So Jums, well written piece BTW.
Your conclusion is what interests me most, and I'll get to that.
Whilst Bridgestone were improving in 2005-06, they were mostly still well and truly not the 'tyre' to be on in those years. The only thing that changed, as we all know was the tyre supply reg in 2007, and hey presto, Michelin's entire strategy-the SNS's (a strategy which dominated the sport for years) was rendered useless. What was interesting is that Dorna removed Michelin's advantage, only to give it to Bridgestone, due to the very nature of the way the companies supplied product. My preference, in a prototype series, is for the best to be on the best, and if that means rubber that's made overnight then so be it. Bridgestone could have done the same in those years, instead they choked Michelin with a reg.......and especially if the alternative is what we now have, which is a series in which 4 entrants have a shot at winning, a horrendous increase in R & D, crewing and manufacturing cost for any maker game to actually participate, of which there are now only 3, 2 of which who are serious. All of this is mostly due to the Sole tyre supplier, and the type and lack of option of product this supplier supplies. Again I personally would like to see Rubber options instead of what we see now, which is Honda bringing umpteenth Chassis options, some of which for all we know could be built over the course of a race weekend.......at least the SNS's were supplied to multiple teams, giving at least 8-10 riders a shot of winning-instead of what we see now 3 or 4. It was Gobermier who recently was most outspoken about this, particularly with the nature of the Bridgestone's.
Back to how this has effected Rossi, well as we know he and his team were the greatest exponents of the SNS's, they've always based their strategy on Race setup, across the entire weekend, which is predominantly why Rossi has always qualified poorly-this continues today. The others at the time, simply weren't as good, despite many of them having SNS's-Colin famously once said he couldn't actually ride on the rubber Rossi was using. The tyre supply regulation in 2007 gave Bridgestone the series, coupled with the fuel limit decrease, spelt the end for Michelin and their entire philosophy. They also dropped the ball with internal issues providing them an easy out in 2008, not even applying for the sole supplier rights. It certainly was no coincidence that Rossi's utter domination was at an end here, he did however go on to win 2 more titles, one of which under the sole supplier rule in 2009.
What isn't debated enough here, and elsewhere is the tiny performance envelop the riders have. A classic example is 2008, the updated Bridgestones apparently didn't suit Stoner ( 6 wins tells me otherwise)-same thing in 2012, a simple compound change and Stoner went from utterly dominant, to a distant third place. Much of the blame for the Sole supplier rule is pointed at Rossi, usually by detractors (make of that what you will), when his contact was up with Michelin at the end of the season 2007-moved to Bridgestone, however recent times and the regulations circumvented for certain Spanish entrants and their monstrous Oil Sponsor's tell me that Pedders dummy spit and switch mid-way through 2008 is far more to blame.
So if we are to conclude that the rubber on the road, and Rossi's ability to use it, is the main contributing factor to his dominance of the sport during the 990 era, we then must also conclude that Stoner's dominance in 2007 (particularly due to the surprise nature of his dominance that year-and subsequent failure to ever reproduce this on the Ducati) was also mostly down to rubber-and his ability to use it. With the Bridgestone noose tightening evermore post 2009, Honda being what they are grabbed the best rider for the job- outspent, and outnumbered the competition in 2011 to finally grab on 800cc title, only to have this strategy backfire in 2012 and hand the title to Jorge and Yamaha. Stoner's decline in 2008 and 2012, once again is popularly contributed to a change in rubber supply to improve things for the competition, a lot of the proponents of this theory however don't apply the same explanation to Rossi's decline, in this case the competition is better now, Rossi only won because of this or that etc. Rossi's decline in 2007 can be directly attributed to rubber supply with a far more drastic change to the materials than what was 2008 or 2012, even in 2006 when he had two rubber failures during races. Not too mention his failure at Ducati, which as we are now seeing is predominantly due to rubber supply and Ducati's inability to engineer the bike around the tyre, whilst the competition, move on in leaps and bounds year after year. And even Rossi's troubles now with the Yamaha, being such a honed machine to work with the rubber, and Jorge's style, can either be attributed to Rossi never being good enough/not ever a match for the current crop without significant tech advantages or to a lack of rubber which works for Rossi and his machine..........just as with Casey or Jorge in 2011
Therefore 'rubber on the road' didn't just have game changing significance from 2001-2006......all results need to be viewed with the consideration of rubber and how it may or may not work for a particular rider and the competition.
