43 replies to this topic

[Just]

I don't think this has been mentioned in any other thread... this from gp2005.com:

So where lies the secret of Bridgestone’s flaws and inconsistency? Firstly, Bridgestone suffers from Michelin rubber deposits, which cause a thin layer of rubber on track that intensifies as the week-end progress and it is unforeseeable that they can anticipate which type of Michelin will use at each event, therefore there is no way to combat the situation and therefore affects their performance. The problem is that the Michelin compounds interfere with the molecular chemistry of the Bridgestone compounds.

Neither Ferrari nor Bridgestone have been able to find a solution to the problem and when the Scuderia is running alone at both Fiorano and Mugello – even over the summer break – they cannot work on this unique part of the puzzle which they are trying in vain to solve as they do not have to cope with the presence of the Michelin layer.

Could this be the explanation for Bridgestone's poor performance? Michelin (accidentally) sabatoging the Bridgestones? Never saw that coming...

[MaxScelerate]

Well, it's not as complicated as it seems...

Michelin's rubber binds well with Michelin's rubber. Bridgestone's rubber binds well with bridgestone's rubber. You get 70% of the field running Mich's. Hence, they gain more from the 'laying rubber on the tarmac' thing. - I mean, there's no (accidental or otherwise) sabotaging, it just happens and that's that.

[acey]

Originally posted by MaxScelerate
Well, it's not as complicated as it seems...

Michelin's rubber binds well with Michelin's rubber. Bridgestone's rubber binds well with bridgestone's rubber. You get 70% of the field running Mich's. Hence, they gain more from the 'laying rubber on the tarmac' thing. - I mean, there's no (accidental or otherwise) sabotaging, it just happens and that's that.

If its that easy, how come Bridgestones were the tyre have last year?

[MaxScelerate]

Ohhhh.. Hold on, there.

I don't for a second think that Bridgestone's only problem is that binding / not binding with the rubber laid on track. For all we know, they might have simply designed their tyres the wrong way this year, or Michelin had very poor tyres last year, or whatever..

But, to answer your question, maybe going from 60/40 to 70/30 (Mich/BS) has made it a lil' bit more difficult for BS runners.. (??)

[fasttrack]

I've posted this in another thread (testing) but it deserves the crossposting here (I think )...

Kenjafield has suggested to call this the 'Bridgestonium' compound. Well, there are a few possible reasons why Michelin could benefit of having 70% of the field. Let's start with the basic scenarios:

1. Michelin tire have better grip than a Bridgestone tire when running over Michelin rubber.

2. Bridgestone tire have worse grip than a Michelin tire when running over Michelin rubber.

There is a small but important difference between (1) and (2). In the first case, there's nothing wrong with BS; it's just that the Michelin tires get a better grip, possibly due to the better chemical bonding between the tire and the rubber that is on the track. Assuming similar conditions, the same effect could happen in the opposite scenario (with a majority of BS runners getting an advantage for the same reason).

In the second case, we have the "Bridgestonium conspiracy" case: BS tires simply don't have enough grip when running over Michelin's rubber. But even in this case, causes may be different:

2a. 'Conspiracy': Michelin intently developed a special kind of rubber that does not adhere to BS rubber. I think it's highly improbable, but still, possible.

2b. 'Bridgestone failure': What if BS dropped the ball, and developed a kind of rubber that does not work with other brands of rubber? Again, improbable, but still possible.

Finally, there's an interesting twist to it. All the test that Brigestone is doing means nothing. It's the ultimate irony, a vast amount of wasted money. Specially if hypothesis 2b is true (an inherent fault in BS compound) -- they've been spending literally millions for nothing.

(just to insist on a point... if you consider how much BS tests alone with no Michelin rubber in the track, there's a strong possibility that they (BS) have developed a tire that runs better over the BS rubbered track! It's just a matter of understanding how tests works; they test alone, the tires perform well (because of the presence of BS rubber on the asphalt), they select that rubber; but it won't work in the real world)

[eoin]

Bridgestone had the same problem in '03, and they had 6 teams then.

[dnbn]

I don' buy this theory at all. The GP2 races take place during the same weekend and they use Bridgestone tires (same dimensions and grooves as the F1's). How come then that Bridgestone does not have a noticeable advantage at the beginning of the race (which follows GP2's second race)?

If you'd argue that the GP2 Bridgestone compound is different than the F1's, I'd say then that if this theory was correct, then Bridgestone would have made sure to modify the GP2 tires accordingly.

[MaxScelerate]

Thanks Fasttrack, it's a nice summary you done there. And indeed, it'd be a pretty ironic situation if that was the case.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by dnbn
I don' buy this theory at all. The GP2 races take place during the same weekend and they use Bridgestone tires (same dimensions and grooves as the F1's). How come then that Bridgestone does not have a noticeable advantage at the beginning of the race (which follows GP2's second race)?

If you'd argue that the GP2 Bridgestone compound is different than the F1's, I'd say then that if this theory was correct, then Bridgestone would have made sure to modify the GP2 tires accordingly.

Good thinking.

It is also never mentioned how much info Bridgestone get from the GP2 runnings - the specs are as I understand identical to a F1 tyre (compound etc of cource different). Maybe they can not benefit from it because they can not alter the GP2 rubber, but there sure is a lot of BS rubber on the track. In the other thread I also mentioned that altough Todt say that they are getting relativly slower than the Michelin runners, there is not much in actual laptimes that supports his claim. The distance they have to the top are usually pretty constant from the whole weekend.

[Lazarus II]

Originally posted by dnbn
I don' buy this theory at all. The GP2 races take place during the same weekend and they use Bridgestone tires (same dimensions and grooves as the F1's). How come then that Bridgestone does not have a noticeable advantage at the beginning of the race (which follows GP2's second race)?

If you'd argue that the GP2 Bridgestone compound is different than the F1's, I'd say then that if this theory was correct, then Bridgestone would have made sure to modify the GP2 tires accordingly.

Agreed.
This myth is busted.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by Lazarus II


Agreed.
This myth is busted.

Not completely. The same explanation can in fact also be used to prove that there is a chemical warfare.

1. Distance to the top remain unchanged between sessions - but have anyone checked if Ferrari is doing there good times early, when there is GP2 rubber on the track?
2. The relatively quick decay of Ferraris pace during a race can very well be explained by the fact that the GP2 rubber are gradually replaced by Michelin rubber?

How does ferrari compare on the tracks where GP2 did not run?

Is it in fact Bridgestone that have gambled with the chemicals and hoped that the benefit from GP2 rubber would be different?

I think we need more research before we declare this theory void ;)

[Lazarus II]

Originally posted by MrSlow

Not completely. The same explanation can in fact also be used to prove that there is a chemical warfare.

1. Distance to the top remain unchanged between sessions - but have anyone checked if Ferrari is doing there good times early, when there is GP2 rubber on the track?
2. The relatively quick decay of Ferraris pace during a race can very well be explained by the fact that the GP2 rubber are gradually replaced by Michelin rubber?

How does ferrari compare on the tracks where GP2 did not run?

Is it in fact Bridgestone that have gambled with the chemicals and hoped that the benefit from GP2 rubber would be different?

I think we need more research before we declare this theory void ;)

Explain Imola when MS was clearly quicker at the end of the race which would have had more Michelin rubber laid down by that time.

They're theory is very weak IMO.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by Lazarus II

Explain Imola when MS was clearly quicker at the end of the race which would have had more Michelin rubber laid down by that time.

They're theory is very weak IMO.

I agree that the theory is weak, that is why I never created the "Chemical Warfare" thread two days ago. But on the other hand - Imola is a lone exception and Renault had big probs with the tyres at that point of the season. If Kimi's driveshaft would have held together I doubt we would have seen any Ferrari catching him.

Again though -
Q. Why are Bridgestone so good at Italian tracks?
A: Because the spray the tracks with the right chemicals the whole year pretending they test wet's!



Joking of course ;)

[F1Champion]

Its just a bizarre situation IF true. I wish someone could ask Ferrari/Bridgestone if it has any merit.

[MaxScelerate]

Well, since it comes from Brawn and Todt, I'd reckon at least half of those you wish to hear on the matter have already spoken. Bridgestone's stance, though, is yet to be published.

[karlth]

Originally posted by dnbn
I don' buy this theory at all. The GP2 races take place during the same weekend and they use Bridgestone tires (same dimensions and grooves as the F1's). How come then that Bridgestone does not have a noticeable advantage at the beginning of the race (which follows GP2's second race)?

The GP2 tyres are certainly much harder than their F1 counterparts, especially Michelin's, and thus leave less rubber.

[bern@rd]

Here are some quotes from the horse's mouth.

Jean Todt after Turkey: "The biggest difference from last year to this year is the tyre rule. We could change tyres last year and as I said three weeks ago, if we could have changed the tyres in Budapest we would have won the race, it was clear. But I'm not complaining about that. Let's say that the one tyre for qualifying and the race has been very bad to us so we are paying mainly for this effect. "

Their problem is not with the track getting rubbered with michelin, but simply that their tyres don't last the whole race in good shape, for one reason or another. That is why they lose pace.
Last season you could change tyres three times a race. A tyre only had to do 16-20 laps, rather than qualifying and running the whole race.

And here is some other interesting quotes:

F1racing.net "And that lack of grip continues to plague Ferrari. It is, says team chief Jean Todt, due to a combination of a lack of aerodynamic and mechanical efficiency, and the tyres themselves. "We are the only top team with Bridgestone, so if we would be with the same tyres with another very top team it would be easier to answer, but at the moment we don't know. We sometimes try to compare with Jordan and Minardi, but they don't use the same (specification of) tyres. "

It's not just the tyres, admits todt himself, finally.

[MuMu]

BS had the upper hand over Michelin for the last 4 or 5 years. It's probable that you are going to get one season where the other supplier has an advantage.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ferrari and BS destroying everyone next year, with their virtually unlimited budget, exclusive deal and no testing restrictions.

[eoin]

Originally posted by Lazarus II

Explain Imola when MS was clearly quicker at the end of the race which would have had more Michelin rubber laid down by that time.

They're theory is very weak IMO.

ferrari weren't quick, the other teams were slow.... i thought that was obvious to everyone.

[RiDE]

Ehhhh I don't know about this one.

But then again, I don't know anything. :

[dnbn]

Originally posted by karlth

The GP2 tyres are certainly much harder than their F1 counterparts, especially Michelin's, and thus leave less rubber.

Then, as I said in my original post, why wouldn't Bridgestone make them as soft as the F1 counterparts? After all they need to last a shorter distance. If Bridgestone believed in the theory they would have done exactly that, thereby giving an advantage to their teams at the beginning of the race.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by dnbn

Then, as I said in my original post, why wouldn't Bridgestone make them as soft as the F1 counterparts?

I doubt that Bridgestone can decide about those things.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by bern@rd
And here is some other interesting quotes:

F1racing.net "And that lack of grip continues to plague Ferrari. It is, says team chief Jean Todt, due to a combination of a lack of aerodynamic and mechanical efficiency, and the tyres themselves. "We are the only top team with Bridgestone, so if we would be with the same tyres with another very top team it would be easier to answer, but at the moment we don't know. We sometimes try to compare with Jordan and Minardi, but they don't use the same (specification of) tyres. "

It's not just the tyres, admits todt himself, finally.

you can read the full interview here

Well, you will see by yourself that his interview is very contradictory. It's funny because he tries to protect Bridgestone, but at the end he says that the car isn't the problem.
He thinks the poor results come from a combination of factors, but after a few lines he affirms Ferrari aren't able to answer why they are slow.
However, the best part is where he says that can't be stated that a part of the problems comes from the engine, a part from the tyres and another from the aerodynamics (no, he believes it's the overall package that isn't performing like in the past); but, interestingly soon after that, he tells that the same car with completely different tyres was very competitive in Hungary.
If this means that the car isn't good enough, then be it

[dnbn]

Originally posted by MrSlow
I doubt that Bridgestone can decide about those things.

I don't know. I found a Bridgestone press release from April 2005. It says:

...
Since the series' launch in July 2004, therefore, Bridgestone's engineers have been busy developing three dry weather specifications and an innovative wet weather specification of tyre suited to the 600bhp Renault powered cars.
...
At least one week prior to each race, Bridgestone will nominate which of the dry tyre specifications ie. soft, medium or hard, is best suited to the circuit characteristics and surface and all the drivers will receive identical tyres.
...
The dry weather specification nominated for the opening round in Imola next week is the "medium compound" specification.
...
Bridgestone's GP2 tyres are based closely on their Formula 1 counterparts and share common design philosophies and materials. They are also produced in the same production factory in Tokyo, Japan as their F1 "big brothers" before being sent to Bridgestone's F1 headquarters in Langley, UK.

So on one hand it says that the 3 dry weather tire specifications had been developed since July 2004 and it may give the impression that the designs were frozen before the season started (but it does not say it explicitly). On the oher hand it says that the GP2 tires are based closely on the F1 tires.

Interestingly, the Imola GP2 tires for the Imola race were "medium compound" and that's where their F1 counterparts were arguably the most successful.

[Tolyngee]

If this is true, why doesn't BS bring the most logical two types of tyre compounds to each track: the race tyre compound, for Ferrari to run on, and the anti-Michelin compound, for Jordan and Minardi to sputter around on?

[MrSlow]

One thing I do not understand is - why do Minardi and Jordan run different tyres if Ferrari suffer so much from being alone? They are not top teams, but hey - only Renault and McLaren can really be considered that this season.

[LB]

Just to be somewhat pedantic theres usually Porsche Supercup races as well and they use Michelin I believe

[bern@rd]

Originally posted by ferrarista

you can read the full interview here

However, the best part is where he says that can't be stated that a part of the problems comes from the engine, a part from the tyres and another from the aerodynamics (no, he believes it's the overall package that isn't performing like in the past); but, interestingly soon after that, he tells that the same car with completely different tyres was very competitive in Hungary.
If this means that the car isn't good enough, then be it

They lack grip. The car was fast in hungary. The tyres didn't last.
They have problems with a lot of things. The tyres are definately partly to blame, but we can see from michelin teams that the way you use the tyres can make for the difference between 0.5-1.5 seconds a lap.
They lack mechanical and aerodynamical grip, and they are using up their tyres, which means Bridgestone will have to bring longer lasting, but slower tyres.
Mclaren for example has shown that a good car can take a softer specification of the same manufacturers tyre than the opposition. Excessive tyre wear is almost always an issue with the car, because bridgestone do their simulations and calculations to see the tyre has the capacity to last the required mileage. It's up to the car to capitalise that potential.

[Jason]

Originally posted by acey


If its that easy, how come Bridgestones were the tyre have last year?

You forget that last year all the teams were allowed to change their tires each pitstop (ie. any build up would be limited to one stint, not the entire race).

[logic]

I believe Bridgestone is testing for next year of course and running this year just some worse tyres and they will be big surprise 2006 again.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by bern@rd

They lack grip. The car was fast in hungary. The tyres didn't last.
They have problems with a lot of things. The tyres are definately partly to blame, but we can see from michelin teams that the way you use the tyres can make for the difference between 0.5-1.5 seconds a lap.
They lack mechanical and aerodynamical grip, and they are using up their tyres, which means Bridgestone will have to bring longer lasting, but slower tyres.
Mclaren for example has shown that a good car can take a softer specification of the same manufacturers tyre than the opposition. Excessive tyre wear is almost always an issue with the car, because bridgestone do their simulations and calculations to see the tyre has the capacity to last the required mileage. It's up to the car to capitalise that potential.

It's not the first time that you take Mclaren vs the other Mich teams as an example to support the theory that the Ferrari car isn't good.
First, B/S admit they are a long way behind in the development compared to Michelin, so how can you say that the car is using up their tyres? Every car on those tyres would "use up" them.
Second, as a direct consequence, do you know how would a Ferrari car otimized for Michelin's 2005 tyres behave? You are a magician if you say that a Mclaren or a Reno is easier on the tyres than a F2005.
You wrote that they lack aero and mech grip, well Todt is very contradictory about that (reading that interview one never feels the Frenchman blames, in some way, the car), he would like to say that it's only the tyres (in reality, after Hungary he said that...), but he can't do that to a very successful partner.

[VoidNT]

Maybe it was quoted on Atlas somewhere earlier, but I found Adrian Newey's explanation of Ferrari tyre/grip problems quite reasonable:

Tyres are definitely the major problem, but how could Bridgestone have lost their way so much over the winter? The reason for this, according to Adrian Newey, is the rule change…

“Last year with the tyre changes the main factor was degradation. Bridgestone was very good in that department. This year the issue is about tyre wear, which was irrelevant last year, because every twenty laps you could get a new set. Michelin was always strong in that department. Remember there were many races last year where Michelin runners could have lasted the entire race distance on one set.”

[bern@rd]

Originally posted by ferrarista

It's not the first time that you take Mclaren vs the other Mich teams as an example to support the theory that the Ferrari car isn't good.
First, B/S admit they are a long way behind in the development compared to Michelin, so how can you say that the car is using up their tyres? Every car on those tyres would "use up" them.
Second, as a direct consequence, do you know how would a Ferrari car otimized for Michelin's 2005 tyres behave? You are a magician if you say that a Mclaren or a Reno is easier on the tyres than a F2005.
You wrote that they lack aero and mech grip, well Todt is very contradictory about that (reading that interview one never feels the Frenchman blames, in some way, the car), he would like to say that it's only the tyres (in reality, after Hungary he said that...), but he can't do that to a very successful partner.

I sincerely think he car is not that bad, and that the tyres are a major part of the problem. I think the problem is as todt said a combination of a bit everything and not a lot of anything. The whole package is not on par with the opposition.
But what I have a problem with is blind Ferrari fans who won't ever admit the car could be at fault, it's always somebody else. It's useless to reason with people like that and it's annoying.

And the Mclaren vs other teams comparison proves that one car can very easily eat up it's tyres, while another car can use one step softer of the same tyres and finish with them. That is the proof that tyre issues shouldn't automatically be shoved on BS's neck.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by VoidNT
Tyres are definitely the major problem, but how could Bridgestone have lost their way so much over the winter? The reason for this, according to Adrian Newey, is the rule change…

“Last year with the tyre changes the main factor was degradation. Bridgestone was very good in that department. This year the issue is about tyre wear, which was irrelevant last year, because every twenty laps you could get a new set. Michelin was always strong in that department. Remember there were many races last year where Michelin runners could have lasted the entire race distance on one set.”

What's the difference between tyre wear and tyre degradation? I don't quite understand the distinction.

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by Wouter
What's the difference between tyre wear and tyre degradation? I don't quite understand the distinction.

I suppose 'degradation' means consistency of tyre characteristics lap by lap. 'Wear' is the ability to stand the whole distance. Remember last year: Ferraris were not so faster on one lap, but had much speed consistency compared to others during race stints. Michelins were quick on first laps but then faded away. Nevertheless, Michelins had no wear problems, while Bridgestone required change at the end of stints.

I think most of the people back in 2004, including Bridgestone themselves, wrongly concluded that Japanese rubber is good in weariness as good in degradation. And at the start of 2005 season they found that Michelin with their experience in tyre longevity developed much better tyre for the whole race than Bridgestone.

[Ben]

Originally posted by VoidNT


I suppose 'degradation' means consistency of tyre characteristics lap by lap. 'Wear' is the ability to stand the whole distance. Remember last year: Ferraris were not so faster on one lap, but had much speed consistency compared to others during race stints. Michelins were quick on first laps but then faded away. Nevertheless, Michelins had no wear problems, while Bridgestone required change at the end of stints.

I think most of the people back in 2004, including Bridgestone themselves, wrongly concluded that Japanese rubber is good in weariness as good in degradation. And at the start of 2005 season they found that Michelin with their experience in tyre longevity developed much better tyre for the whole race than Bridgestone.

I would agree. Degradation would probably be quantified in seconds per lap whereas wear would refer to the amount of rubber actually left on the tread. Unfortunately in reality the amount of tread gauge remaining influences the grip and therefore the degradation, tyres ain't easy...

Ben

[MrSlow]

Michelin has tyre wear, Bridgestone has degradation ;)
Too keep the performance without degradation during the entire life cycle (until all rubber is weared out/off) is the ultimate task for a tyre maker.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by bern@rd
But what I have a problem with is blind Ferrari fans who won't ever admit the car could be at fault, it's always somebody else. It's useless to reason with people like that and it's annoying.

Is MS a blind Ferrari fan, simply because he says it's only tyres? Is Todt a blind Ferrari fan, simply because he has been saying for the last month that it's only tyres?
Well, i'm happy to tell you that my posts are based on clear affirmations from blind Ferrari fans who work at Maranello and maybe (...) they know more than us, can you say the same for yours?
No, because yours are pure speculations.

Best regards

[bern@rd]

Originally posted by ferrarista

Is MS a blind Ferrari fan, simply because he says it's only tyres? Is Todt a blind Ferrari fan, simply because he has been saying for the last month that it's only tyres?

I thought you were different, but apparently you belong to that bunch of people too.
Ms hasn't said it is only the tyres, neither has todt. Where did you get that? Todt has said the exact opposite. It's the package, as todt says, brawn says. They have small problems a bit everywhere, but nothing major they could put their finger on. And the tyres are a part of the problem.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by bern@rd

I thought you were different, but apparently you belong to that bunch of people too.
Ms hasn't said it is only the tyres, neither has todt. Where did you get that? Todt has said the exact opposite. It's the package, as todt says, brawn says. They have small problems a bit everywhere, but nothing major they could put their finger on. And the tyres are a part of the problem.

No arrogance, please.
The quotes are on the web. I'm tired to provide links.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by ferrarista

No arrogance, please.
The quotes are on the web. I'm tired to provide links.

But you will never be to tired to repeat your mantra "it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres..."

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by MrSlow

But you will never be to tired to repeat your mantra "it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres it's only the tyres..."

hey, i was waiting for your post. I missed you

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by ferrarista

hey, i was waiting for your post. I missed you

You can quote the relevant part from my post above as a sig if you want to

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by MrSlow

You can quote the relevant part from my post above as a sig if you want to

no, i don't need a sig, thanks for the suggestion