Bridgestone takes a hike!

[gloomyDAY]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79968

Who's taking over in 2011?

I'd like to see Michelin make a comeback. :)

[Jag_Warrior]

I just saw that on Google News! :eek:

And yeah, I'd like to see Michelin come back too. But still, this is a shocker. I never even heard a rumor of this being in the cards.

[harsha]

I don't think there's any other choice apart from Michelin...

I want a single tyre manufacturer rather than the tyre wars we had earlier

[Mark]

Don't rule out Goodyear returning.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's a surprise :eek:

I wonder if Michelin would want to come back, but if not them who else is there?

[AndyRAC]

That's a surprise :eek:

I wonder if Michelin would want to come back, but if not them who else is there?

Mm, I wonder - after one mistake, they were right royally shafted by the FiA, by losing the contract for F1, WRC. Even MotoGP ditched them.

The top category shouldn't be a single supplier though......that's for the junior formulae.

[Daniel]

Agree Andy. Control tyres are rubbish.

[Powered by Cosworth]

Avon? :p

[Dave B]

Remoulds!

I feel for Bridgestone, or indeed any other supplier when there's no competition. They win every week by default and never get a mention, but the second there's a puncture or any other issue they get called into question.

[Giuseppe F1]

I honestly think the new supplier will be...........PIRELLI

Pirelli are coming back into single-seater racing in 2010 by gripping the new GP3 series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GP3_Series) and I am sure that Bridgestone would have informed the FIA of this decision ages ago and that the FIA would have been working on contingencies are tendering our to potential new suppliers.

Pirelli may even be using the GP3 involvement as a toe-in-the-water exercise for understanding the dynamics, workings and processes of single-seater rubber before going for/getting the F1 contract.

Remember - You heard it here first!!! :)

[Daniel]

I honestly think the new supplier will be...........PIRELLI

Pirelli are coming back into single-seater racing in 2010 by gripping the new GP3 series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GP3_Series) and I am sure that Bridgestone would have informed the FIA of this decision ages ago and that the FIA would have been working on contingencies are tendering our to potential new suppliers.

Pirelli may even be using the GP3 involvement as a toe-in-the-water exercise for understanding the dynamics, workings and processes of single-seater rubber before going for/getting the F1 contract.

Remember - You heard it here first!!! :)
If their track record in the WRC is anything to go by I really really don't think Pirelli should be making a control tyre.

Pirelli couldn't make a tyre to deal with varying conditions back then (2004 or 2005) and I know rally tyres are just a tad different to F1 tyres but the science is the same.

If Pirelli become the sole supplier in F1 with a control tyre then look for the tyres falling apart when it is a few degrees warmer than expected and look for the cars handling as if it's wet when it's a few degrees colder than expected. Pirelli's efforts v Michelin back in the WRC were hilariously bad, their tyres would be completely bald after 1 or 2 stages out of a 3 or 4 stage leg when the weather was a bit warmer than they thought it would be....

[V12]

According to the autosport.com story Bridgestone say they want to redirect their resources into "innovative technologies", which I read as "we don't want to fart about spending money on a series where we don't get the chance to beat anybody." They have just shot up in my estimation.

Potentially great news if it strong-arms the FIA into giving us our tyre wars back (or at least leaves the option there even if only one supplier decides to enter like Goodyear for all those years).

I'd say Pirelli are most likely if we stick with the control tyre BS (no pun intended), they have "form" in WSBK and WRC, and of course the GP3 series already mentioned.

Of course if I was the FIA I would approach Michelin on bended knee in apology and ask them to come back in a open tyre formula.

[Daniel]

they have "form" in and WRC, and of course the GP3 series already mentioned.

They have crap form in the above series. Aside from Petter Solberg's famous 2003 Corsica win in the wet Pirelli hadn't won a tarmac rally for god knows how long and shortly after that their gravel form went off a cliff. No pun intended but I call BS on your statement ;)

[AndyL]

Agree Andy. Control tyres are rubbish.

Philosophically I would agree... in principle the pinnacle of motorsport should include the pinnacle of tyre competition. But I have to grudgingly admit that control tyres have made for closer racing, and fewer teams condemned to be perpetual tail-enders by tyres optimised for someone else's car.


Avon? :p

Could happen :) they already shoe all the F1 cars in EuroBOSS and Historic Masters!


I honestly think the new supplier will be...........PIRELLI

Quite plausible, I can see them being very interested in it and maybe the best remaining option if Michelin don't want it.

[AndyL]

I feel for Bridgestone, or indeed any other supplier when there's no competition. They win every week by default and never get a mention, but the second there's a puncture or any other issue they get called into question.

Weren't Bridgestone all in favour of the control tyre idea? They could have chosen not to bid for it, as Michelin did.

[Giuseppe F1]

In terms of marketing and prestige, I can only really see the following brand being a good fit for F1:

Bridgestone/Firestone
Michelin
Goodyear
Pirelli
Continental


I just cant imagine a Ferrari F1 being gripped by any one of Kumho/Yokahama/Cooper or forbid, Avon tyres.


Being in F1 obviously helps improves brands' perception as they benefit from image transfer so maybe one of these small brands does join and use F1 to elevate themselves....?......

......Still, I hope its Pirelli - A Pirelli shod Ferrari would be cool!

[AndyRAC]

They have crap form in the above series. Aside from Petter Solberg's famous 2003 Corsica win in the wet Pirelli hadn't won a tarmac rally for god knows how long and shortly after that their gravel form went off a cliff. No pun intended but I call BS on your statement ;)

In the final year of Pirelli vs Michelin/BF Goodrich, Pirelli were absolutely trounced. So FiA gave the contract to them........ :s mokin:

[Hondo]

I suspect demands from Bernie, FOM, and or the FIA for more money has something to do with Bridgestone getting out. I'd like to see the teams be able to use any tire, from any manufacturer, that fits within the physical size specifications. Of course, if that were allowed, one or more teams currently whining about the expense of F1 would develop their own tire that would weigh 1 kg, be super sticky, last for 2 race weekends, and cost $250,000.00 apiece.

[Daniel]

Philosophically I would agree... in principle the pinnacle of motorsport should include the pinnacle of tyre competition. But I have to grudgingly admit that control tyres have made for closer racing, and fewer teams condemned to be perpetual tail-enders by tyres optimised for someone else's car.

Well other than this year we've not really seen any tail enders doing any better than tail enders were doing in the past and that's only because of changes in aero and tyre regs.

Tyre selection is part and parcel of motorsport and I think removing the ability of drivers to choose the tyre which they feel suits their style and their car removes an integral part of what motorsport is.

Two of my favourite rallies were Rally Australia and Corsica in 2003 because Petter Solberg chose the best tyres for the conditions and won which just wouldn't happen under todays tyre regs. That to me is part of the essence of motorsport and IMHO when you have control tyres it actually lessens the chance of backmarkers taking a win. You'd have to stop a tyre manufacturer teaming up with a constructor but with the testing ban I think that would be easy.

I fondly remember sitting in the media centre at Rally Australia that year watching live coverage from the helicopter and seeing Sebastien Loeb and Petter Solberg doing vastly different jobs and knowing that it was down to Sebastien Loeb choosing a tyre which had never been used in a rally before and which obviously wasn't suiting the conditions. To me that really heightened my enjoyment of the whole thing.

[Daniel]

In the final year of Pirelli vs Michelin/BF Goodrich, Pirelli were absolutely trounced. So FiA gave the contract to them........ :s mokin:
Yeah. Lets hope Todt doesn't play these silly games because Michelin are a fantastic competition tyre manufacturer and any series which intentionally tries to keep them out is somewhat ruined IMHO.

[555-04Q2]

I never want to see Michelin in F1 again. The controvery they caused at the 2005 USGP still does not sit well with me. So much so that three of my work vehicles that were previously only fitted with Michelin's are now only fitted with Continentals.

Michelin's ar$e.

[Daniel]

I never want to see Michelin in F1 again. The controvery they caused at the 2005 USGP still does not sit well with me. So much so that three of my work vehicles that were previously only fitted with Michelin's are now only fitted with Continentals.

Michelin's ar$e.
?

Michelin brought a tyre which obviously didn't suit the conditions and IMHO putting their hand up and admitting that their tyres weren't safe and then offering to fly in replacement leaves me with nothing but respect for the company. I'm sure other companies would gladly take the risk with a drivers life and have sent them out. For me the organisation that came out of that fiasco looking bad was the FIA

[Hondo]

Hoosier would love to have the contract. They already got jackets and caps!

http://www.hoosiertire.com/

[Powered by Cosworth]

According to the autosport.com story Bridgestone say they want to redirect their resources into "innovative technologies", which I read as "we don't want to fart about spending money on a series where we don't get the chance to beat anybody." They have just shot up in my estimation.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/10/091027-bridgestone-01.jpg

This kind of thing could be why

link (http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/27/bridgestone-announces-flexible-touchscreen-color-e-reader/)

[wedge]

Agree Andy. Control tyres are rubbish.

MotoGp this year has been better than previous now that Rossi and Pedrosa have one thing less to moan about.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'd like to see Goodyear back in F1 just for old times sake. :)
Goodyear suffered as much as Michelin on the Indy surface first time around so that may have put them out of the running for a return.

[markabilly]

the problem for goodyear or michlien or the others is money...bridgestone is probably spending 150 million or more out of pocket...not counting advertizements, and bridgestone is making an economic decision that they can not afford it

Goodyear is one step away from bankruptcy and the rest probably do not have a 150 million to do f1 races all over the world

And they just need to have one tire, none of this option tire nonsense trying to create artifical excitement

Toyota at the point where it looks like they may be breaking through to the top, at last, may dump F1 for the same reaason as Honda, just can not afford it.... :(

[veeten]

Goodyear suffered as much as Michelin on the Indy surface first time around so that may have put them out of the running for a return.

:confused:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/tir-003.html

Goodyear hasn't been involved in F1 since '98. Must be thinking about either CART/IRL or NASCAR when it comes to Indy. :)

[wedge]

Goodyear suffered as much as Michelin on the Indy surface first time around so that may have put them out of the running for a return.

Goodyear left F1 a year before the inaugural Indy/USGP

[veeten]

Hopefully, Bridgestone's departure in '10 will spur the FIA into making the tire rules more plain and involve more manufacturers, even if that involves a Khumo/Yokahama/Cooper-type of company, for many of these types can be a boon to the smaller teams on the grid.

Not everyone can afford Pirelli/Michelin/Goodyear-sized tire deals, so why not.

[ArrowsFA1]

Goodyear left F1 a year before the inaugural Indy/USGP
I'm referring to the 2008 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard - LINK (http://wwww.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/05/05/goodyear.tire.tests.indianapolis/index.html)

The issue for Goodyear then, as it was for Michelin in the F1 event, was the new track surface.

[Giuseppe F1]

Why has no one mentioned 'HOOSIER' yet as a potential candidate? ;)

[Daniel]

Why has no one mentioned 'HOOSIER' yet as a potential candidate? ;)
Erm


Hoosier would love to have the contract. They already got jackets and caps!

http://www.hoosiertire.com/

[wedge]

I'm referring to the 2008 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard - LINK (http://wwww.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/05/05/goodyear.tire.tests.indianapolis/index.html)

The issue for Goodyear then, as it was for Michelin in the F1 event, was the new track surface.

2 completely different circumstances.

Michelin were in a tyre war. Bridgestone went conservative and had no problems.

The only similarity between the 2 is that if you bring the wrong tyres you have a farce.

[Easy Drifter]

Dunlop?
They are making a competitive race tire in sportscars.
Again the cost might be a problem.
Jean Todt has his first major test now.

[ArrowsFA1]

2 completely different circumstances.
Well yes and no. Yes, there was a tyre war in F1 at the time, and that wasn't the case in NASCAR. No, because neither Goodyear or Michelin had any experience of the new surface. Bridgestone did via their Firestone brand being in Indycars. The knowledge gained there could well have been a factor in them going conservative and having no problems.

[wedge]

Well yes and no. Yes, there was a tyre war in F1 at the time, and that wasn't the case in NASCAR. No, because neither Goodyear or Michelin had any experience of the new surface. Bridgestone did via their Firestone brand being in Indycars. The knowledge gained there could well have been a factor in them going conservative and having no problems.

How so?

Road racing places different demands from the tyres than oval racing.

[jens]

Positive news IMO. It adds an extra excitement and unknown factor into 2011 - new tyres for everyone and how can all the teams adapt to them. :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Road racing places different demands from the tyres than oval racing.
Of course, but running Indycar tyres would have given Firestone/Bridgestone an indication of how different the new surface was in comparison with the old, and the resulting demands it placed on tyres. That in turn may well have helped inform Bridgestone's F1 tyre choice. Neither Goodyear or Michelin had the opportunity to make that comparison and IMHO that might explain why both failed to bring a suitable tyre to Indy.

Still, all of this has nothing to do with Bridgestone's departure from F1 :)

[UltimateDanGTR]

I personally hope goodyear will be the new tyre supplier. i sorta miss them, anyone else reckon they will return?

[ClarkFan]

How so?

Road racing places different demands from the tyres than oval racing.
Michelin's problems were coming on the portion of the track that used the Indianapolis oval - epsecially the banked turn that is Turn 1 at the Indy 500.

ClarkFan

[ioan]

Weren't Bridgestone all in favour of the control tyre idea? They could have chosen not to bid for it, as Michelin did.

Being chosen over Michelin was a great marketing move, however that isn't news anymore.

[Easy Drifter]

Jean Todt's first problem may be to find a company or companies interested.
If just one company is chosen they may make crap tires but so what. Everyone is stuck with them and will have to live with it. It might even be an effective way of reducing speeds!
If there are several companies producing tires then possibly a rule could be put in place limiting the number of compounds allowed per year. Tricky if one company gets it really right.
You also might get one company producing a slower tire but a very durable one that might go the race distance. Could make for some interesting races if the teams using other tires have to stop two or three times.
Possibly teams will have to pay for their tires. It would have to be the same price for everyone.
To keep the costs down a limit of say 2 or 3 dry sets allowed per weekend. All the same compound. Tires would have to be more durable that way and costs would be reduced especially if a team was limited to two sets. Each car would be allowed one emergency spare of each size that could only be used in case of a puncture. Only the punctured tire could be changed. Would change the construction of the tires so they could go on either side. Again would reduce costs and probably speed.
Certainly some of these are rather radical ideas but they might accomplish reducing costs to the teams and the tire manufacturers. They might also reduce the speeds everyone is worried about and would be challenging to the tire engineers to produce.
To be at all effective there would have to be a limit on the compounds allowed per year. If only one tire Co. all cars would have to use the same compound. If more than one teams contracted to one manufacturer would all have to use one compound. No changing of tire Companies allowed during the course of the season.
Naturally there would have to be rain tires and again restricted numbers would be allowed. Complete sets of emergency tires would have to be allowed because of tread drainage demands but only punctures could be changed beyond the allowed sets.
No team allowed private tire testing and no special contracts with one team.
Just throwing out some thoughts for everyones' consideration.
I do not want a fight over this just some thoughts.
Some ideas are a little radical.

[ClarkFan]

Someone already mentioned Dunlop, and they have an interesting recent profile. In the US over the past few years, they have definitely put more stress on higher performance/light competition tires with the Star Spec tire (probably the tires on my S2000 next spring, as they offer Bridgestone performance for much less money). They are definitely involved in sports car racing, and had a major paddock presence at the ALMS race I attended this summer. Plus they are affiliated with Sumitomo, a major Japanese competitior for Bridgestone (in golf balls, too!) with significant financial resources.

ClarkFan

[Valve Bounce]

Bridgestone were reported to be closing down their plant in Oz because they were making a loss. Could it be that their F1 participation as a lone tyre supplier does not translate into a huge advertising and sales success? They are obviously spending heaps on tyres, and the FIA's insistence on each car having to use both compounds in a race simply made it that more expensive for Bridgestone to develop suitable compounds.

For my personal car, for a tyre of choice I would prefer Michelins simply because I have been using Michelins for years and they have a great reputation. And they are not even in F1. I would have to ask here what does make a guy choose a tyre for his car. Does anyone really care about Bridgestones participation in F1 when they choose a tyre?

[VkmSpouge]

Jean Todt's first problem may be to find a company or companies interested.
If just one company is chosen they may make crap tires but so what. Everyone is stuck with them and will have to live with it. It might even be an effective way of reducing speeds!

I just wonder who if there was just one make of tyre how it would be defined as crap without anything to be compared with? The only way I can think of is if the tyre were to be unsafe (lots of punctures and not enough grip).

[Easy Drifter]

Lack of grip, too quick to wear out, inconsistent compounds, poor quality control on diameter. There can be all sorts of problems with race tires.

[Mark]

Bridgestone were reported to be closing down their plant in Oz because they were making a loss. Could it be that their F1 participation as a lone tyre supplier does not translate into a huge advertising and sales success? They are obviously spending heaps on tyres, and the FIA's insistence on each car having to use both compounds in a race simply made it that more expensive for Bridgestone to develop suitable compounds.


I don't know about that. They would still likely have to bring two compounds of each tyre to a race as they don't know for certain what the conditions are etc. At least the 'use both types' rule means that a good proportion of the tyres they bring get used.

Part of the problem at Indy was there was only really one type of tyre, if that had occured this year then the FIA would have likely have waived the 'use both types' rule and everything would have been fine.

At least it's better than the days where Michelin and Bridgestone would be making tyres suited to each individual team. Bridgestone just have 4 types of standard tyres and that's it for the season!

[Hondo]

Bridgestone were reported to be closing down their plant in Oz because they were making a loss. Could it be that their F1 participation as a lone tyre supplier does not translate into a huge advertising and sales success? They are obviously spending heaps on tyres, and the FIA's insistence on each car having to use both compounds in a race simply made it that more expensive for Bridgestone to develop suitable compounds.

For my personal car, for a tyre of choice I would prefer Michelins simply because I have been using Michelins for years and they have a great reputation. And they are not even in F1. I would have to ask here what does make a guy choose a tyre for his car. Does anyone really care about Bridgestones participation in F1 when they choose a tyre?

When I drove high performance cars in a high performance manner I was interested more in traction and wear ratings than brand name. After 4 sets of "name brands" I ended up trying a set of Pep Boy's house brand tires. Those were the best tires I ever had on the Trans Am and were great in the rain also. I heard they were made by Cooper for Pep Boy's but after that first set, I quit checking other brands and used them from then until I sold the car. Short answer is that Bridgestone probably sold some tires to those that seek a loose indentification with the sport but those that seriously punish a tire are going to look beyond brand name.

[Daniel]

When I drove high performance cars in a high performance manner I was interested more in traction and wear ratings than brand name. After 4 sets of "name brands" I ended up trying a set of Pep Boy's house brand tires. Those were the best tires I ever had on the Trans Am and were great in the rain also. I heard they were made by Cooper for Pep Boy's but after that first set, I quit checking other brands and used them from then until I sold the car. Short answer is that Bridgestone probably sold some tires to those that seek a loose indentification with the sport but those that seriously punish a tire are going to look beyond brand name.
Good point.

But you're usually going to get a decent tyre if you buy a Bridgestone, Continental, Michelin, Pirelli, Goodyear, Dunlop or any other bigname brand. A lot also depends on the car as well and what it prefers.

[Mark]

Don't know why I chose Continental for my car. Perhaps I remember the old avert with the car driving around on the roof of a Skyscraper "German engineering where you need it most on a car". :p

[Mark]

I would imagine it takes a long time to develop a proper F1 tyre programme. For a new entrant getting ready for 2011 they'd have to be starting about now. So hopefully Todt will get this sorted sooner rather than later.

Of course we could have a situation where one tyre company pays Bridgestone to produce tyres for them.

[AndyL]

I just wonder who if there was just one make of tyre how it would be defined as crap without anything to be compared with? The only way I can think of is if the tyre were to be unsafe (lots of punctures and not enough grip).

You can compare lap times with previous years if aero regs are consistent. If the best lap times are consistently 2 or 3 seconds slower than this year's then the new tyre supplier will find themselves compared unfavourably to Bridgestone.

[veeten]

But one has to take into account the new chassis regs, with increased weight due to the elimination of refueling. The numbers for this past season would be sufficient with the new cars at half capacity or less.

[Mark]

The new supplier will be in place in 2011 at which point we will have had a year of full fuel running. Not to mention low fuel qualifying.

[christophulus]

It's probably due to diminishing returns. Bridgestone have to supply four extra teams next year and go to two more races. Whoever comes in is going to want a much better deal than Bridgestone have.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/11/02/bridgestone-to-make-surprise-f1-exit/

[ArrowsFA1]

Did you know...

There have been 9 tyre suppliers in F1 since 1950. No prizes for coming up with who they are :p :

[veeten]

Goodyear, Firestone(pre-Bridgestone)

Dunlop, Avon

Michelin

Pirelli

Continental

Bridgestone

and...

[Easy Drifter]

9-- Englebert

Unless the FIA/Bernie gets more than one company interested and quickly there is a very good possibility that whatever tire company goes for a contract they will be in the drivers seat (so to speak) on the tire regulations.
If there is only one company interested they quite likely will have a major say in how many compounds and # of tires to be used in a weekend.
If it isn't resolved soon I can also see the various F1 teams making calls to old friends at various companies about suppling them and only them.

As an aside my Continental road tires are c-rap. They came with the car. I had no choice.

[Malbec]

Goodyear, Firestone(pre-Bridgestone)

Dunlop, Avon

Michelin

Pirelli

Continental

Bridgestone

and...

I believe the lead bidder to replace Bridgestone would be Kumho, who IIRC considered bidding against BS a couple of years ago when the control tyre formula was set up. They've expressed more interest in F1 recently than the rest of the tyre makers combined.

[donKey jote]

In terms of marketing and prestige, I can only really see the following brand being a good fit for F1:

x
y
z
Continental
...



not short term... Continental's management decided years ago to abandon motorsport and sponsor Football (Soccer) instead.
Worked for brand awareness (outside the US :p : ), but it'll take time (or acquisitions) to get back up to scratch !

[Daniel]

not short term... Continental's management decided years ago to abandon motorsport and sponsor Football (Soccer) instead.
Worked for brand awareness (outside the US :p : ), but it'll take time (or acquisitions) to get back up to scratch !
You've got to love thinking like this :)

Let's not sponsor something which is very much related to our core business! Let's sponsor football! :mark:

But then again it does say a lot about the state of motorsport when big brands don't want to take part.

[donKey jote]

Hoosier would love to have the contract. They already got jackets and caps!

http://www.hoosiertire.com/

hmmm... strange timing... Continental have just "joined a strategic alliance" with Hoosier ;)
http://www.reifenpresse.de/news/alle-news/detail/article/conti-schliesst-allianz-mit-rennreifenhersteller-hoosier.html

[donKey jote]

Don't know why I chose Continental for my car.
I do know why the CPC2 is my choice of tyre ;) :p :D

[donKey jote]

You've got to love thinking like this :)

Let's not sponsor something which is very much related to our core business! Let's sponsor football! :mark:

But then again it does say a lot about the state of motorsport when big brands don't want to take part.

it's what dave said before, plus common knowledge is:
"a bad tyre can cost you of the order of seconds a lap"

and that's what sticks, not "a good tyre can give you a large improvement" ;)


Off topic but as I said, the Football marketing raised brand awareness more than any motorsport involvement would probably have done, and to a wider public - not just petrolheads :p

Not that I agree of course! In my opinion they/we should never have frozen the motorsport activities - but a new wind is blowing :D

[donKey jote]

I believe the lead bidder to replace Bridgestone would be Kumho, who IIRC considered bidding against BS a couple of years ago when the control tyre formula was set up. They've expressed more interest in F1 recently than the rest of the tyre makers combined.

yep

[AndyRAC]

You've got to love thinking like this :)

Let's not sponsor something which is very much related to our core business! Let's sponsor football! :mark:

But then again it does say a lot about the state of motorsport when big brands don't want to take part.

Hyundai are a classic case. Pulled out of Motorsport, and now are heavily involved in sponsoring Football; World Cups, Euros..... :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

The new supplier will be in place in 2011 at which point we will have had a year of full fuel running. Not to mention low fuel qualifying.
U guys do not get it...as was said in the presidential races...."It is about the economy, stupid..."

No one tire company is eager to jump up and down to go replace Bridgestone......

be lucky to get Cooper tires to provide race tires.......or maybe PAY bridgestone to continue.... :confused:

Should be clear with toyota now joining Beemer Honda and bridgestone......

the days of opulence have come and gone....just wish they would take 10 billion dollar race tracks like odube with them :rolleyes:

[Jag_Warrior]

For my personal car, for a tyre of choice I would prefer Michelins simply because I have been using Michelins for years and they have a great reputation. And they are not even in F1. I would have to ask here what does make a guy choose a tyre for his car. Does anyone really care about Bridgestones participation in F1 when they choose a tyre?

Everything being roughly equal, yeah, I do pay some attention to a tire company's (or other component maker's) racing participation. I look at performance and wear specs and then choose from the group that meets those specs. If the price is close, I very well may choose the one that participates in racing series I enjoy. If I feel strongly enough, I may even write an email detailing why I chose their brand over a competitor's.

I've bought Bridgestones for vehicles in the past, but they weren't performance tires. My WRX came with Bridgestone performance tires. They were horrible - very low grip and very fast wear... fairly high price. I thought I'd decided on Michelin performance tires. Then a fellow at the track, who had an STI, suggested I look at Falkens. That's what he used and he loved them. He said any performance tire would have about the same wear rate as the Bridgestones, but the Falkens had MUCH better grip and more consistent wear... plus they were MUCH cheaper. That was about 4 years ago and I've been buying Falkens ever since. I'm about to order another set in the next few weeks. I've got Michelins on the XK8, but I don't drive it hard (or very often).

So long story short, I look at brands... but only when it makes performance and $ sense.

BTW, what's surprised me about the stories I've read so far is: no one seems to want this tire contract to supply Formula One.

[ClarkFan]

U guys do not get it...as was said in the presidential races...."It is about the economy, stupid..."

No one tire company is eager to jump up and down to go replace Bridgestone......

be lucky to get Cooper tires to provide race tires.......or maybe PAY bridgestone to continue.... :confused:

Should be clear with toyota now joining Beemer Honda and bridgestone......

the days of opulence have come and gone....
Maybe they can get a deal to run the F1 World Championship on shaved Toyo RA-1s, just like Spec Miata does!

:p

ClarkFan

[ArrowsFA1]

and...
Englebert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englebert_(tyre_manufacturer)) :D

[I am evil Homer]

Hyundai are a classic case. Pulled out of Motorsport, and now are heavily involved in sponsoring Football; World Cups, Euros..... :rolleyes:

Wider audience, better brand recognition. It's Marketing 101 and why motorsport (rallying in particular) needs to sort itself out to make it attractive to potential manufacturers and sponsors.

[F1boat]

Wow, with all these news it seems like the old CART forum.

[SGWilko]

2 completely different circumstances.

Michelin were in a tyre war. Bridgestone went conservative and had no problems.

The only similarity between the 2 is that if you bring the wrong tyres you have a farce.

Actually, the circuit was diamond cut at the start of the season. My understanding was that Bridgestone, through the Firestone IRL/CART connection new about this. I can't imagine why Bridgestone would omit to mention this to Michelin.

However, Bridgestone suffered a similar fate - two years running at the Turkey 4 apex corner with the particular 'driving style' of Lewis. Both occasions - puncture in the first year and having to be conservative in the following year fubarred Lewis' races.

[F1boat]

Actually, the circuit was diamond cut at the start of the season. My understanding was that Bridgestone, through the Firestone IRL/CART connection new about this. I can't imagine why Bridgestone would omit to mention this to Michelin.

However, Bridgestone suffered a similar fate - two years running at the Turkey 4 apex corner with the particular 'driving style' of Lewis. Both occasions - puncture in the first year and having to be conservative in the following year fubarred Lewis' races.

Wasn't there the same trouble with NASCAR at Indy a few years later?