It was inevitable that the impending tyre war between Goodyear and Bridgestone featured highly in the pre-season issue of Altas F1. I would like to explain why I think Formula One may return to being a tyre monopoly, and to make some comments concerning the implications of the tyre war.

In Formula One, if a team comes up with a design or a design feature that gives a distinct advantage (maybe no more than tenths of a second a lap), generally all other teams follow suit. Witness the high nose, v10 engine configuration, winglets mounted ahead of the rear wing, barge-boards, etc.. In fact, the 1997 field resembles a pack of 1996 Williams-Renaults in different livery!

So what? Well, tyres are crucial. As seen in Indy, British/ Australian touring car racing, and in Formula One, tyres could prove to be as important as, say, 100 more hp -- especially at circuits like Hungary or Portugal. Therefore, to cut lap times by a second or more, all Ron Dennis needs to do is buy some new tyres. Don't you think he would move heaven and earth to get his hands on some?

At the moment it looks like the Bridgestones are exceptional. Olivier Panis' new track records at Barcelona and Magny-Cours indicate that Prost do have a real advantage running Bridgestone slicks. Of course, the car maybe under-weight, or running illegal modifications. But, four seconds quicker than his 1996 qualifying time at Barcelona, and blitzing the record by almost 2 seconds at Magny-Cours, set by a 1992 Williams (driven by Mansell and running all electronic gizmos and a 3.5 litre engine) shows there must be something special in the Bridgestone design as well. This is all without mentioning the wets with which Panis ran seven seconds faster than the Goodyear shod Benettons at Jerez. This is simply unbelievable.

So if the Bridgestone shod cars have a distinct advantage during 1997, I suspect that the top 4 will do everything within their power to secure a Bridgestone tyre contract for 1998. Jordan would probably would have the money and influence necessary to score a Bridgestone contract also (especially if they inherit the Japanese Mugen-Hondas from Prost in 1998). All this would leave Goodyear stuck with mid-fielders and tail-enders, which would be reason enough to retire from Grand Prix racing. On the other hand, should the Bridgestones fail to live up to the pre-season hype (which I feel is unlikely, given their performance in Indy and Australian touring cars, and their extensive test program), they will be stuck with mid-fielders of no real influence, of which the better teams such as Stewart and Arrows, would move back to Goodyear. Bridgestone would be stuck at the tail-end of the field prompting and an early retirement from Grand Prix racing. Therefore, in 2 or 3 years, Formula One would again be the domain of a single tyre manufacture.

However, Formula One is never quite so black and white. Despite Bridgestone's promising pre-season form, it is too early to discern any advantage over Goodyear. In an actual race situation more variables are present than in testing, and out-right grip and the ability to cut lap times are not the only factors. For example, it is not yet known if the Bridgestones wear more quickly than the Goodyears; how the Bridgestones react to slick surfaces, eg oil; how easily the Bridgestones are damaged by debris or kerb-hopping; how much grip the Bridgestones lose as the tyre wear out, or when the driver moves off-line on to the marbles; etc.. So, the likely situation is that both tyres will be fairly close, with one maybe having an advantage in one area while the other gains some ground in another. A situation such as this will make Grand Prix racing even more interesting, with some tracks being 'Bridgestone' tracks and other tracks being 'Goodyear' tracks. Combined with the different pit-stop strategies necessary for the different tyres, Grand Prix racing is set to become more unpredictable.

Looking further ahead, teams may be hesitant to swap tyres in 1998 based on the 1997 performances due to the significant changes in tyre specifications for the 1998 season. Also, if Bridgestone is successful in it's Formula One program, this may prompt another tyre supplier to become involved, reducing the likelihood of returning to a tyre monopoly. Finally, if Goodyear slicks are better than the equivalent Bridgestones, and the Bridgestone wets live up to expectations, what are the odds of Eddie Jordan pulling off the motor-racing con of the century and landing a contract providing his team with Goodyear slicks (can we still call them slicks in 1998?) and Bridgestone wets in 1998? That would make for interesting pit-stops in wet-dry races, with decals being changed as well as tyres!

Formula One is now even more exciting due to the tyre war between Goodyear and Bridgestone, but this may be a case of: "this F1 circus ain't big enough for the two of us"