For several seasons, Michelin was the whipping boy of everyone who wanted somebody to beat Ferrari. When Montoya had a string of pole positions, but Michael Schumacher was happy to qualify third, confident that Montoya’s Michelins would disintegrate a few laps into the race, everyone loudly condemned Michelin. And that was just on dry days — in heavy rain, the cars with Michelins usually looked foolish while the Ferraris drove into the distance.
Bridgestone had done a very good job, and they basked in the praise. They didn’t mind at all that their tires, Ferrari’s car, and Schumacher’s driving were a combination that couldn’t be touched, most of the time, season after season. The fans moaned about the lack of competition, but everyone agreed Bridgestone had simply made a better tire than their competitors.
Now the tables have turned, and Michelin utterly dominated the 2005 season. They must certainly have expected to receive the kind of good press that had been Bridgestone’s for so long. Instead, the stories have focused on how the “tire war” has taken the competitiveness out of F1. Everyone is looking forward to F1 adopting a single tire specification that will put the focus of testing back on the cars themselves, and give everyone an equal (and much lower) amount of grip. Michelin have made no secret of their intention to abandon F1 when this happens, and thus find themselves slowly being squeezed out of the sport. Some teams who are currently using Michelin tires have even decided to switch to the inferior Bridgestones, presumably for the purpose of gaining experience on Bridgestone tires before everyone is forced to switch.
Michelin threw a huge fortune into F1 during the seasons in which they were uncompetitive, and must have been counting on reaping a huge fortune worth of publicity from their success. It is no wonder that they have recently been bitter about the relative absence of good press, and have been complaining about their treatment by the FIA. The negative press from the Indianapolis fiasco also did nothing to make them love F1.
One wonders if the situation would have been the same if Michelin had simply caught Bridgestone, rather than leaving them far behind. If the 2005 Michelin tires had been equal to the Bridgestones, it seems likely that they would have received more positive publicity. And it is very likely that there would have been a lot less talk about a “spec tire”.
But nobody ever said F1 had to make sense.
Tags: bridgestone, michelin, tyre wars
I dont think Michelin completely dominated this year…they have made a leap forwards and yes, they are the team to beat.
But look at the amount of Michelins that have blown up this season as opposed to the amount of Bridgestones
Its all very good if you can have an ultra grippy tyre but what does it help you if you cant do a full race distance in it?
Indianapolis was indeed very bad press for Michelin, but then again it was their own fault (and dont tell me its FIA’s fault for changing the rules)
What happened at the USGP was the only possible solution not to make a mockery of the sport, and yet thousands think thats exactly what they did do…
They may be blowing up but they are also winning and I think it comes down to acceptable reliability. I mean if Michelin is winning races then I assume the teams don’t care if they are not as reliable.
If we go back in time to January, put Ferrari on Michelin and Renault on Bridgestone, is there much doubt that Alonso would be out of the title fight and Schumacher would be picking up #8? Ferrari didn’t become a mid-field car overnight; they’re scapping for the odd point (instead of a title) because their tires put them out of contention.