All the whine you can drink.

At least they're talking some sense about control tyres.


"Ferrari's ultimate boss Luca di Montezemolo is complaining that Formula 1 is being dictated too much by tyres.

"With these new regulations it's more of a World Championship for tyres than for cars," he said. "I'm worried because I see, after five races, that we have a very competitive car, but we have a big problem with the tyres. Bridgestone have worked very well in previous years, but with these new regulations, tyres have an excessive and certainly decisive role. I hope the situation improves because we have trouble in being fast both over a hot lap and over the race distance."

Memories are short in Formula 1. Ferrari was offered the opportunity to sign up to a single tyre formula last October as part of the "Cost Saving Initiative" at the Brazilian Grand Prix, which proposed a control tyre for F1. It was agreed by nine of the 10 teams. One of the reasons that Ferrari refused to sign up was that in recent years the relationship that exists between Ferrari and Bridgestone been an important advantage. Now that Bridgestone is not producing the goods needed (at least not at every event) the team is questioning the rules.

Bridgestone's Hirohide Hamashima says that the lack of performance is because the tyre manufacturer does not do enough testing.

"Our rivals can count on several top teams," he said. "So they can improve much faster. This is particularly decisive this year, with these new regulations."

There is an element of truth in this but Bridgestone must look at its tyre supply policy for a reason why this has happened. The company started out with several big teams but gradually each moved to Michelin because they were unhappy with the special relationship between Ferrari and Bridgestone. The upside of that policy was the enormous success of the partnership in recent years.

The downside is the pain that is now being felt at Maranello.

The good news for F1 is that in such a circumstance Ferrari might consider a switch to a control tyre (it could be justified as being made in the best interests of the sport) and that would be a major step in reducing the split that currently exists between Ferrari and the other major teams. This would also address the testing issue as without tyre rivalry the need to test would be reduced considerably - and that would bring down costs, which would help Ferrari as well.

This can only be a good thing because the current situation is not in the best interest of the sport. It would also help the safety situation as a control tyre would provide a much more effective means of slowing the cars."

:lol: Ferrari have gone out of their way to engineer the current situation with themselves and Bridgestone. Ferrari were quite prepared to take the credit when Bridgestone handed them all those championship wins on a plate. How petty that now they attack the very instrument of all their success.

Having said that when we get some more low temperature races (like Imola), Bridgestone will be more competitive and the regular stooges will be patting themselves on the back once again. :rolleyes:

I don't see that as whigne, I see that as just stating the fact. Ferrari could not accept the testing proposal (of course, they particularly could not accept it at Brazil because they were not invited) just as the other teams could not accept the Ferrari/Bridgestone testing proposal. Remember the whigne by Briatore and Alonso after Imola?

On the one hand I'm all for a control tyre or a single tyre manufacturer because it's clear that the tyre war has gotten out of hand and that the tyres have way too much effect on the outcome of the races/championship. On the other hand, I am also not about to forget the 5 WDCs in a row that Bridgestone have handed my team. Neither am I going to forget that it took major regulation changes, just like after 2002, for other teams to close the gap and overtake Ferrari/Bridgestone. Don't think Ron should be using the word "hollow" too much, might bite him. And Phil, Ferrari have gone out of their way to point out the importance of Bridgestone to their success and you know it.

Oh it is definitely a whinge. If Luca had made that statement last year when everybody on Michelins had no chance against Bridgestone then it would have been a clear statement of fact. But to only raise the issue now as an excuse is a bit weak.

Oh yes Ferrari knew of the importance of their special relationship with Bridgestone, that is why they fought so hard to keep it. But it has always been Ferrari and Shumacher who were superior in the eyes of the media and Ferrari never tried to correct that.

I do think that if they're going to use the current tire rules that they should use a spec tire or perhaps an option of 2 tires from a single manufacturer as NASCAR and ChampCar do. Unrestricted tire development with such restrictive tire rules creates a giant money battle between the tire manufacturers which really isn't necessary. After all, F1 is about the cars, not the tires.

After all, F1 is about the cars, not the tires.

F1 is about many things. Tyres being one of the most important. A good tyre can make a second rate team, car or driver look much better than they are and visa versa. In fact one of the quickest ways to gain speed in motor racing is through the tyres.

The conspiracy theorist in some people are saying:
"Renault...french manufacturer....Michelin....french manufacturer....hmmmmmmmmmmm"

Erm ... so?

As conspiracy theories go that is quite mundane.

What, you don't think michelin would maybe be MAKING their tires to adapt to the Renaults the best? Come On.

Best compared to?

And no need for conspiracies or rumours - I can confirm to you that both Renault and Michelin are indeed French manufacturers.

Best compared to?

And no need for conspiracies or rumours - I can confirm to you that both Renault and Michelin are indeed French manufacturers.
Good call captain...obvious, that is.

One small thing many people don't appreciate is that all teams are now allowed bespoke tyres. That means the Michelins Renault have to choose from on a given weekend are not necessarily the same as those used by McLaren. The big difference between Michelin and Bridgestone is that Michelin have always worked with each team to develop the best rubber for each car's specific demands. Bridgestone only ever cared for their top team, first McLaren, then since 2000, Ferrari. That is why all the top teams save Ferrari have deserted Bridgestone.

As for any suggestions of parochial favouritism, that is quite small minded. Michelin and Renault view themselves as global companies. Success and publicity is their aim, France is just a small part of their market.

That is why all the top teams save Ferrari have deserted Bridgestone.

That's a myth. They left for the same reason why they switched from Goodyear to Bridgestone before - because they felt they would have a better chance with another manufacturer. Ask Haug.

Have you? Asked Haug that is?
What myth? All the top teams save Ferrari have left Bridgestone. :p Of course they did that because they though it would be better for them. And even though Bridgestone was proven to be the better tyre! But only for the one team that had all the development weight thrown behind it. Suzuka 2000 is the proof.

Suzuka 2000 is as much of a myth.

The myth is the very p[art of your post that I quoted. That's why I quoted it. Haug was asked the very same question at a press conference before the last GP. He said the Bridgestone-Ferrari relationship was not the reason for their switch. Do you know better than him?

Smoke and mirrors, the Bridgestone-Ferrari relationship was not the reason for the change it was the lack of a similar McLaren-Bridgestone relationship. Ron Dennis has stated as such in the past, politics will obscure the truth. Suzuka is simple arithmetic, Bridgestone change their procedures and tyre construction at the title showdown, bringing a tyre that only one of the contenders has previously tested…

Back in 2002 Ron Dennis said their partnership with Bridgestone was nothing but fair and he didn't have a bad word to say about that, and he usually does, even if there isn't any reason for that. But I guess you do know better than both RD and NH, so what's the point of having an argument with you?