Bridgestone announce tyre specs for first 5 2009 races

[Giuseppe F1]

http://www.pitpass.com/images/headlines/2009tyres1400.jpg



Bridgestone announce tyre specs for first 5 2009 races:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37117



http://www.pitpass.com/images/headlines/2009tyres2400.jpg

[Mark]

Interesting that the gap in softness between the two tyres is now much bigger. It's quite likely that there will now be one 'good' tyre and one 'bad' tyre which seems seek to minimise their time using.

[ioan]

They are trying to further improve the show with artificial methods.

[Knock-on]

They are trying to further improve the show with artificial methods.

I agree with you.

Soon we will have knobbly tyres, a set of steel radials and some with snow chains round that will all have to be used during a race :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They are trying to further improve the show with artificial methods.

The rules are the same for everyone. I'm all for it.

[Bagwan]

They are trying to further improve the show with artificial methods.

Seeing as the tires are one of the only truly standard components , is this so "artificial" ?

Could one not see it as a central technical challenge , to get the car to work well with both ends of the grip spectrum ?

The way we use to have it , there was an endless supply of skins at the race , but that has been limitted for years . It has to be , as the cost , to both the environment and the pocketbooks of the tire makers was vast , with stacks never used .
To have it limitted makes it viable .
To have them be vastly different just offers a high degree of challenge .

In the good ol' days , those quali tires were so super-sticky , they only had a short run's worth in them , and were likely far beyond the range of difference on offer now .

In my opinion , I believe we should have a single compound , used for the entire year .
It would be cheap to supply , and simple to understand .

It would not , however , add the technical challenge , and thereby , the pace differentials we will see as a result of having different tires mandated .


The most worrying issue would be manipulation of the championship , by favouring one team's design by choosing their favourite option . If they give the teams the order for all the races , it will remove any possibility of this happening .
I am wondering why Bridgestone has only announced the tires for the first races . Would it not make sense to give the options for the year ?
Has there been reasoning given ?

[Bagwan]

And , by the way , I like the green .
While I think it's fetched a bit far to say F1 is green , it does work very well in the visibility sense .

It's a lot better than red , as shorter wavelengths are highly visible at distance .
It also looks as though it would work very well with a fluorescent additive , to make it look really good under the lights .

[ioan]

The most worrying issue would be manipulation of the championship , by favouring one team's design by choosing their favourite option .

They should have announced a single compound for 2009, given the thorough technical regulation changes no one would have known which tire compound would suit them better!

But having two largely different compounds that have to be used during a race it's a good way to bring the races alive, so they went for this solution instead the one compound one.

[wedge]

They are trying to further improve the show with artificial methods.

I think there should be a strategic element and anything is better than refuelling.

[truefan72]

I think there should be a strategic element and anything is better than refuelling.

I would rather see refueling strategy than compromised cars running around below par because of tire issues. Not to mention the danger of tire malfunctions etc.

The truth is, as long as the cars are different, the tires will work better for one team than another. While driving style plays a factor, I would hate to see races lost because of superfluous degradation of tires, by drivers trying hard to win, and races won by guys who were coasting around, waiting for front runners to have tire issues.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

They should use a neutral white strip instead of a green one, it will look terrible with most liveries.

[ioan]

They should use a neutral white strip instead of a green one, it will look terrible with most liveries.

And what dod you make of the Bridgestone white lettering?

[wedge]

I would rather see refueling strategy than compromised cars running around below par because of tire issues. Not to mention the danger of tire malfunctions etc.

Refuelling is also dangerous, not to mention wing failure, brake failure, sticking throttle, suspension failure - motor racing is dangerous, full stop.

No tire war therefore harder tires, less softer and therefore less likely to compromise safety a la Indy 2005.

Oh F1 is not like NASCAR where Goodyear takes a compound to race whereas F1 has a choice of two compounds.


The truth is, as long as the cars are different, the tires will work better for one team than another. While driving style plays a factor, I would hate to see races lost because of superfluous degradation of tires, by drivers trying hard to win, and races won by guys who were coasting around, waiting for front runners to have tire issues.

That has always been the name of the game in racing. We want to see overtaking, not pit passing.

[truefan72]

Refuelling is also dangerous, not to mention wing failure, brake failure, sticking throttle, suspension failure - motor racing is dangerous, full stop.'

It is one thing for dangerous incidents to occur, it as quite another to manufacture potential dangerous situations. Purposely making the tires an issue of extreme degradation with the supersoft compound is akin to adding stress fractures in the carbon fiber breaks to add an element of intrigue. And refueling is imminently less dangerous than malfunctioning tires. the two don't even compare.



Oh F1 is not like NASCAR where Goodyear takes a compound to race whereas F1 has a choice of two compounds.
That has always been the name of the game in racing. We want to see overtaking, not pit passing.
oh, and because I live in the US somehow makes me nascar person, who is ignorant of F1? Wedge please know who you are discussing with before completely misdiagnosing a form member. As they say, assumptions make an... you know the rest ;)

[wedge]

It is one thing for dangerous incidents to occur, it as quite another to manufacture potential dangerous situations. Purposely making the tires an issue of extreme degradation with the supersoft compound is akin to adding stress fractures in the carbon fiber breaks to add an element of intrigue. And refueling is imminently less dangerous than malfunctioning tires. the two don't even compare.

That's one of the reasons why I'm against a tire war. Indy 2005 being a prime example.

I think you've taken the super-soft tyre far too literally. They're just names to differentiate between compounds as Goodyear used to do with A, B, C, D. Last year's supersoft spec tyre was the same compounds as in 2003. Logically that means they most likely would've been prime tires in 2004 maybe 2006 which goes to show how far a tyre war pushes tire development.



oh, and because I live in the US somehow makes me nascar person, who is ignorant of F1? Wedge please know who you are discussing with before completely misdiagnosing a form member. As they say, assumptions make an... you know the rest ;)

You've interpreted the original quote out of context.

I was comparing how NASCAR and F1 race with a single tire manufacturer. Bridgestone take two compounds with the option softer tyre to a race meeting, Goodyear brings one compound and consequence is the debacle at Indy last year.

[Knock-on]

Personally, I think the colour is not too pretty but who cares. It does stand out but then, I never had a problem with the white?

I still think there is a marketing deal with Petronas behind the selection of colour :D

[truefan72]

That's one of the reasons why I'm against a tire war. Indy 2005 being a prime example.

I think you've taken the super-soft tyre far too literally. They're just names to differentiate between compounds as Goodyear used to do with A, B, C, D. Last year's supersoft spec tyre was the same compounds as in 2003. Logically that means they most likely would've been prime tires in 2004 maybe 2006 which goes to show how far a tyre war pushes tire development.


I think the indy problem was more of a Toyota problem that turned into a revolt than an Goodyear issue. multiple tire manufactures have existed for a long time in F1 and other top racing series and simple but effective stipulations like making sure they bring multiple compounds could easily remedy that issue. But in general, asingle tire issue is not so much of a problem as the fact that they are manipulation the tires to be less effective to "s[pice" up competion. With all their safet concenrs, it seems a bit awkward to introduce a bit of doubt in the most essential aspect of the car come raceday, not to mention a potentiakl for blowing up tires and the dire consequences that could follow. That was my point.




You've interpreted the original quote out of context.

I was comparing how NASCAR and F1 race with a single tire manufacturer. Bridgestone take two compounds with the option softer tyre to a race meeting, Goodyear brings one compound and consequence is the debacle at Indy last year.

apologies if i perceived it wrong. I thought it was some dig at me being in the US.

[Tazio]

Has there been any drivers/teams bitching about the issue of a danger with the compounds presented?
If not then it's a non-issue. If they do beef than maybe Charlie W. should intervene in regard to the Stones being supplied.
Personally I like the Idea of having the onus on the drivers craft in managing his rubber! :up:

[Tazio]

Has there been any drivers/teams bitching about the issue of a danger with the compounds presented?
If not then it's a non-issue. If they do beef than maybe Charlie W. should intervene in regard to the Stones being supplied.
Personally I like the Idea of having the onus on the drivers craft in managing his rubber! :up: Apparently there is a team issue driven change being introduced as a result of 2010, and 2009 spec testing results!
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090304084249.shtml


"Bridgestone's tyres for the 2010 season will feature a bigger difference between the widths of the fronts and rears. Some teams at Jerez this week have been testing proposed changes to the Japanese supplier's products for next year.

It is said that, due to the reintroduction of slicks this year at the same time as radical changes to the aerodynamic regulations - as well as the introduction of KERS - the dimensions of the 2009-specification tyres are producing more than expected levels of rear wear."


Why the wait? Unless they don't expect any teams to use KERS for the first 5 races. (although you will still have the same weight distribution) Especially considering this admission:

We have to admit that we made a mistake," FIA President Max Mosley told Auto Motor und Sport.

"We should have anticipated that the rear tyres would be a weak point."
And furthermore

We will ask Bridgestone to change the tyre dimensions for 2010," Mosley confirmed.
This appears to be a cock-up with potentially significant consequences for 2009

Hence I withdraw my previous post :p :

BTW
Hirohide Hamashima Bridgestone Director of Motorsport Tyre Development says:
We are also proud to support the FIA’s Cars Green campaign through our tyre markings
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37117
I’m glad to see they have their priorities straight!
What a load of horse patchugles :confused:

[wedge]

Not sure if this is unique to Force India but ironically graining seems to be a big issue

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45208