First of all, what are you doing awake?
The "they had grip until they didn't" complaint is a fundamental difference between the Michelins and the Bridgestones. This was exemplified in 2007 when tire allocations came into play and Michelin couldn't tailor-make their tires for the conditions. In the modern era, Michelins have generally behaved softer than Bridgestones and operated better in cooler conditions. That's why before the tire allocation rule, Bridgestone excelled at the flyaway rounds and warm tracks. The Michelines "had grip until they didn't" was a comparison, as I didn't hear many complaints about it pre-2007. And the comparison was obvious, the Bridgestone was a harder tire, it was going to be there at the end. And it's only gotten harder since.
Ah my friend, I think you missed the point. The part that is important in that "complaint" was the "didn't" part. That is to say, the reason why riders complained about the loss of drip was that is was not predictable and dangerous. That's why we are having part of this conversation. C'mon man focus. You content that Bridgestone is "complacent" because they 'refused' to bring out a "better" tire, and as part of your contention you cite the "cold tire" is unpredictable. (Which I disgree, cold tires are predictable). How many riders have gone down in the latter stages of the race? You say that competition would help in regards to this "complacent" attitude you propose. I disagree. I'm saying when we had a ”tire war” riders found a complaint, that is, the tires Michelin provided could be unpredictable. This was during a "tire war" so how could this happen? You contend having competition will force manufactures to "fix" all complaints, bring out better tires, etc.; but as you can see, that is historically not true. It must not be as easy as bringing out tires for the entire grid after they have improved one aspect of the development.
You admit that dropping off grip is "dangerous" at the latter states of the race. That is precisely the complain verbalized by "they had grip until they didn't". Where as Bstone made a tire that dropped off gradually but compromised a bit of grip throughout, the Michelin had massive grip..."until they didn't" meaning it got dangerous. Again, I think you saying Bstone is “complacent” is harsh and unfounded amigo.
I'd be very surprised if Bridgestone supplied riders with tires that were not up to standard for racing. Just because it's testing doesn't mean it's not dangerous. They'd be stupid to put riders out on untested equipment. I don't know the red tape involved in changing the specification of tire mid season. Common sense tells me that it would be up to Bridgestone, but I can't remember the last time common sense prevailed in this sport.
I didn't say or suggest the test tires were "unsafe", lets revisit what I said: "I highly doubt that the tires were in the trim that would be spec for a race weekend event." That means they may have been more durable for example. "Trim for spec race event" means that they have set an acceptable formula of durability vs grip performance, among other things. What i'm saying is, the tire that was test, the tire that riders gave positive feedback on, may not be the tire they ultimately decide to bring next year. Its a work in progress. But you are saying, hey, we like this, so bring it out next week please. Uhm yeah right. Again, you missed the nuance. I said I doubt the tire they tested was the tire they are bringing out for 2012 racing season, that is, the race spec tire. If it were, then why not just stop development tomorrow?
My opinion is that they would have been an improvement during practice sessions in Silverstone and the race in Assen. If I remember correctly, everyone was raving about the level of grip provided by the 2012 spec. More grip is going to be extra beneficial in cold climates, hence the petition to get extra softs sent in from Germany. So yes, I believe they would have been an improvement in damp/drying sessions in which slicks were used in Silverstone and Assen.
More grip=good. Right? (lighthearted sarcasm) Bro, bro, why don't they just make the grippiest tires ever? Uhm, because that's not all they are concerned with. Next time your are near a GP tire engineer, ask him what they have to think about when developing a race tire. have your clip board out, they will ramble off several factors, then go into how unlocking the right mix of these is the million dollar question.
The vote on soft tires is another matter entirely. I agree with you, it's not Bridgestone's fault. It's a poorly written rule that should've been overridden by Butler in the name of safety. Like I said before, I can't remember the last time common sense prevailed in this sport.
Perhaps. It does seem like a ........ technicality. But the tires Bstone was ready to ship speaks to their lack of "complacency." Again, what we are debating.
I think it would be foolish for Bridgestone to cease development on the 2012 tires because of a successful test. So no, I don't think these will be the tires next year. It will be a process of development that in all likelihood will end sometime between Brno and Valencia. Now that said, what's there to lose by abandoning the current spec and swapping over to the current state of development of 2012s? Each have developmental costs involved, both of which will be chalked up as a loss come this winter as I believe neither of these tires will be the same spec we see in Qatar. So what's there to lose? Unless of course Bridgestone literally has warehouse after warehouse of tires ready and waiting to get used up this season. Which would mean there isn't much developmental work going on. That's my theory as to why Bridgestone are sitting on the 2012s. Because they can.
Your second sentence answers the rhetorical I asked above. So then we are on the same page, so you can see, it was not a question of "safe" tire for testing; but rather a question of where they are in the complicated process of developing a tire. Again, I think you over simplify the situation, and conclude, they must be "complacent". If we were to take your contention to the extreme, why not find incremental improvements and bring them out on a race by race basis? Suddenly Bstone is getting heat for rider error. Are the tires unsafe? NO! Are the riders going faster with these tires from the previous, yes, and part of that is thanks to tire development. Are we experiencing more crashes now than in years past, especially when we had a tire war? Hey, that might be something for you to look into. Though I'm not sure that would even give you some basis to indict the incentive or lack there of in saying Bstone is "complacent". So what do you have so far to provide evidence of Bstones supposed "complacency"? Riders crashing on admittedly "cold tires", Bstone getting positive feedback on tires for 'next year's' series that is still a work in progress (as you concede), and that we don't have any competition so you assuming Bstone is without pressure to improve, oh, and you have Talpa on your side on this issue (always a plus). What do I have to counteract this idea that Bstone is "complacent"? The riders state that they crashed on "cold tires" and backed up by early session crashes, when we had a tire war, riders still complained about lack of late stage grip making it dangerous, by all accounts, riders have hailed Bstone, and even principals in the sport have said they are too good, as they don't drop off in the latter stages of the race, Bstone when there was a tire war were preferred, Bstone has offered to bring out special tires, but were refused by somebody, and hence a technical issue, notwithstanding, Bstone were at the ready, and finally, Bstone has provided a test tire where they received positive feedback, so they continue to seek improvements. That doesn't sound like a company who is "complacent" You want an example of racing entity being "complacent" ? Suzuki.
Now go to sleep knucklehead, as you are wasting very valuable time that I need to concentrate on my course work.
