 Analysis: Tyre War Rekindles Suspicions and Myths Monday September 8th, 2003 By Biranit Goren
Claims have been made that Bridgestone runners were using a different compound for their front and rear tyres, running a softer compound on the rear, which provides the car with more grip. Such a solution, while advantageous, is explicitly illegal under the FIA regulations. Past and recent reports suggested Bridgestone teams have been running this illegal solution up until the Saturday of the Monaco Grand Prix, when the FIA had put a stop to this by informally warning the teams prior to a thorough check of compounds. Adding credence to this, grandprix.com wrote about the affair last week: "[...] the teams were made aware that such activities would not be tolerated, in much the same way as the FIA tried to do with the warning letter about tread width a week ago." However, trying to separate facts from speculations in this affair brings a much blurrier story to light. The first to report about the Bridgestone tyres story were F1 Racing, in their June issue. Under the title of "Bridgestone Attract Compound Interest" the magazine writes: "Over the Austrian Grand Prix weekend it emerged that certain Michelin bigwigs had become suspicious of Bridgestone's ability to equip their teams with notably narrow yet highly robust front tyres this year. "Indeed, such was the Michelin men's bafflement that they put a series of only mildly veiled questions to the FIA's race director, Charlie Whiting, the subtext of which was clear: Michelin reckon Bridgestone just might have been cheating." The article further alludes that Bridgestone were forced to change their rear tyre compound during the Monaco weekend, stating that "at the start of the Monaco weekend the Bridgestone teams had been delighted with their rubber [...] Strangely, by Saturday qualifying, Bridgestone no longer looked quite as strong as they had just 48 hours previously." The latter claim, as well as the dominance of Michelin-shod teams since Monaco, seems to be the main reasons why the story about a supposed Bridgestone regulations infringement remains believable to date. However, members of the Bridgestone camp suggest the explanation lies merely in the different strategy ran by Ferrari and the leading Michelin teams in Monaco. Williams's Ralf Schumacher was on pole position on Saturday, followed by McLaren's Kimi Raikkonen, Williams's Juan Pablo Montoya and Renault's Jarno Trulli - all four running on Michelins. Ferrari's Michael Schumacher, on Bridgestone tyres, was fifth, but less than four tenths of a second behind the pole sitter. In the race, Ralf Schumacher made his first pitstop on lap 21. Montoya pitted on lap 23; Raikkonen on lap 25, and Trulli on lap 27. Michael Schumacher pitted on lap 31. The seeming drop in form of the Bridgestones from the Thursday qualifying to the Saturday could well have been due to the difference in fuel loads carried by these drivers. Bridgestone also point out that it would not be possible to change compounds during a Grand Prix weekend without raising clear suspicion of the FIA stewards and rivals. "Apparently Bridgestone were supposed to smuggle hundreds of tyres into the Monaco paddock on Friday," a source commented sarcastically to Atlas F1. He also added that the Bridgestone performance did not change since Monaco - "although the Michelin performance certainly did, especially on Williams" - pointing to Rubens Barrichello's performance throughout the British Grand Prix weekend as further evidence to the contrary. Either way, setting aside the circumstantial evidence, there does not seem to be actual facts to support the claim that Bridgestone were running different compounds for their rear tyres. For one, F1 Racing published a follow-up clarification the month after their original report, stating that "Bridgestone have asked us to set the record straight and make clear that they were not and are not guilty of running harder compounds for the front tyres than for the rears. We are happy to accept Bridgestone's assurance that the suspicions that were raised were unfounded, and that Bridgestone have always been in full compliance with the FIA regulations on tyres." Bridgestone themselves say they have never been warned by the FIA officially or unofficially - nor have their teams. "It was all absolute rubbish," a company spokesman told Atlas F1 today. There is no doubt, however, that some in the Michelin camp were indeed suspicious of the Bridgestone tyres. Speaking to a source in one of the Michelin-shod teams, Atlas F1 asked whether an informal complaint was made to the FIA. "Not as such," the source said. "We had suspicions and someone suggested to [FIA delegate] Charlie [Whiting] that it's something the FIA should check." Asked whether any of the Michelin teams had any clear indication or proof that the Bridgestone compounds were different, the source said: "What kind of proof? Photographs? No, this is not something that is visibly clear. You would need to run specific and rather complicated tests, which is not something we could do ourselves." The FIA, in turn, confirm suspicions were raised but say there was nothing more to it, and no official warning was handed out to any of the teams over the issue. The governing body also rejected the possibility that the Bridgestone teams were indeed running different compounds. "We have had no concerns about tyre suppliers providing different compounds for the front and rear, although this is something which one of the tyre suppliers thinks the other may be doing," an FIA spokesman told Atlas F1. "Test procedures for establishing what would usually be very small differences between compounds are exceedingly complex. However, having done extensive research we are satisfied that we have the right procedure." Any attempt to draw parallels between the current Michelin tyres controversy and the supposed Bridgestone one falls short of any similarities. For one, had the Bridgestone teams been caught running different compounds on their rear and front tyres, their cars would be disqualified as there is no room for misinterpretation on the matter in the regulations. Moreover, whereas the FIA felt necessary to send the teams a warning letter as well as change their scrutineering procedure on the matter of front tyre tread width, no such letter was issued with regards to tyre compounds and no further action was taken by the FIA - other than continuing to enforce their regulations as stated. Furthermore, while Ferrari publicly admitted to be behind the complaint to the FIA and reportedly provided the FIA with evidence, no Michelin-shod team has so far admitted to making any similar complaint to the FIA about the Bridgestone tyres, and none claim to have proof to support their allegations. And finally, whereas the FIA say the Michelin front tyres tread width was indeed found to be oversized after use under certain conditions (and Michelin does not deny that), in Bridgestone's case the FIA was never able to substantiate the allegations. "But this is Formula One," a source in one of the Bridgestone-shod teams told Atlas F1 today, surprised to be asked what are the actual facts in the Bridgestone story. "Since when are people interested in facts?"
Published at 15:23:49 GMT
| ||||||
The latest controversy surrounding the tread width of the Michelin front tyres has rekindled allegations over the legality of the Bridgestone tyres earlier this year.
(03-11-2005): 
