Which tyre company does the best job?

[D_Marshall]

I know there are a couple of threads on tyres but these only dicuss if the tyre companies have a problem because of the recent blowouts that have occured.

What i am wondering however is which tyre company does the best job for it's teams? Looking at Bridgestone, they have been quite dominant on the race wins this season but it is only with Ferrari. What about the other teams it supplies? When looking at the time sheets it is generally the two Bridgestone Ferraris at the top and then a big group of Michelin runners. Does this suggest that Bridgestone only care about Ferrari and neglect the other teams to try and give Ferrari a perfect tyre for their car? Michelin haven't had the outright success but they have been nearer the top with most of it's teams and seem to treat them on a more level playing field.

I suppose the question is if you had an F1 team which tyres would you want to use?

If a mod would like to add a poll to this then feel free.

[Kicking-back]

Bridgestone have been the better tyres this season, most of the time - looking at Sauber's performances shows that.

Michelin could bounce back next year, though.

[Paarma]

Primarily Michelin. I'm under the impression that Bridgestone's tyres are optimized for Ferrari equipment, which means that they have an advantage over other teams using the same tyres. I also think that in the long run, Michelin will win the tyre war, simply because all the other top teams already use them.

[pole2pole]

The Brigdestone/Ferrari tyre has been the best tyre. It wins hands down.

[Marbot]

Originally posted by pole2pole
The Brigdestone/Ferrari tyre has been the best tyre. It wins hands down.

But it's only ever likely to win on a Ferrari,Peter Sauber was *****ing not too long ago about the top teams spending far too much time testing tyres,so it's hardly surprising that Ferrari have the best Bridgestone tyre.

[BootsOntheSide]

McLaren and then BAR switched to Michelin because they felt they were being given second-class treatment by Bridgestone (which seems unfair in the case of McLaren, because they had a similar record to Ferrari in immediately preceding years). When they switched to Michelin, their results improved, although other factors explain this for BAR.

Considering the reliability issues Michelin teams have had with the tyres, I think Bridgestone are still the best, and although I think tyres produced without Ferrari in mind would slow them by 0.5-1 second a lap depending on the circuit, they would be equally competitive elsewhere.

[Marbot]

Why can't i use the word that means female dog!

[ASCII Man]

It would seem to me that the word '*****' is also a curseword.
I have no idea why that would be but there you go....

[Marbot]

I'm not sure what the score would be,but if michelin and bridgestone were to add all their teams scores together you would get a different picture.It is only the dominance of Ferrari which make Bridgestone look good.

[Kicking-back]

Maybe it's the dominance of Bridgestone that makes Ferrari look so good? ;-)

[garcon]

I think Michelin and Bridgestone have two quite different roles.

Michelin is doing a good job supplying all but two of the competitive cars on the grid, providing the best compromise it can to improve the performance of all those teams.

Bridgestone is doing an absolutely superb job of providing Ferrari with precisely what Ferrari needs.

[Gt_R]

This year,Bridgestone has the better tyres.

People can say how BS is Ferrari-exclusive and the other teams get poor tyres, but people overlook that Sauber performed pretty impressively against rivals to put in strong race finishes.

And of course, put Michelins on a Minardi/Jordan and they'd still end up at the end of the grid. Michelin made themselve sound so morally high with "we supply same tyres", but firstly, they rejected those lousy teams (ask Minardi), then they make non top teams pay for the tyres (hence it's only logical they get good stuff for what they pay) and that at the end of the day, the top teams still run more tire testings than the bottom teams (and tyres would tend to favour those whose data are used for fundamental design/construction).

Bridgestone may be overly reliant on Ferrari, but when you are in a competition with 4 teams, only one capable of winning, only an idiot will do otherwise. But still, Ferrari runs more tyre testings than other BS-runners, and provide the most data/resource, it's only natural that the tyres suit Ferrari best.

Put them on another team like Sauber and still the tyres work just as well to allow them to get results.

The thing is, irregardless, teams like Minardi/Jordan/Jaguar/Toyota would find more difficulty in adapting to the tyres than Mclaren and Ferraris, simply because it's only nature that the tyre-manufacturers focus on winning.

I'd put my money on BS. Stronger race performance, consistent, gets the results, and is more reliable and less prone to "sharp kerbs/drainage covers" (what a excuse from Michelin).

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by martyn bott
I'm not sure what the score would be,but if michelin and bridgestone were to add all their teams scores together you would get a different picture.It is only the dominance of Ferrari which make Bridgestone look good.

None of Bridgestone's otehr teams have any reason to expect to be near the front, whereas Michelin have 4 teams who are, on paper, stronger than even Sauber.

Gt_R, Bridgestone prioritised Ferrari over McLaren when the two teams were on the same tyrers, and only Williams were a vague challenge from Michelin.

[Gt_R]

Oh boots, so you think when Minardi were using Michelin that they got equal treatment as Williams?



Ferrari got "better" treatment is not a given. They worked for it, offering deals, compromises and unique partnership with Bridgestone. Instead of blaming Ferrari and Bridgestone for the situation, it should be worth noting that once again, Ferrari got things right. Mclaren just lost it. And Ron is always paranoid about given the short end of the stick and blabber off about it.

[pole2pole]

And another point folks regarding the best rubber....what about wet tyres...wow I think we all know the answer to that one

[T0MAT01]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Put them on another team like Sauber and still the tyres work just as well to allow them to get results.

Last year BAR were convinced that they would have been as competitive as McLaren, had they been using Michelin rubber which is kind of backed up by their performance this year.

I'm pretty sure that BAR have to pay for their Michelins and why shouldn't they? Michelin didn't look to gain anything by supplying another team with tyres, so I don't see how its any different from Cosworth charging Jordan for engines.

I'd certainly choose Michelin even though Bridgestone look to have the better tyre at the moment, because their tyres seem tailor made for each team.

[Gt_R]

But you forgot that last year, Michelin had the better tyres. If Ferrari had run on Michelins last year instead of Bridgestone, it would have been another walk over year.

So the effects isn't felt just by BAR, but by Ferrari and Sauber too where they were caught out by inferior tyres.

[T0MAT01]

Fair enough, I'm not saying that Ferrari are only good because of their tyres, but that the other teams using Bridgestone don't share the tyre advantage.

Its like D_Marshall said in the first post: "When looking at the time sheets it is generally the two Bridgestone Ferraris at the top and then a big group of Michelin runners."

Sauber clearly are not up there every race and usually benefit from attrition rather than pace.

[Gt_R]

Wrong. The reason why Sauber is there is because they work around the strengths of Bridgestones.

Brdigestone's wear more consistently than Michelin, and is stronger over a say 12lap stint..while michelins are fast at the opening laps but suffer a distinct drop off.

Sauber hence knew their BS isn't optimum in one-lap qualifyings (a disadvantage shared by Ferrari), and hence sometimes opt for a heavier fuel strategy - masking their car's performance in a lap.

And IMO, BS is one of the reasons that help Sauber beat teams like Mclaren/Williams occassionally and gain points.

[T0MAT01]

So why aren't Sauber doing better then?

Team Points
Ferrari 216 (Bridgestone)
Renault 91 (Michelin)
BAR 83 (Michelin)
Williams 54 (Michelin)
McLaren 49 (Michelin)
Sauber 28 (Bridgestone)
Jaguar 10
Toyota 9
Jordan 5
Minardi 1

28 isn't many points is it. Obviously they need a tyre with which they can qualify better, after all they've got this years Ferrari lump which you've got to assume has more grunt than Renault's.

[Gt_R]

Renault's car may lack the power of the old Ferrari, but it more than makes up for the disadvantage with far superior handling and aero and in almost every other department.

28 points isn't many, but not too long ago, Mclaren and Williams are stuggling to put in that amount of points. the fact that Sauber is even able to challenge teams like Mclaren for the first half of the season, give Montoya a race for his money, score some decent grid positions in the hands of Fisi. For a team like Sauber..way better than Toyota and Jaguar.

[flor]

btw i read that kumho will enter f1

[alesi95]

I'm still awaiting the glorious return of Goodyear....they are interested.