What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
51 Comments
- simplyphp, on 11/03/2009, -3/+22When there's no tire companies left sponsoring free tires, what will the F1 teams do? Guess some of their million-dollar budgets will go to buy tires.
- Awwzm, on 11/02/2009, -3/+21I'd like to see Goodyear return.
- pstroll, on 11/03/2009, -4/+21All would be well if they would just bring back cigarette advertising.
- threon, on 11/03/2009, -1/+16Was he tired?
- aegis9975, on 11/03/2009, -0/+11F1 'sole tire manufacturer' is decided by sponsorship. Bridgestone supplying F1 is costing them $100 million.
Whomever replaces Bridgestone is the next sucker in line willing to pay Bernie for the rights. It has nothing to do with technical expertise or the quality of tires. - MaxterICC, on 11/03/2009, -1/+9i would love to see the old red and white marlboro paint scheme on the mclarens again
- terafunker, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8Yokohama, Pirelli, Michelin, Toyo, Sumitomo, and Dunlop would all be good fits as tire sponsors. Unfortunately, it seems like Bridgestone's exit is a sign that even the biggest players can't afford to be involved with F1 right now. Maybe a Chinese or Korean budget manufacture could use this as a way to break into the mainstream marketplace?
- daytona81, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8european.
- m242, on 11/03/2009, -1/+7That's always the way F1 has been, though. The team with the best developmental squad wins races, and teams can't rest on their laurels. Had there been three more races this year, Vettel would be the champion instead of Button. Red Bull's car came on strong in the last half of the season, and they were clearly a better car at the end.
- emecks, on 11/02/2009, -1/+7Me too - my grandfather worked for GoodYear for 50 years so it's kind of a family interest too :)
- m242, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6"The Michelin fiasco" was only partially Michelin's fault, remember. They realized that they didn't bring a compound that could withstand the load of the high-speed curve at IMS. Okay, yeah, big mistake, understood. However, the remedy was an easy one, and one which all of the teams (save Ferrari) were willing to compromise on; putting a chicane in the middle of the high-speed curve would have solved the problem.
But Bernie had his agenda, which was to get a tire manufacturer to pony up money into his coffers, so boom, four cars run the USGP. - teamgreen02, on 11/03/2009, -1/+7That became pretty obvious with the double diffuser fiasco this year.
- Barbarino, on 11/03/2009, -3/+7F1 is irrevocably broken...
- inigomntoya, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6You, good sir, win. Yes, everything. You win it all.
- m242, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5You don't watch very much F1, do you.
Prior to Bridgestone being the sole tire manufacturer in F1, Michelin was in competition with Bridgestone and some teams ran one tire, and some teams ran another tire. There were huge rows about which tire would be best suited for any given track, because on the whole the cars are pretty damned close in terms of performance (without actually being spec engines and chassis, a la that pitiful excuse for open wheel racing we know in the states as the IRL).
Tires played a massive role in which cars won which races; is this Michelin going to grain faster than the Bridgestone? Then on high-downforce tracks the teams with the Bridgestones would win. Does the Bridgestone harder compound allow less grip than the Michelin harder compound? Then on tracks with one- or two-stop strategies the Michelin-shod runners would win.
In steps the FIA and mandates a single tire manufacturer, under the guise of parity. Okay, fine, you want mechanical grip to be roughly the same for all the cars because you want to actually see some wheel-to-wheel action, Bernie, we get it, but don't pretend that Bridgestone didn't pay up for the rights.
All this announcement really is is that Bernie is (once again) demanding too much damned money.
Also, about this choice quote: "the trend is towards cost reduction, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuel sources."
You're right and you're wrong. Fuel efficiency, yes, cost reduction, sort of but not really, but alternative fuel sources? Sorry-- KERS was a massive bust this year.
This is Formula One we're talking about here. Teams should have an unlimited budget and spend however much they want to get the fastest car possible within the rules. Every time one of these "parity rules" gets enacted (mandatory wing regulations, split rear wings, the diffuser debacle, etc) the sport dies a little. - Nobiting, on 11/03/2009, -9/+12That's what she said.
- terafunker, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3obvious troll is obvious
- AubreyMaturin, on 11/03/2009, -6/+9Honestly, F1 isn't even about racing anymore, it's who has the best R&D program. You might as well follow it on Nasdaq.
- onefix, on 11/03/2009, -2/+5This is actually a good thing. It shows that Bridgestone is thinking about the whole picture and not just "what worked before".
Race fans don't like to hear this, but "faster" is no longer the dominating trend in the industry, the trend is towards cost reduction, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuel sources. Couple that with the fact that minor changes no longer need to be built and stressed like they were in the days before Computer Aided Design and you have a good argument against these expensive sponsorships.
That doesn't mean that motor sports are going away it also doesn't mean that they can't help manufacturers in R&D, but it means that they will have to adapt to the changing landscape just like their sponsors.
Anyone interested in a look at how motor sports have evolved should watch Super Speedway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Speedway
It's over a decade old now, but it still highlights the changes in safety and design. - m242, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3"one of if not the lowest budget team in F1."
That's not accurate; Honda paid a ton of money into the development of the car during the 2008 season. Had Ross Brawn not (essentially) given up in June of 2008 and concentrated on the 2009 car, Brawn GP would probably be equal to Force India in terms of performance. Brawn had a head start both time- and money-wise, and basically exploited a loophole in the regulations to win the first few races. That's not to take anything away from him; it's a genius move, but you have to keep in mind that the last half of the season the Brawn cars (with a smaller developmental budget) couldn't catch up to the Red Bull and McLaren teams. - hotsho111, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3That's a Saleen S7 not an F1 and I don't know why it's the thumbnail.
- Atario, on 11/03/2009, -2/+4Maybe it wouldn't cost them as much if they'd supply tires instead of tyres (the fancy versions of tires).
- dalectrics, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Another tyre company perhaps? That or they drive without tyres. I wonder which.....
- Mankind121, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I want to see a Michelin vs. Yokohama showdown
- rblancarte, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3I have to fully disagree with a lot of what you say. There is no reason why everything you talk about - cost, fuel efficiency and alternative fuels can't be worked into F1, ALONG with faster. Heck, in many ways, in racing they go hand in hand.
If I can make an engine that is just a big more fuel efficient than the competitor, that means less pit stops, thus results in a better chance to win. Same holds w/ alternative fuels.
In the end the Sponsorships provide a very FINAL proving ground that can't be matched in CAD or anything else. Designs that are so cutting edge a computer has no clue, can be tested in reality and the results can be studied.
In this end - could this be a big, short term money saver? Sure. But could it also cost Bridgestone a big opportunity to improve in the future and make even more money? Yes. - m242, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2"their team came prepared, so why should they be punished?"
This is where the F1 "show" should win out over the F1 regulations. Is it really a race if nearly all of the teams can't safely run their cars?
Take Spa, for example; let's say that one year, Eau Rouge is set up such that every single car will wind up wearing off the bottom plank of the car, thus rendering the car in violation of the technical spec. What do you do? The answer is that you get FOTA and the FIA to compromise, and not put out arbitrary decisions (like the Michelin/Bridgestone nightmare). - slicecom, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2F1 has been about technical innovation since its inception. If you want a league thats all about racing, go watch a spec series.
- LarkStew, on 11/03/2009, -0/+21971... that was a good year.
- diggGor, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Michelin left because of the new regulation of one tire supplier for all teams.
- Hellahulla, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2I wanna see Avon and Dunlop back in it like in the good old days.
A tyre war isn't a bad thing at all, teams having to buy and select their tyre company isn't a bad thing, it's just another small part of making up a good racing team.
F1 isn't a spec series, it's about making the best you can out of the regulations you are given. All this obsession with parity does is spoil the essence of the sport. - Shine365, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I am curious how much they can be out of F1 before their product innovation starts to deteriorate. Part of the reason I bought my last set of tires Bridgestone (Potenza RE-11) was because it was designed with F1 technology for the average consumer.
- daytona81, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1nice observation, i guess i need to wear the glasses i dont have
- LarkStew, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1There's always Kwik Fit.
- Nevasleep88, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2FFS there gunna have to go to kwik fit now.
- MaxterICC, on 11/03/2009, -2/+3these tyres also have green coloured stripes on the sides to mark what kind they are.
- Aamod, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1michellin left few yrs back...now bridgestone..... now what??
- Sixagon, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Oh come now, where is your humour? Tucked in your fanny pack?
- Apex3, on 11/03/2009, -3/+3Most forms of racing nowadays are more about R&D, it's not just F1
- aychseven, on 11/03/2009, -2/+2yes, but i was referring to the whole exploding tire thing being a quality/safety issue, which is what forced the sole manufacturer deal. (at least that was what i was led to believe)
it was a dick move by ferrari, but one i completely sympathize with: their team came prepared, so why should they be punished? - matrixprashant, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0Well Yep...GoodYear is welcomed whole-heartedly :)
- daytona81, on 11/03/2009, -4/+4why is there a McLaren F1 (production) car for thumbnail?
- teamgreen02, on 11/03/2009, -2/+2I wonder if Stone will pull out of MotoGP also? They are sure making some incredible tires as of late.
- Stap1eGun, on 11/03/2009, -9/+9tyre?
- AubreyMaturin, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1So why would I watch it?
- zoomer123, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1So what's Brawn GP gonna use?
- rblancarte, on 11/03/2009, -3/+2This isn't good. F1 and racing in general is a great way for auto related companies to do VERY high level R&D. Bridgestone is about to lose theirs.
- morpheus1000, on 11/03/2009, -1/+0dern economy
- Aamod, on 11/03/2009, -1/+0MRF tyres , good old dunlop tyres (they still exist?) CEAT ? do these companies have technology to produce formaula 1 tyres ?
- morpheus1000, on 11/03/2009, -1/+0then they need to allow more open testing.
- daytona81, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1haha, not this year. you might have yet to notice who won constructors and drivers title this year. one of if not the lowest budget team in F1. the WDC had to pay all his travel expenses. lol. that should put it into perspective. lol.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is