ElyrionX said:
Can someone please explain to me why the tires are such a huge factor?
It's a fundamental fact of all cars that the tires (which is the only thing in contact with the road) is more important than almost anything else. Even on a Honda Accord or something, putting a good set of low profile tires can increase performance by upwards of 30%....it's really a huge difference. Compounding that fact is that in F1 the chasis are so tightly regulated that any difference between them, usually taking the form of different aerodynamics, is minimal compared to the importance of the tires.
In essence, mechanical grip (mostly tires) is much more powerful than aerodynamic grip (downforce etc.) so any small difference in tire quality can eclipse and variation in actual car performance.
Maybe because tires are where the car touches the ground and if you don't have enough grip it changes how you go around bends, how you corner etc. Still Ferrari have always used Bridgestone and they still won most races in the 2004 season, now they can only be 7th or 8th? It can't just be the tires, the competition has improved and Ferrari was arragont to think they could pull it off with an old car.
That's erroneous logic. The tires aren't constant....each manufacturer is developing them all offseason, as well. Now, since Michelin has WAY more teams giving them testing data and different tire compounds, the general perception is that it was always just a matter of time before they overtook Bridgestone's.
And the fact that the gap between the top runner and Ferrari is so huge this year just supports that. At most, cars (not tires) get fast by a second each year, so Ferrari's (relative) huge drop in performance cannot be attributed simply to car/engine, it really has to be tires.
Ferrari is arrogrant because they thought they could go it alone with their own tire manufacturer. But not because they are using their old car the opening races (which they've done for years now)....that's a pretty sounds strategy IMO.
