Bridgestone, gone after 2010. [Archive]

Andrew Longman

11-02-09, 09:39 AM

"The decision made by the Board of Directors of Bridgestone comes after considerable and lengthy evaluations and has been based on the company‚Äôs need to redirect its resources towards the further intensive development of innovative technologies and strategic products,"

So much for F1 driving innovation and road-relevant technology.:shakehead

And so much for F1 producing sponsor value. If Bridgestone can't make it work, the small suppliers certainly won't have the budgets to make a go of it. Hoosier perhaps?:gomer:

Perhaps Bridgestone should just make better products

.

opinionated ow

11-02-09, 09:47 AM

So much for F1 driving innovation and road-relevant technology.:shakehead

And so much for F1 producing sponsor value. If Bridgestone can't make it work, the small suppliers certainly won't have the budgets to make a go of it. Hoosier perhaps?:gomer:

Perhaps Bridgestone should just make better products

.

Maybe F1 should get rid of f***ing spec tyres!

eiregosod

11-02-09, 09:57 AM

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/international-automotive-scene/51491d1221875351-bentleys-wheels-stolen-bentley-wheels.jpg

Andrew Longman

11-02-09, 10:04 AM

Maybe F1 should get rid of f***ing spec tyres!

Or come up with a spec and not change it every year.

Or say that they can't change tires during the race (barring damaged tire, however)

Either would actually cut costs and improve racing.

STD

11-02-09, 12:17 PM

I liked tire wars where each manufacture showed up at each race with four different compounds (which all could be used on raceday and anyway the individual team wanted including mix and match, three Bs and a A etc.) plus the qualifying super softs.

:D

Sean Malone

11-02-09, 12:37 PM

You can keep tire wars. Watching front row cars struggle because of the tires they are on shouldn't be part of a drivers championship.

nissan gtp

11-02-09, 05:05 PM

You can keep tire wars. Watching front row cars struggle because of the tires they are on shouldn't be part of a drivers championship.

why not ? It's just another set of variables to judge, and there are fewer of those all the time in F1.

Sean Malone

11-02-09, 05:07 PM

why not ? It's just another set of variables to judge, and there are fewer of those all the time in F1.

Because historically speaking, the gaps are too wide to be made up by drivers.

dando

11-02-09, 05:10 PM

I see an opportunity here....tirerack.com. Think about the possibilities.... :gomer:

-Kevin

NismoZ

11-02-09, 05:14 PM

Yep, time for Hoosier to step up!

STD

11-02-09, 06:11 PM

why not ? It's just another set of variables to judge, and there are fewer of those all the time in F1.

I have to agree.

No way, at this point, can one manufacture supply the grid.
I still will stick to the free choice of multiple compounds as it has shown to be able to even the field by strategies that could favor an agile trimmed out car that may lack HP but has better fuel mileage or a driver that can achieve better tire wear from softer compounds.

The addition of spec tires with mandatory compound use has had little effect in creating better racing or passing opportunities. Just makes the racing more like a restrictor plate event in NASCAR.
On track passing and passing overall has decreased ever since the over regulation of F1 began in the early/mid 1990s.

Hard Driver

11-02-09, 06:20 PM

I see an opportunity here....tirerack.com. Think about the possibilities.... :gomer:

-Kevin

Hey, you want to encourage street legal development, then say that all tires need to meet street legal requirements.

And while they are at it. How about allowing sidewalls somewhere below the huge balloon size.

Sean Malone

11-02-09, 09:45 PM

I have to agree.

No way, at this point, can one manufacture supply the grid.
I still will stick to the free choice of multiple compounds as it has shown to be able to even the field by strategies that could favor an agile trimmed out car that may lack HP but has better fuel mileage or a driver that can achieve better tire wear from softer compounds.

The addition of spec tires with mandatory compound use has had little effect in creating better racing or passing opportunities. Just makes the racing more like a restrictor plate event in NASCAR.
On track passing and passing overall has decreased ever since the over regulation of F1 began in the early/mid 1990s.

So you want a wide variance of tire performance that multi suppliers offer for the sake of on track passing? Blah. It's motor-sport...not tire sport. The decision of going with a single supplier was more driven by cost than a effort to create passing opportunities.
Just what every fan wants...their favorite driver/team handicapped due to crap tires.

miatanut

11-02-09, 10:11 PM

You can keep tire wars. Watching front row cars struggle because of the tires they are on shouldn't be part of a drivers championship.
I don't agree. It's part of what used to make racing interesting. One of the things that made F1 interesting this year was teams that have been working with sub-standard engines finally getting good engines, and their chassis design was created to do a lot with as little drag as possible, so suddenly with a decent engine, they were front runners!

why not ? It's just another set of variables to judge, and there are fewer of those all the time in F1.
Yup! :thumbup:

Hey, you want to encourage street legal development, then say that all tires need to meet street legal requirements.

And while they are at it. How about allowing sidewalls somewhere below the huge balloon size.
Yup! :thumbup:

Just what every fan wants...their favorite driver/team handicapped due to crap tires.
It's what I want. Another variable to make things interesting. F1 is gradually working its way back from terminal boredom, but it's still pretty stale. Now that Tony's gone, that's the biggest thing I find missing from the IRL. The teams like it, because they can't choose wrong, but when there were three or four engines, three or four chassis and two tires, it was exciting racing. The only way I ever got to enjoy other teams mopping the floor with Pimpski.

Sean Malone

11-02-09, 10:33 PM

I don't agree. It's part of what used to make racing interesting. One of the things that made F1 interesting this year was teams that have been working with sub-standard engines finally getting good engines, and their chassis design was created to do a lot with as little drag as possible, so suddenly with a decent engine, they were front runners!

Yup! :thumbup:

Yup! :thumbup:

It's what I want. Another variable to make things interesting. F1 is gradually working its way back from terminal boredom, but it's still pretty stale. Now that Tony's gone, that's the biggest thing I find missing from the IRL. The teams like it, because they can't choose wrong, but when there were three or four engines, three or four chassis and two tires, it was exciting racing. The only way I ever got to enjoy other teams mopping the floor with Pimpski.

Exciting racing? The recent Michelin/Bridgestone era was a f'n abomination. As a fan I want to see the driver do the best with a car that falls within the mandate of the formula, not within with which ever tire manufacture can make the stickiest tire.

A run down of top racing series... agree. Oh, and you drag in the IRL with engine and chassis options!?!?! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pick your battles dude your in the wrong forum on the wrong board.

oddlycalm

11-03-09, 04:08 AM

Love it or hate it the odds of seeing a tire war in the mid-term future are somewhere between slim and none due to cost.

oc

opinionated ow

11-03-09, 07:17 AM

Exciting racing? The recent Michelin/Bridgestone era was a f'n abomination. As a fan I want to see the driver do the best with a car that falls within the mandate of the formula, not within with which ever tire manufacture can make the stickiest tire.

Your as was from the mark as is possible. F1 is supposed to be about controlling all the variables. Having spec anything in F1 is a travesty

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 08:27 AM

Your as was from the mark as is possible. F1 is supposed to be about controlling all the variables. Having spec anything in F1 is a travesty

Tell it to Bernie, kid.

SteveH

11-03-09, 09:47 AM

I think each team should make their own tires. :gomer:

extramundane

11-03-09, 10:09 AM

I think each team should make their own tires. :gomer:

Don't let Berntard hear you say that. I almost made a joke about tires changing on a per-race basis- GP2-spec 'stones at Bahrain, DOT Toyos at Spa, leftover WRC Pirellis at Monaco, etc- but I figured Bernie'd hear about it somehow and implement it, leaving me no choice but ritual suicide.

Boatdesigner

11-03-09, 10:57 AM

You can keep tire wars. Watching front row cars struggle because of the tires they are on shouldn't be part of a drivers championship.

If that is the case, they should all be in identical cars. We can call it Formula IROC! How many good drivers are running around mid-pack due to lousy cars (Alonso?). How does that create a fair Drivers Championship?

How about anyone can make tires, as long as they bring enough for everyone? Or say enough for half the field, first come first serve. The tire guy for each team could line up and when they waved a green flag they would all run across the track and claim a stack of tires!:D

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 11:05 AM

If that is the case, they should all be in identical cars. We can call it Formula IROC! How many good drivers are running around mid-pack due to lousy cars (Alonso?). How does that create a fair Drivers Championship?

How about anyone can make tires, as long as they bring enough for everyone? Or say enough for half the field, first come first serve. The tire guy for each team could line up and when they waved a green flag they would all run across the track and claim a stack of tires!:D

How is a single tire supplier equating the sport to a spec series? :gomer:

Fio1

11-03-09, 01:09 PM

I bet you it's going to be Hankook or something like that. Some tire brand that 20 years ago, we'd laugh at if they showed up on the GP grid with Coloni or Osella, now they'll be on the Ferrari's. :rofl:

STD

11-03-09, 01:27 PM

Just what every fan wants...their favorite driver/team handicapped due to crap tires.

That is what we have now.
Plus the joke of mandatory compound changes for the show. Just a farcical illusion of no meaning which has ruined many a driver's/team's race. Were it all about cost that nonsense wouldn't have seen the light of day. And I might add the idea came from a spec series in which passing was near impossible.

The Michelin/Bridgestone years you speak of were caused by FIA spec tire over regulation and cost more than the old tire wars I was speaking to, as finding an advantage within the tight spec regulations, they were forced to live within, cost far more in time and money plus the disparity lasted longer once one did find an advantage.

Finding and using an advantage is what auto racing has always been about.
I'll take advancement over tight fisted illusion.

As far as my comment on the reduced amount of passing per race on or off track (as stated) over the term of one Max Mosley... that had far more than just the issue of tires in mind. I should have given that sentence a paragraph of it's own.

If you like the illusion of closer racing, you sure have it now.

How about some push to pass? :laugh:

STD

11-03-09, 01:33 PM

miatanut

11-03-09, 01:40 PM

Exciting racing? The recent Michelin/Bridgestone era was a f'n abomination. As a fan I want to see the driver do the best with a car that falls within the mandate of the formula, not within with which ever tire manufacture can make the stickiest tire.

A run down of top racing series... agree. Oh, and you drag in the IRL with engine and chassis options!?!?! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pick your battles dude your in the wrong forum on the wrong board.

I thought the Michelin/Bridgestone battle was interesting. Ferrari had favored status with Bridgestone and everybody else running Bridgestones had to try to get their car to run on a tire designed for the Ferrari. That was their choice. They could have run Michelins. Michelin was pushing as hard as they could to be competitive with Bridgestone. On one race, they pushed a little too hard. It was true technical competition. The reason I became an auto racing fan.

But it appears from your perspective, it's OK for a team to be handicapped by an inadequate engine, but it's unacceptable for a team to be handicapped by an inadequate tire.

What are the IRL engine & chassis options? Last I knew, there were none, but I'll confess I haven't really been paying attention. With CART, there were lots of options, and a big part of the fun was the multitude of possible combinations and seeing Ganassi coming out of nowhere after he did his homework put together the best combination. I was a Newman/Haas fan, but I appreciated seeing this relative newcomer blow everybody away. Something completely missing now in AOW. F1, with a few more variables at least gives us a Force India to cheer for.

There won't be multiple tires, but it would sure make things a lot more interesting if there were.

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 03:42 PM

I thought the Michelin/Bridgestone battle was interesting. Ferrari had favored status with Bridgestone and everybody else running Bridgestones had to try to get their car to run on a tire designed for the Ferrari. That was their choice. They could have run Michelins. Michelin was pushing as hard as they could to be competitive with Bridgestone. On one race, they pushed a little too hard. It was true technical competition. The reason I became an auto racing fan.

You're a fan? ;) Like I said...tire sport...not motor sport. Tires should be regulated no differently to me than brake pads or electrical controls or any other supplier element. There are two supplier options for teams regarding brakes pads but the choice isn't going to result in a full second on the grid. Why should tires be different?

But it appears from your perspective, it's OK for a team to be handicapped by an inadequate engine, but it's unacceptable for a team to be handicapped by an inadequate tire.

Of course.

What are the IRL engine & chassis options? Last I knew, there were none, but I'll confess I haven't really been paying attention. With CART, there were lots of options, and a big part of the fun was the multitude of possible combinations and seeing Ganassi coming out of nowhere after he did his homework put together the best combination. I was a Newman/Haas fan, but I appreciated seeing this relative newcomer blow everybody away. Something completely missing now in AOW. F1, with a few more variables at least gives us a Force India to cheer for.

There you go again mixing a tire discussion in with chassis's and engines from the IRL and a defunct series. Don't try to paint me into a corner as some sort of 'spec' series supporter or anti-options. This discussion is about tire wars in F1, good or bad. I say bad. Simple.

There won't be multiple tires, but it would sure make things a lot more interesting if there were.

'Interesting' I'll give you, but good for the sport? Not in my opinion. But it's all rather moot isn't it?

cameraman

11-03-09, 08:11 PM

There are two supplier options for teams regarding brakes pads but the choice isn't going to result in a full second on the grid.That's absolutely wrong. More than a few races have been lost by one brand of brakes going off sooner than the other.

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 08:19 PM

That's absolutely wrong. More than a few races have been lost by one brand of brakes going off sooner than the other.

Oh god. :gomer:

Name them. All of them.

cameraman

11-03-09, 08:52 PM

Just off the top of my head both Red Bull cars suffered from excessive brake wear at the Singapore GP a couple of weeks ago. Vettel came in 4th behind the much slower (at least when Vettel's brakes worked) Glock & Alonso. Webber's wore out to the point of failure. Alguersuari had to retire towards the end due to excessive brake wear.

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 08:54 PM

miatanut

11-03-09, 10:38 PM

There are two supplier options for teams regarding brakes pads but the choice isn't going to result in a full second on the grid. Why should tires be different?

To my knowledge, Hitco, Carbon Industrie, and Brembo have all been supplying brakes this year, so that would be three, not two.

So out of those incidents...were they competing brakes or all the same make? How much did the grid times vary from brake make to brake make?

This year we have had exploding rotors, and cars which were actually pulled out of the race because they ran out of brakes. Then at Singapore we had the ridiculous situation with Red Bull sending Mark Weber back out when his car had been producing massive plumes of black dust, indicating the brakes were gone, and then he didn't make it half a lap before he had a nasty shunt when the brakes failed completely. Definitely brakes had a significant impact on various drivers' points totals for the year.

The subject of who was running on what brakes and was having trouble vs who was running some other brakes and wasn't was discussed on many occasions by the Speed announcers.

There is more to brakes than lap time. If your brakes give you the fastest lap time, (perhaps because they are softer or have a larger pad area allowing less pad force for the same friction but also allowing less cooling) so your driver can get to the edge of lock-up when the car is at the end of a very long straight and making maximum downforce, while other drivers using all the leg strength they have can't lock the brakes up at that point, but your brakes fail before the end of the race, then lap time doesn't mean much, does it?

Other than a certain infamous event at Indy a while back, I do not recall tires having such an impact on points totals as brakes did this year.

Guess that means F1 should adopt a spec braking package so the possibility of one team making a better choice than another can't affect the outcome of a season.

Personally, I'd rather see the rules opened up hugely. The less spec stuff, the better. 'No unobtainium' rules are useful for some cost control. Other than that, let them go to it!

Sean Malone

11-03-09, 10:47 PM

To my knowledge, Hitco, Carbon Industrie, and Brembo have all been supplying brakes this year, so that would be three, not two.

This year we have had exploding rotors, and cars which were actually pulled out of the race because they ran out of brakes. Then at Singapore we had the ridiculous situation with Red Bull sending Mark Weber back out when his car had been producing massive plumes of black dust, indicating the brakes were gone, and then he didn't make it half a lap before he had a nasty shunt when the brakes failed completely. Definitely brakes had a significant impact on various drivers' points totals for the year.

The subject of who was running on what brakes and was having trouble vs who was running some other brakes and wasn't was discussed on many occasions by the Speed announcers.

There is more to brakes than lap time. If your brakes give you the fastest lap time, (perhaps because they are softer or have a larger pad area allowing less pad force for the same friction but also allowing less cooling) so your driver can get to the edge of lock-up when the car is at the end of a very long straight and making maximum downforce, while other drivers using all the leg strength they have can't lock the brakes up at that point, but your brakes fail before the end of the race, then lap time doesn't mean much, does it?

Other than a certain infamous event at Indy a while back, I do not recall tires having such an impact on points totals as brakes did this year.

Guess that means F1 should adopt a spec braking package so the possibility of one team making a better choice than another can't affect the outcome of a season.

Personally, I'd rather see the rules opened up hugely. The less spec stuff, the better. 'No unobtainium' rules are useful for some cost control. Other than that, let them go to it!

You're mixing your prototypes with F1, as you always do. Tires not having an impact that brakes did this year? Are you referring to the pads or the technology? More to brakes than lap times and more to brakes than the pads themselves which is all that is supplied....again you continue to derail the original discussion.
Basically it's like this....wish for tire wars in in hand, **** in your other and see how goes.

STD

11-03-09, 11:22 PM

Personally, I'd rather see the rules opened up hugely. The less spec stuff, the better. 'No unobtainium' rules are useful for some cost control. Other than that, let them go to it!

I think most would agree.

Boatdesigner

11-04-09, 12:56 AM

How is a single tire supplier equating the sport to a spec series? :gomer:

Your original comment was "You can keep tire wars. Watching front row cars struggle because of the tires they are on shouldn't be part of a drivers championship.". I was merely pointing out that there are far more variables in the so-called "Drivers Championship" than just tires. The tires are no different than any other item on the car that could make one faster or more reliable than another.

The only way to have a true "Drivers Championship" is with spec cars. Personally, I'd prefer they open up the rules on the design of the cars, while limiting the materials to keep the costs in our atmosphere. A little more weight and the banning of ballast would allow less expensive materials and construction techniques.

Indy

11-04-09, 01:04 AM

That is what we have now.
Plus the joke of mandatory compound changes for the show. Just a farcical illusion of no meaning which has ruined many a driver's/team's race. Were it all about cost that nonsense wouldn't have seen the light of day. And I might add the idea came from a spec series in which passing was near impossible.

The Michelin/Bridgestone years you speak of were caused by FIA spec tire over regulation and cost more than the old tire wars I was speaking to, as finding an advantage within the tight spec regulations, they were forced to live within, cost far more in time and money plus the disparity lasted longer once one did find an advantage.

Finding and using an advantage is what auto racing has always been about.
I'll take advancement over tight fisted illusion.

As far as my comment on the reduced amount of passing per race on or off track (as stated) over the term of one Max Mosley... that had far more than just the issue of tires in mind. I should have given that sentence a paragraph of it's own.

If you like the illusion of closer racing, you sure have it now.

How about some push to pass? :laugh:

Brilliant post.

miatanut

11-04-09, 02:11 AM

You're mixing your prototypes with F1, as you always do. Tires not having an impact that brakes did this year? Are you referring to the pads or the technology? More to brakes than lap times and more to brakes than the pads themselves which is all that is supplied....again you continue to derail the original discussion.
Basically it's like this....wish for tire wars in in hand, **** in your other and see how goes.

The original topic was 'Bridgestone gone.' Nothing any of us can do about that.

Kuhmo was mentioned as a company of the sort that might want to buy their way in. Not much debate on that point.

Then things got into tire wars, and you advanced the argument that tires should not be a deciding factor, unlike a multitude of other aspects of the car. I don't agree. For F1, the more factors that distinguish the cars the better. Then you made the point that brakes don't make a significant difference, although it was narrowly drawn as a lap time question. I and others pointed out that brakes made a big difference this year.

As for "brake technology" and "brake pads", the brake technology is carbon/carbon, as it has been for many years. Not sure what there is to discuss there. I'd be all for a return to iron rotors to increase braking distances and bring back out-braking duels, plus bringing the potential of technological improvements which could filter down to road cars. As for brake pads, focusing on pads alone neglects rotors, which are not spec. in F1.

This is one year out of date:
http://www.f1network.net/boards/read/s491.htm?936,8815211,8824004
but it shows the variety in pads and rotors in the field.
In F1, thankfully there is still some variety in the field on brake suppliers, among other components.

As for the 'tire wars good or bad?' debate, I'll remain comfortably among the fans who think they have been an exciting aspect of the sport, promoting technological advancement. We can agree to disagree on that subject.

Sean Malone

11-04-09, 09:22 AM

The original topic was 'Bridgestone gone.' Nothing any of us can do about that.

Kuhmo was mentioned as a company of the sort that might want to buy their way in. Not much debate on that point.

Then things got into tire wars, and you advanced the argument that tires should not be a deciding factor, unlike a multitude of other aspects of the car. I don't agree. For F1, the more factors that distinguish the cars the better. Then you made the point that brakes don't make a significant difference, although it was narrowly drawn as a lap time question. I and others pointed out that brakes made a big difference this year.

As for "brake technology" and "brake pads", the brake technology is carbon/carbon, as it has been for many years. Not sure what there is to discuss there. I'd be all for a return to iron rotors to increase braking distances and bring back out-braking duels, plus bringing the potential of technological improvements which could filter down to road cars. As for brake pads, focusing on pads alone neglects rotors, which are not spec. in F1.

This is one year out of date:
http://www.f1network.net/boards/read/s491.htm?936,8815211,8824004
but it shows the variety in pads and rotors in the field.
In F1, thankfully there is still some variety in the field on brake suppliers, among other components.

As for the 'tire wars good or bad?' debate, I'll remain comfortably among the fans who think they have been an exciting aspect of the sport, promoting technological advancement. We can agree to disagree on that subject.

I'll take motor-sport over tire-sport anytime. Let me know how this works out for ya. :rofl:

oddlycalm

11-04-09, 05:01 PM

I'm left wondering how much of Bridgestone's decision was influenced by Honda and Toyota withdrawing. I also wonder what effect Max and Bernie's behavior had.

oc

dando

11-04-09, 05:16 PM

I'm left wondering how much of Bridgestone's decision was influenced by Honda and Toyota withdrawing. I also wonder what effect Max and Bernie's behavior had.

oc

I'm left wondering what's left. Holy Cow. :eek:

-Kevin

Sean Malone

11-04-09, 05:23 PM

I'm left wondering what's left. Holy Cow. :eek:

-Kevin

Not 2, but 3 brake suppliers...I lurned that!!!!:)

miatanut

11-04-09, 08:35 PM

I'll take motor-sport over tire-sport anytime. Let me know how this works out for ya. :rofl:

I'll enjoy my tire-sport, and my aero-sport, and my damper-sport, and my engine-sport, and my fuel-sport, and my brake-sport, in SPORTScar racing. It's been working out great for me so far.

Maybe some day, F1 will get away from the over-regulation to preserve the status quo and I can enjoy that stuff in F1 too.

Fio1

11-05-09, 03:58 AM

I have a question. Do F1 teams pay for tires, like a Grand-Am team would pay for Pirellis for example? And if so, how much per set? No matter who you are in Grand-Am you pay the same price. I wonder if Toyota paid the same price for Bridgestones as Brawn GP, when you consider that all Toyota's sold across the world come with Bridgestones on them. They used to have Michelins on them when Toyota F1 ran Michelins btw.

STD

11-05-09, 12:58 PM

In the current set up the teams pay nothing for tires.
Bridgestone's exclusive tire deal was with the FIA. I'm sure that sum of money was used in the betterment of the sport. :shakehead
Everyone gets the same crappy tires and lame gimmick.
Max's mantra, equalization by mediocrity, control by holding all the cards.

Don't forget Max, last year, was pressing the idea for an official engine manufacturer as well as other areas.

Can you say COT?

STD

11-05-09, 01:14 PM

Oh BTW a point that may have been overlooked, the teams can still freely choose who's brake systems they use. And as far as I know there still is room to develop them within the regulations.
Thinking there is no further development possible is short sighted.

dando

11-05-09, 01:29 PM

Michaelhatesfans

11-05-09, 01:47 PM

I'll take motor-sport over tire-sport anytime. Let me know how this works out for ya. :rofl:

Man, have I got the perfect series for you....

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/b/bf/Boontaeveclassicpodracers.jpg/800px-Boontaeveclassicpodracers.jpg

Sean Malone

11-05-09, 02:09 PM

miatanut

11-05-09, 02:47 PM

The braking technology doesn't look all that effective. :rofl:

stroker

11-05-09, 04:34 PM

miatanut

11-05-09, 06:26 PM

Man, have I got the perfect series for you....

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/b/bf/Boontaeveclassicpodracers.jpg/800px-Boontaeveclassicpodracers.jpg

Check out the sounds! I would say they sound like '90's CART, but given the time, CART wasn't revving 12,000 yet, so they would be F1. Complete with some gearbox noise in places.

JgjBeHZxqEY

Sean Malone

11-05-09, 06:52 PM

from imdb.com "Many details of the pod race resemble the Norwegian animation classic Flåklypa Grand Prix (1975), including the sabotage, the late start, the engine trouble, the dirty tricks and even elements of the camerawork. And they both resemble the opening race from Grand Prix (1966)."

Ben Burt - "Pod sounds were made from race cars, boats, warbirds, electric tooth brushes, shavers, motorcycles, rockets, and helicopters."

http://filmsound.org/starwars/starwars-AQ.htm

STD

11-05-09, 07:15 PM

Oooooh, I'm giddy. I can already see the Midas commercials coming. :gomer: :shakehead

-Kevin

http://grandrants.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fred-flintstone-barney-rubble-car.jpg

:laugh:

Steve99

11-05-09, 08:53 PM

Ben Burt - "Pod sounds were made from race cars, boats, warbirds, electric tooth brushes, shavers, motorcycles, rockets, and helicopters."

I recall that some of the base sounds were sampled from a CART race at Fontana.

miatanut

11-05-09, 10:31 PM

There is some oval sounding stuff, but there is also a lot of gear shifting (for a jet-powered pod! :rofl:), which I figured was probably F1 LGBP.

Indy

11-07-09, 02:14 AM

Max's mantra, equalization by mediocrity, control by holding all the cards.

Seems like someone else had that idea.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8139/toni20and20mari.jpg

NismoZ

11-07-09, 10:53 AM

MY EYES! MY EYES! YIIIEEEEEEEE

STD

11-07-09, 11:59 PM

Seems like someone else had that idea.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8139/toni20and20mari.jpg

What makes you think Tony can come up with ideas on his own? :laugh:
Note guest list to IMS in the late 80s early 90s.

Sorry about the eyes Nizmo.

Michaelhatesfans

11-09-09, 12:01 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/2001_Goodwood_Festival_of_Speed_Brabham_BT46B_Fan_ car.jpg/800px-2001_Goodwood_Festival_of_Speed_Brabham_BT46B_Fan_ car.jpg

STD

11-09-09, 12:38 PM

Oh yes from an era that still produced innovation in all areas and great drivers as well. :thumbup:
That Brabham is a Beautiful car.

http://usuarios.lycos.es/eduardomacri/Lotus%2078%20(reducido).jpg

Michaelhatesfans

11-09-09, 01:10 PM

Oh yes from an era that still produced innovation in all areas and great drivers as well. :thumbup:
That Brabham is a Beautiful car.

Agreed. But I was actually suggesting a replacement for Bridgestone (maybe I was too subtle...):cool:

STD

11-09-09, 04:09 PM

:laugh: Sorry I hadn't notice that.
Cooper Tire and Rubber in F1, now that would be something.

opinionated ow

11-09-09, 07:18 PM

:laugh: Sorry I hadn't notice that.
Cooper Tire and Rubber in F1, now that would be something.

Why? British F3 runs Avons.

STD

11-10-09, 01:03 PM

First, I was laughing at myself for missing his point rather badly....

Avon has been a good racing tire maker for many years there is no doubt. They did a great job with A1GP along with British F3 on the current list. I merely stated their owner and the fact that would be interesting.

But their ability to fund and develop such an effort as building tires for the entire grid, as is the current rule package, would be something that just might make their involvement infeasible. I would imagine the high cost of winning the exclusive tire manufacturer contract from the FIA would be the first stumbling point.
Now if the less than idiotic official tire rule were kicked to the curb as well as a qualifying number of teams needing to be served by one manufacturer in a open tire supply competition, why not.