone appear to have been a more consistant tyre again this round, which is again suprising considering it was a race run in high temperatures. The Bridgestone/Ferrari package seems to have won on tracks that were expected to be its weakest and that does not bode well for the remainder of the season. Midway through the GP, I had a feeling that Ferrari could very well win every race this season if they have 100% reliability.

This round clearly goes to Bridgestone again, producing a tyre that was capable of faster times and was more consistant than the Michelin.

[jmc]

Bridgestone win in high temps...

I was at Bahrain, and the track temp in the race was 27°

If you are going to make statements, get your facts right... Post race Raoss Brawn admitted they were lucky to get such low race track temps. It was on average 45 to 50° track temp every other session..

What guff

[Mrv]

Originally posted by jmc
Bridgestone win in high temps...

I was at Bahrain, and the track temp in the race was 27°

If you are going to make statements, get your facts right... Post race Raoss Brawn admitted they were lucky to get such low race track temps. It was on average 45 to 50° track temp every other session..

What guff

What do you call high temps? Bridgestone has upped their game this year if it were last year they would have losts the last 2 races.

[azha]

Living in Malaysia, I just got my hand a copy of F1 Racing of March 2004. Here are what 'the experts' say with regards to the tyre wars:

AR: Which tyres are better, than?
GA: Whoever had the upper hand at the end of last season, I would multiply by 10 going into 2004.
AR: So you are hugely backing Michelin then. What put them so far ahead of Bridgestone?
GA: They come to a test knowing exactly what each type of is and what it should do. It does mean though, that the test driver has to be excellent if he's to tell the Michelin engineers exactly what the tyre is doing. He has to be able to tell the difference between race pace and going all out. When Michelin have a driver they trust, if he tells something they're not expecting, its a disaster. With Bridgestone its a completely different story. They just turn up and want to be told whats going on. They dont have the same frame of reference.

AJ: Michelin are much more open too, and get excited by the challenge when something doesnt go right. If Michelin has done to Bridgestone at Monza what Bridgestone did to Michelin (in suggesting that Michelin's tyres were not entirely within regulations), I think it would have finished Bridgestone off. I think they'd have pulled the plug. But Michelin said, "We'll show you, you bastards." Bridgestone approach to development seems less scientific. Michelin have much better development tools. Its coming to the point where their predictions are remarkably close to what they can built.

GA: Michelin's quality is much better than Bridgestone's, too. Bridgestones can blister and chunk more easily. They used to have a fundamental problem with sticking rubber to the carcass, and they've also had a lot of problems with internal blistering. The tyre becomes like Aero chocolate bar, with lots of little bubbles. When they start to run into each other, you suddenly, find you've got a large areas of blistering and the bubbles all go 'zip' an the tyres let go. There are fundamental construction differences between the two company tyres.

AR: Will tyres decide the world title?
AJ: It depends on what MS does. He was a little out of it at the start of last year, but he came back.
GA: It used to be that Michelin were very good on longitudinal tracks-ones with a lot of braking and acceleration. Bridgeston were very good at tracks demanding a lot of lateral g. Whats happened is that M have kept their strength and addressed their weaknesses- but B have done nothing about their weaknesses, allowing M to overtake them. It was only Michael who kept Bridgestone in the hunt last year. The others threw the championship; he didnt win it.

AR=Anthony Rowlinson
AJ=Alan Jenkins
GA=Gary Anderson

Lots of criticism on Bridgestones there...but I think they are underestimating Bridgestone.

[jmc]

For all of you temperature addicts out there, for completeness sake, here is a list of track temps from the 2003 Season, and which tyre company won which race...all quoted at their highest point in the race, all measured using the same person and equiptment, eg me and my temperature gauge

Melbourne 23° Michelin
Sepang 47° Michelin
Brazil 23° Bridgestone
Imola 26° Bridgestone
Spain 39° Bridgestone
Austria 34° Bridgestone
Nurburgring 34° Michelin
Monaco 38° Michelin
Montreal 30° Bridgestone
Hockenheim 50° Michelin
Magny Cours 36° Michelin
Silverstone 34° Bridgestone
Hungaroring 43° Michelin
Monza 38° Bridgestone
Indy 22° Bridgestone
Suzuka 26° Bridgestone

in 2004...

Melbourne 23° Bridgestone
Malaysia 40° Bridgestone
Bahrain 30° Bridgestone

If any of you think that the first three races have been warm enough think on..

Read the autosport article from Ross Brawn this week "tyres key to Ferrari's hopes"

For him to say, " I dont think we have found a real solution yet" and I think he is well placed as top man at Ferrari, Bridgestone's only real team, to decide.

I think luck and weather has favoured them, considering the BS rears had blisters in Bahrain at 30° track in the race, I would have loved to have seen how they coped at the friday and saturday temps of between 45 and 50°...

All you Ferrari fans, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, I hate them, but admit they have the best car and best driver by some way, dont think it is all the tyres, coz it aint

[baddog]

interesting jmc.. last year was SO damned hot. wont happen again that

Shaun

[Mrv]

[i]All you Ferrari fans, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, I hate them, but admit they have the best car and best driver by some way, dont think it is all the tyres, coz it aint [/B]

Your right it ain't all tyres. The F2004 is a masterpiece of technological engineering.

[HBoss]

Originally posted by Mrv


Your right it ain't all tyres. The F2004 is a masterpiece of technological engineering.

But I still beleive Schumacher is what makes the true difference.

[Mrv]

Schumacher makes some difference, but the gap aint all attributed to him. He has a fine car to work with. It is a combination of his driving, Bridgestones and car that have Ferrari ahead at the moment.