This week's Grapevine brings you information fresh from the paddock on: The Bridgestone Factor Sauber Looking Ahead

The Bridgestone Factor

Considering that the biggest performance factor in Formula One, even ahead of aerodynamics, is derived from the tyres, there can be little doubt that Ferrari's rivals are going to be concerned that the team will be running on the 'right' rubber in Austria.

One thing that was apparent in Spain, was that there was little to choose between the tyre companies for performance - though, unusually, the performance characteristics were reversed, with Bridgestone showing a bigger performance drop off as the race wore on, whilst Michelin maintained consistency. This was not what Ferrari or Bridgestone expected: the new car and tyre combination should have matched predictions perfectly.

Of course, Ferrari being the efficient organisation they have grown to be, the underlying issue was established overnight on Friday: the new car was proving more efficient at Barcelona than data from previous visits suggested it should have been; consequently, it was not working the tyres as hard as predicted, so they were not being run at optimum temperature. This led the tyres to wear noticeably faster than expected, highlighting the drop-off problem, and compromised the set-up time in practice, as Ferrari chased the balance through Saturday practice.

Since Spain, most of the Bridgestone runners have put a lot of effort into testing new rubber. Going to Austria, which is expected to be hot, but has a history of frustrating predictions, so could turn out wet or cool, the teams have been working hard to identify which of the different new compounds and constructions are a step forward in a broad range of conditions. Adding spice, or a real fly in the predictive ointment, depending on perspective, is that no-one is really sure how the Michelin runners are going to perform: those teams are also attempting to predict conditions, and select tyres that work well. What Bridgestone does know, however, is that after last year's scenes - the team orders fiasco - Michelin have been targeting this event, and they could have made a leap.

That said, Bridgestone's latest batch were all designed with the F2003-GA specifically in mind, so the team is sure that a dry race in Austria will see them on the best rubber currently available for this car. Considering the steep learning curve that is still involved in bringing this relatively unknown machine up to speed, not having to compromise for the tyres could be a big factor.

Minardi, on the other hand, is the one team that is really compromised by running Bridgestone rubber. Having jumped from Michelin to 'be on the same rubber as their probable competitors,' the plan is backfiring. Currently, the team is putting over a second of their missing performance down to the tyres they are running. Cynics in the paddock say that they had it coming. An angle whispered in the paddock holds their move was an attempting to coerce Bridgestone into providing free, or nearly free tyres, based on the manufacturers requirement to supply up to 60 percent of the grid if called upon to do so on ordinary commercial terms (2003 F1 Sporting Regulations, 76b). Of course, interesting part of this was how 'ordinary commercial terms' is interpreted. Minardi considered that if the existing Bridgestone teams are supplied tyres in return for space on the car, they should be too. Bridgestone, on the other hand, consider each arrangement an individual agreement, and therefore extraordinary. So, Minardi get what they pay for.

Then again, at least Bridgestone's cast-offs are better than the Avon F3000 tyres they were forced to use in pre-season testing!

Sauber Looking Ahead

With the influx of car manufacturers, there is little doubt that the smaller teams, who are all on customer engines, are struggling to stay on terms with their works backed rivals, and despite the Jordan win in Brazil, the situation is steadily headed downhill.

The problem is not as simple as who does, and does not, have works engines and a huge budget: after all, both Jordan and Sauber are ahead of BAR, Toyota, and Jaguar after five events: when push comes to shove, that is pretty respectable going. But without substantial changes, there is little chance of these players keeping their mid-table positions in future seasons.

Sauber have been considering the future, and they've been looking at what would have to be changed in order to return to the days of independent teams that can challenge establishment.

Where they are now isn't so bad, but there are some obvious caveats. Ferrari engines are bullet proof, and have respectable performance, even when they are a year out of date. Furthermore, the support can be extended to give access to Ferrari technology in associated areas, from gearboxes through to the whole suspension set-up. But it is not cheap - finding the money to build and test a car after handing over half the budget to Ferrari is tough.

The FIA's plans to cut costs, ironically, are not expected to close the performance gap. If Sauber continue to use customer engines, then staying with Ferrari is still top of their preference list - and whilst the cost might come down from the reputed $27 million, it won't be by much. Similarly, saving costs by increasing restrictions will simply reduce the team's opportunity to innovate: this makes the engine performance even more critical! So, as more restrictions kick in, maximising performance is going to be even more dependent on development budget.

Leaving the ever-popular issue of whether or not they can land a works deal out of the equation, there is still the question of what can be done to give the smaller teams a chance to compete, at least periodically, with the major players, and Sauber have some unexpected ideas.

It is commonly held that keeping the rules stable causes the field to close up. This is true: year on year, everyone improves, and everyone takes another step towards 'theoretically perfect.' However, those who make the biggest steps, inevitably, are the teams with the most money to invest in making that development. The real innovations that give a team some edge come in the first couple of years - thereafter, it is all about incremental development. Consider 1998, after the change to 'narrow track' cars and grooved tyres: Jordan Mugen-Honda finished third. Same again in '99, but they dropped back to fifth or sixth thereafter, as the budgets of the 'big four' allowed them to develop their way ahead of the smaller team.

Of course, that is precisely the reason that the big teams would rather not see changes: the uncertainty would make it even harder to justify to the manufacturer why they should stay with the team if a far smaller outfit adapt better to the changes, and significantly outperform a works outfit.

In any event, from Sauber's perspective, changing the rules will not, other than opening development opportunities, make much difference: and the budget will always be spent in its entirety!