Bridgestone blame Safety Car period for tyre issue

[Nicholosophy]

From http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14811.html

Bridgestone has announced that Michael Schumacher tyre failures in Spain were not caused by excessive wear. According to the Japanese tyremaker the first failure (on lap 44) was caused because the carcass of the tyre was weakened by the Safety Car period (laps 1-3). The second tyre failure was caused by some external debris and the car was retired because of damage to the suspension during Schumacher's drive into the pits.

Seems a bit strange, don't you think?

[Kicking-back]

Whitewash.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Whitewash.

Care to elaborate K-B?

[Kicking-back]

Well, it's easier to blame external factors, rather than publicly admit your tyres aren't up to it at the moment.

[Mr V]

I have to say i'm enjoying this. Serves Bridgestone and Ferrai right for all their years of only having time/interest in each other, basically forcing the other teams to leave for Michelin, well, it's come back to haunt them, and long may it continue

[slicktoast]

And the safety car period only affects one BS tire out of 16? Were the minnows (the other 8 BS tires) running during the safety period at all?

[Clive]

Originally Posted by slicktoast

And the safety car period only affects one BS tire out of 16? Were the minnows (the other 8 BS tires) running during the safety period at all?

probably had the inferior version

[Knowlesy]

They didn't fail at Spa last year after extensive safety cars, although they flopped off the rim quite often. Yes, different tyre regs I know, but the fundamentals apply.....

This has to be the worst excuse ever.

[BootsOntheSide]

Michelin didn't blame safety cars for the large amount fo pucntures/failures their tyres usffered last year (many of them after safety car periods earlier in the stint), so either Bridgestone are less capable of building tyres within the requirements of a safety car period 9which has been in F1 a lot longer than they have) or Michelin aren't whiners.

[Marbot]

So BS are saying that if they have another safety car period,much the same is likely to happen.And if you're going to get a safety car period anywhere it's most likely to be Monaco.I think it's going to be a very long race.

[Adam43]

It does sound like all those 'electrical failures' that Renault had in the early days of the turbo cars!

However I don't think we can assign a whinging tone to it. It is all a matter of degree. I don't think Bridgestone are saying that it was only the Safety Car period that caused more that it contributed to it.

Michael was on it, more than other Bridgestone runners and this probably accentuated any situation caused by the Safety Car. The tyres weren't worn out (they still had lots of tread according Autosport GP review, can't remember myself). However their structure was taking some punishment it seems.

It seems that Bridgestone may be going to a more drastic sidewall to tread edge. Rather than the rounded edge they have now. This will help them maximise the tread. I would have thought this would have an adverse effect overall on the construction, so it will be interesting to see how they cope with this change.

[Inigo Montoya]

Nobody at Bridgestone is whinging... They conducted an analysis, and it said that the tyre was at low pressure when they were going at low speed during the safety car period. This certainly would affect the structure of the tyre - its designed to go at high speed.

They are obviously not supposed to fail at low speed. Read between the lines; that particular tyre was obviously flawed.

[Marbot]

I understand BS have teamed up with DUREX in order to find a remedy to the problem.

Obviously there's a problem at low speeds.

[Phoenix1]

BS = BS? I can't believe they did not think that a motorsport event might not once in a while use safety cars especially since the FIA and Charlie Whiting have starting trying to avoid Red Flags except for major incidents. Would it of been a major effort for MS, RB, LB or MG to do a few slow laps then do a flat out test session?

I can see they are not blaming the safety car for being out but they do seem to be pinning the blame on a predicatable event. Had a lighting bolt zapped it and melted part of the compound then that would be an exceptable excuse. What next - the Minardi in front was too slow? The fact is all this session BS have had issues, you wonder how much this is hurting Jordan and Minardi as well.

As has been said putting in fast laps 1.13 whilst others are 2 seconds slower is not a wise thing to do on tyres that have had a heavy load the whole race. The other thing as also pointed out is Michelin did not moan about there issues they just sorted them out and pulled themselves above Bridgestone in the majority of conditions. I will be intreasted to see a wet race and if Michelin have got there 'inters' (I know wets and monsoons) up to scratch now.

[Adam43]

I think rather than 'blaming' they are saying why they think something happened. Which is the interesting thing here.

We already knew that Ferrari have problems with cold tyres. They are slow after any safety car period (and have been for some time - remember Spa and Silverstone last year) and qualifying is a problem too. However this seems to show that the problem goes further than just poor lap times.

[JeremySmith]

Complete and utter nonsense.

[Sodemo]

Just before the second puncture, if you look at the front left tyre, there is an ugly black mark all the way around the middle part of the tyre (look at the middle groove).

There is a good chance this was part of the problem...

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by The Monster

Just before the second puncture, if you look at the front left tyre, there is an ugly black mark all the way around the middle part of the tyre (look at the middle groove).

There is a good chance this was part of the problem...

I agree it's called tyre failure.

[Logrence]

BS is exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe the Safety Car was an issue, but surely they're sideskirting the fact that F1 one cars take part in races which involve Safety Car moments and must therefore be taken into consideration whilst designing tyres for said automobiles.

All really rather tragic, I have to say - especially given their earlier forthrightness in acknowledging their shortcomings.

[Gt_R]

I'm so glad i subscribed to this forum. I always knew i could rely on the experts here to give us a better analysis. What do those Bridgestone technicians know about black donuts?

The only thing that hurts is that BS seem to have taken a leaf out of Michelin's book of excuses. Sad really.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

The only thing that hurts is that BS seem to have taken a leaf out of Michelin's book of excuses. Sad really.

Whats the old saying? Oh yer, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and Bridgestone ain't beating 'em

[joe rossi]

Maybe Bridgestone should have possibly considered designing a tyre at the beginning of the year that was capable of dealing with safety car periods?

A bit radical I know...anyway, just a thought!

[Gt_R]

Cheers!

It took Bridgestone 5 years to finally produce tyres bad enough to erase Ferrari's advantage and let the other teams have their chance at glory.

Don't seem like they're in a hurry to change the situation.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

I'm so glad i subscribed to this forum. I always knew i could rely on the experts here to give us a better analysis. What do those Bridgestone technicians know about black donuts?

The only thing that hurts is that BS seem to have taken a leaf out of Michelin's book of excuses. Sad really.

I found the statement that Bridgestone made a little lame, of course they are the tyre experts and I am sure that they are working flat out to solve the problems they and Ferrari are experiencing. On another note if I heard correctly this morning on Speed, Steve Matchet was saying that the Wurtz testing accident in France was caused by improper mounting of the tyres or one of the tyres? on his car.

[Kicking-back]

A Michelin mechanic had put the tyre on the wheel the wrong way round, having been confused by the positioning of a bar code.