Ferrari's speed "comes from the tyres"

[Sodemo]

BBC Sport are running an interesting article about the current state of F1 dominance by Ferrari.
Andrew Benson thinks the real reason behind Ferrari's dominance is its tyres, and that the car is as good as the Williams/Mclaren/Renault/BAR.

For me this does ring true.
Do you remember how in pre-season testing the Ferrari's were no-where, then right before Melbourne they ran their final race spec tyres, and flew round Imola etc?

[Wrex]

You can tell too, look at Sauber, Jordan & Minardi right behind them.

Tyres are a factor no doubt, but to say this is the only difference is niave.

[Fuzzyfelt]

The BBC tyre story link

That Imola test was certainly portentous.

I don't think it's really true to say that Ferrari's car is 'good but not great' although the tyres seem to only specifically suit the Ferrari. Bridgestone cars have been consistently outqualified by the Michelin cars.

[BootsOntheSide]

Well, BAR have moved up the field by switching to Michelins, so it's hard to be sure. Certainly the tyres are specifically designed for the Ferrari, with their handling on other cars an afterthought.

The idea that they used second-rate tyres during testing to lull everyone into a false sense of security sounds plausible, but doesn't in itself suggest that their tyres are better than Michelin's.

[Gt_R]

I kinda agree with Wrex.

Firstly, the tyre-war meant that tyres had become the most significant difference on cars. Engineers and designers can work hard on the car and it's aerodynamics, but it's gains from tyres which are largest. And that applies for both BS and M tires.

And this year is not different from last. Last year, teams like Renault/Williams/Mclaren also benefitted from superior Michelin tyres which made their cars outperform Ferrari easily on many circuits, the difference flattering the real difference between car.

This year, tyres once again play a significant role in the championship fight. Michelins get their best in the first handful of laps, and has a higher peak performance, while BS is more durable and consistent performer in it's overall lifespan. It's the different approach taken by the individual manufacturers, and it's pretty obvious when you realise that Michelin shod teams hold a significant advantage in qualifyings and the start of the race (and respective stints), while BS performance starts after it is run-in (enabling Sauber/Ferrari run longer stints).

It isn't surprising that there would be people who think that Ferrari's dominance is achieved only through tyres, and start criticising Ferrari/BS relationship as a cause of unfair advantage. But it doesn't hold true.

Firstly, there's no disguise that teams like Mclaren and Williams this year had dropped the ball and built less than desirable cars. On the otherhand, Ferrari had removed the errors of last year's car and worked on perfecting a sensible car. And that itself had made the Ferrari look "better" than it really is, as relative to it's competitors.

But there's no denying that Ferrari had once again built a car which is reliable [ and reliability-compared to Williams/Mclaren/Renault/BAR- and is not a direct result of "tyres"], fast in speed (superb aero/engine performance), and also handles will over bump (which tyres play a part with the overall design of the car), and not forgetting the support crew who performed brilliantly.

Everything adds up to the domination of Ferrari, not only internally in terms of equipment/crew/car package, but also relative to the competitors, who overall as a package just couldn't match up.

Of course, there's no denying BS did a great job this year. I was expecting Michelin to gain the upper hand but BS did well... despite it's obvious lack in initial grip and pace... the tires are good enough to bring the wins where it counts and allow Ferrari to adapt and work it to its performance. And not only Ferrari, but even Sauber had put the tires to good use, and that is something commendable as the tyres suit more than one team.

But in terms of car to car advantage/disadvantage, cars can easily be made to look better or worse then what they really are due to tyres.

[Phoenix1]

Case in point - the six wheel Tyrell went from top dog to virtual mobile chicane when Avon stopped doing spec tyres and switched to "one for all" compounds.

[Glen]

The way Ferrari work with the tyres is the key thing. They seem to get the best synergy between tyre, chassis, driver and strategy - at this level you need to harmonise all of those elements to make the difference. Hence it is not enough for Sauber that the Bridgestones are really good over a long stint, because they need the set up to exploit that feature to the full, they need the driver to absolutely make the strategy work at the crucial moment in the race... and so on.

When considering which is the better tyre it might be better to look at Rubens' results compared to the rest of the field - he is second in the Championship, sure, but the difference is not nearly as marked, and some Michelin drivers have been able to get on terms with him because his race weekend performances are not as technically accomplished as Schumacher's.

[OVERSTEER]

I think it's Down to tyres IMO, all the work is done to make good tyres for Ferrari. Sauber, Jordan and Minardi have to make do with whatever they're given (you have to look at how much of a handful they are!)

BAR were right to switch to Michelin, at least Michelin seem to be able to treat all their teams a little more equally!

[Gt_R]

Maybe it's worth noting that (according DR) Bridgestone supplies BAR free tyres while BAR has to pay for their Michelin supplies.

And that people often overlook that among BS runners, nobody but Ferrari could do extensive and useful tyre-testings. Jordan...Minardi...teams which struggle to even put their cars on the test track. With basically Ferrari's tyre data to work on, naturally the tyres suit Ferrari more.

[Sodemo]

I feel that the Ferrari car is better, but only slightly than the rest of the field.
I do think that the tyres are the biggest factor in the Ferrari's speed.
And its obvious that Ferrari get preferential (unfair?) treatment, thats why so many teams defected to Michelin over the last few years.

[Kicking-back]

The Bridgestone tyres certainly have a consistency advantage this year.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Fuzzyfelt
That Imola test was certainly portentous.

Wih respect to this. We all remember what happened. Generally Bridgestone were running two development programs. One developing the compound, the other the structure. Imola was the first time these were brought together.


Overall it isn't as simple as one factor. Clearly.

[alesi95]

Andrew Benson has said a lot of pompous, arragant things before. Although I have no doubt that their unique bridgestone relationship helps Ferraris real advantage lies with Brawn, Byrne, Schumacher and his close relationship with his engineers.

[KC]

I am sure that tires play a major part in the speed of the Ferrari, but to say that the other major teams are on par with Ferrari is disingenuous. A huge portion of Schumacher and Ferrari's dominance is the fact that he almost never has a car failure. He makes very few driver errors resulting in a DNF and his car rarely has a catastrophic engine or hydraulic failure.

When you compare the visible wing angles to some of the other teams its easy to see that the Ferrari is using less front and rear wing to get around the track. Raikonnen's McLaren had easily 30% more wing element than Schumacher at Silverstone and this was illustated when Raikonnen would close quickly through the chicanes and Schumacher could run away at ease on the straight. This comes down to mechanical grip, which the Ferrari usually has an advantage in. There have been times when the Renault's had more grip, but that came down to specific track conditions that slightly favored the Michelins over the Bridgestones. Some of this mechanical grip comes from a more consistent Bridgestone tire, but I'd bet that the Ferrari has better balance than all the rest.

To me, the Bridgestone tire fitted to the Ferrari's, is the most consistent tire on the track. Of course, it helps when Bridgestone is basically custom building the tire for Ferrari's needs, whereas I doubt the Michelin shod teams get the same service.

[DKGandBH]

I find it interesting that this year it takes the BSs a bit of time to come up to speed when last year this was different. The Michelins have certainly improved from last year when ther were far more inconsistent.

David

[Kicking-back]

Totally disagree, DKGandBH.

Bridgestone have improved far more than Michelin compared to last year.

Last year, the French tyres were often the best.

[ralf fan]

as Boots pointed out earlier Bar have switched to Michies and they have improved no end...

i think this year it is level pegging between BS and Michelin and the fact is Ferrari have the best chassis hence they are going the fastest

i think it is unfair to judge a car on pre-season times as teams are trying different setups etc. i remember the MAC-18 did a few lap records at Valencia and the car was terrible!

[Kicking-back]

BAR's improvement is car more than tyre.

[DKGandBH]

Hi Kick, That is not what I said...

Last Year the BS didn't need a few laps to get up to speed. and the Michelins have gotten better. Their drop of in performance laps are far less noticeable.

However, BS do have tyres that are appropriate to more tracks than last year.

David.

[Gt_R]

Quote:"Bar have switched to Michies and they have improved no end..."

Disagree. Firstly, people overlook the leap and bounds BAR made in terms of it's car/engine. Honda for once built competitive engines that doesn't shame it's "H"-badge. And while last year's car was an improvement in step, but this year, BAR have really made a huge leap in terms of car. The car is honestly good, and with a good developement plan supporting it..

And the improvement BAR made, which coincide with the tyre change, is flattered by the simple fact that last year, Michelins were for most of the season have by far the superior tyres (hence making BAR look particularly bad), while this year, the tyre performance is very much "closer" between the top guys. Hence, even if BAR remained with BS this year, they'd have a decent leap in performance too.

The pros of changing to Michelin is that it erases an unknown factor when competing against it's immediate rivals Toyota/Renault , and unexpectedly Mclaren and Williams. With the tyres being now almost a common factor, the fight among Michelin-teams will be more down to team/car/driver.

[Tamás]

I don't think that Ferrari's dominates just because they have the better tyres. The cars and engines are more reliable than the other ones are in the field. But it's apparent that Bridgestone works better than the French tyres.

[avsfan733]

exactly tamas...the tires only make a difference if the rest of the car makes the finish
Ref: Sato and Mclaren

[Tamás]

Originally posted by avsfan733
exactly tamas...the tires only make a difference if the rest of the car makes the finish
Ref: Sato and Mclaren

Thanks, and I'd like to extend my previous reply: the gap between eg. Ferrari and McLaren can't be due to only tyres. And it isn't just about reliability, but about speed and performance. Sum: Ferrari is the best team and car currently because
1. they use better tyres
2. they can finish races and be fast at the same time. But it's (or it was) a problem at Mercedes as that team had to reduce performance, and either the car was too slow or they didn't manage to finish race.