Which tyre manufacturer did better in 2003

[Adam43]

This is not a simple question to answer. However is is a straight forward question.

Bridgestone or Michelin.

We all know the (close) statistics between them in poles, race wins, etc... However which was best.

Obviously they were tailored to different cars, so it isn't just a matter of bolting on the other set!

Anyway who did best?

Michelin had two (or three?) top teams, but Bridgestone concentrated of Ferrari (the best team?).

My guess is Michelin, but it is close.

This is not really about the different front/rear compounds or the front widths - it is not about unfair or fair advatanges just who had the better tyres over the year, for whatever reason

[GTRMagic]

The Michelins were the better tyres, but to my mind tended to flatter some of the cars they were on.

The McLaren was the only car to use them properly all year, but they struggled with an gutless Mercedes (no)powerplant

And what kind of skill did it require to create a brand new front tyre in such a short space of time to comply with a fuzzy regulation?

[DNQ]

Michelin undoubtably.

[BARrouette]

Depend on the track.

[Mr V]

In the wet....Bridgestone

In the dry....Michelin

Michelin did better to tailor make different tyres for their customers

Bridgestone did better to help Ferrari and Michael secure 2 championships

All in all, equal i'd say

[f1manoz]

Michelin. Considering the amount of ground they made up in just over a year, their tyre performance in '03 was simply spectacular.

Take nothing away from Bridgestone. Even though they lost ground, they still took both titles.

[f1_smiley]

bridg-clad teams tops the michs in the wet but the mich-clad teams are "better" suited in the dry
(michies should respond to this...)
mich-duspaquier responded well and fast enough to provide in light of the rule hiccups...
and ditto on that creative interpretation...
plus michelin had more teams to support and provide
and it's only just 3 years since their comeback.... (correct me if i'm mistaken)
all things considered, it's michelin
(and it's not just "the better" tire)

[Thorstone]

Bridgestone won both titles at the end,but it seems
The Michelins were the better tyres

[Raven]

Bridestone were the best when they needed to be. Together with Ferrari they won the last three races of the season.

[GTRMagic]

Out of a possible 624 points (16 races x 39 points a race) Bridgestone picked up 216 of those points (34.6%)

Now having 5 Michelin (Williams, McLaren, Toyota, Renault, Jaguar) and 5 Bridgestone teams (Ferrari, Sauber, Jordan, BAR, Minardi) and it must be said the better average complement of teams, Michelin runners scored more points per car than Bridgestone....

[freud]

I say Bridgestones because they were not far behind the Michelins in dry yet were light years ahead of them in wet.

[neilap]

Remember even MS stated that the tires were a problem even he was quickly corrected by Toad. I feel if Ferrari was on Michelins they would have done as well if not better than the did in 2002. The great equalizer was the tires. The only time that the tires seemed close again was after BS made Michelin change tires. JV said he felt if they had Michelin tires they could have been fighting it out with the front runners. Finally, BS had to use politics to even the playing field. I feel they knew about the tires all along they just waited till it mattered most.

So for my choice. Michelin by a mile. Tire supporters are not in F1 to help one team win the title they should be there supply all the teams. In Canada JV used the tires he used in Australia. He said that he was testing tires for BS that Ferrari had already raced. BS is a joke and I sincerely hope this year it bites them in the arse. I hope they are not even competitive this year.

Sorry if I strayed from the point...

[GTRMagic]

Imagine how Minardi felt using Bridgestones from seasons past....

[neilap]

Originally posted by GTRMagic
Imagine how Minardi felt using Bridgestones from seasons past....

Maybe just as bad as the teams that knew they were faster than cars that were finishing ahead of them. The Minardi situation was a tough one. If I am correct they got the tires for free right? If so then they had to take what was given. However, they could have done to them what they did to every other team. BAR, Sauber, Jordan etc. were running on Ferrari rejects so why not Minardi too.

[GTRMagic]

I didnt think they were free.

Bridgestone were bullied into supplying Minardi when that team's relationship with Michelin broke down... and Stoddart had to get help to invoke the tyre supply agreement that said a supplier if asked, had to supply a team...

Which presumably is why they ran on 2002 rubber...

Still doesnt make it right...

[Led ZeppF1]

Michelin. Except under the hard rain...

[Meroo]

No contest, Michelin overall, however found wanting in the wet.

[RWC]

Michelin easy....

I'm with the group that thinks the ferrari was a fantastic car let down by less than great tyres.

Unfortunately both companies cheated by overstretching the rules this year-bridgestone up to monaco (suspected of running mixed compounds-when the fia changed the rules to eliminate the possiblility of this,performance dropped off dramatically)and micelin with their width interpretation(which furrari were right to question)
All in all an ugly season.Luckily there were some good things happening too

[Super Tourer]

Michelin - but aided by the unusually hot and prolonged summer in Europe, IF it had been wet it would have been a very different story.

I think the Indy race was the best demonstration of the see saw performance between the car makers - Kimi was helpless on those Michelins when the rain came, whereas the Bridgestone runners were able to drive away.

Technical question! Is it an easier design task to improve a tyres hot, or wet weather performance?

It's also ironic that with all the hundreds of millions of dollars expended on F1 cars, often the most crucial element is those four rubber boots, which are probably amongst the cheapest components on the car (purchase price).

[Knowlesy]

I vote Michelin............yes their wet tyres were unbelievably bad and I know they won zero titles. But the step forward from 2002 was astonishing. This, allied to the fact that they have to cater for the needs of a few top teams rather than one, makes them most impressive in my eyes.

And just look at the way BAR fought their way out of their Bridgestone contract to get those French rubber things! They weren't doing that at the end of 2002 were they?

[Redblurr]

Bridgestone, simply because they won it and Michellin can't get near them in the wet

[BootsOntheSide]

Being better in the wet isn't that much use when only 4 of the meetings were affected by rain (and that's including Japan's qualifying, which didn't favour either tyre manufacturer, merely those who were slower in the first session).

Michelin was my choice, partly because of their massive improvement, partly because of their variable design to suit different cars, and partly because they undoubtedly made Toyota and Jaguar look better than they were (and made BAR look worse) in the midfield battle.

[Bononi]

When I think of 2003, the name "Michelin" comes to mind first.

[Redblurr]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Being better in the wet isn't that much use when only 4 of the meetings were affected by rain

not much use? 40 points in the bag! Indy! regardless of how many meetings were wet - fact is Bridgestone are better in the wet. Having said that maybe I'm confusing Ferrari's performance with Bridgestone's in overcoming Michellin in 2003.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Super Tourer

I think the Indy race was the best demonstration of the see saw performance between the car makers - Kimi was helpless on those Michelins when the rain came, whereas the Bridgestone runners were able to drive away.

Indy (and possibly Brazil) were the best demonstrations of each tyre this year, when there was light rain, the Michelins were very good, witness the way Kimi and JPM shot off into the distance at Brazil or (judging by Michaels onboard camera shot) JPM going through the last turn at Indy, and passing Michael with proberbly an extra 40-50 mph.

Then witness once the ran came down and the ease that Michael, using inters passed Kimi using full wets.

I remember pre season testing, beginning of 1997, the Bridgestone wets were a full 6 seconds a lap faster than the Goodyears it has always seemed to be their Forte!