Ferrari and Bridgestone

[Carbon]

Curious - Ferrari are plainly at a distadvantage sticking with BS for another season, while Michelin are racking up many more miles with top teams, and are able to extrapulate much more tire data. The Michelin's are clearly superior in the dry, and before long, I believe will take the edge in the wet as well. I'd would like to think that the top times showed by BAR recently is an indicator not only of a sound design, but also very much due to the tire. Why is Ferrari sticking with BS, and what is the nature of their contract? Any ideas?

[scarbs]

Theres a conspiracy theory, that suggested....
Michelin are bound by the rules to provide 60% of the field, ferrari were getting jumpy and wanted to go to Michelin. But McLaren, Williams and Michelin didnt want them on their side. The only way to stop Ferrari was to supply one more team and thus meet the only rule forcing them to accept Ferrari. BAR step in as one of the top performing BS teams and move over to Michelin. suddenly Ferrari are in the cold with no rule to force Michelins acceptance to supply.

How ever I doubt that is the case (it'd make a great movie) Ferrari get close attention from BS, it worked in 2002. But the F2003GA didnt work well with the tyres in 03, as well as BS trying to please BAR and Sauber more in 03 than 02. In 04 I see BS dediccating to Ferrari again and Sauber with a second string supply and part time tyre developers. Plus Jordan and Minardi wont be in position to complain they have other issues to deal with. Tyre development can be both an incremental process or a eureka moment, any deficit in Melbourne could overturned by imola.

[Guest]

The Michelin's are clearly superior in the dry, and before long, I believe will take the edge in the wet as well.

I don't think the Michelin wet's will ever be as good as the BS intermediate/full wet tires. If you believe that, you truly are dreaming. BS is WAY ahead of Michelin in wet performance. Michelin's view is that wet weather racing doesn't happen often enough for them to spend the extra money on developing a better wet tire.

They said that this year, they will spend a little more money developing a better wet tire, but they still feel it's the best strategy to use their budget towards DRY tire development.

- KJ

[Steven]

hehe... never say never again, certainly not in Formula One

Anyway, I must say I do not think Michelin have inferior wet weather tyres. Apparently they have chosen for little less grooves in the tyres, which allows them to run faster in normal wet/half dry conditions. However, when things get really really wet, they can't really keep up that is a known fact.

However, the manufacturer knows what it's doing, so I expect the competition to be closer, with both sides adjust their wet tyres a little towards the rivals

[rodlamas]

What you´re saying is just as stupid as it can be.

The Michelin problems lies with INTERMIDIATE TYRES, NOT WET TYRES.

A good example of tthat was Brazil 2003. Prior to the beginning of the race it rainned and then we got 7 laps of Safety Car.

Then when the race started all Bridgestone runners had no pace at all. And at the end of the race, when the track was drying and people were on wets, Fisichella was faster than Kimi and David.

[rob2004]

the difference isn't easily explained by just naming and blaming the tyres..The Windows by which the Bridgstones and michelins are optimal is very different.
Michelin Dry tyres hold out better in moist conditions... However their intermediates have a very narrow window of use and therefore teams may opt for full wets...
Bridgestone Dry tyres are not as effective in moist conditions..yet the intermediate can run -and not disintegrate- when michelins still effectively need to use their dry tyres -on the ragged edge as RS has demonstrated from time to time- all the way until the michelins have to already go for full wets...
In situations where all teams use full wets -not in interlagos last year - the BS still seem to have some advantage