Also, I have included some high level tire performance fundamentals, which further explains tire differences and tradeoffs. Therefore, predicting the best direction was important on the FGT, which added this predictive ability criteria for the program in general, including the tires.
Michelin persisted with pushing run flats, BFG came back with very high cost. Continental came back with a little lower cost than Michelin, but with few perceived advantages at the time. We felt Goodyear had a strong edge on predictive ability, had done well recently as noted and they came back with extremely aggressive pricing. We could not make a stronger argument for Michelin and Continental so the FGT program choose Goodyear for all of the reasons noted.
Not just cost. In the end, we McGowan, Walsh, White, Cullen and myself spent significant effort with Goodyear to achieve all of our targets. We were successful. A note on top speed ability, since this was mentioned on the Forum, incorrectly, as reasoning for the choice of Goodyear versus others.
None of them could make it at 32 psi. We set the overall widths based on performance and refinement including agility. We beat the F Modena, with ease, by 2 sec per 50 second lap, on our tiny handling track in which horsepower was not a factor because there are no straights. And the FGT is pounds heavier. All of us in development thought the F car was faster subjectively because it felt so on edge all of the time and took significant effort to go fast while keeping it from spinning out.
True synergy β make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. We call that a bucket of grip in racing. That is 1. These statements regarding tire width are backed up by the FGT versus F example and continually in the real world. However, all else is not equal β the Goodyears are a better wet weather tire and have more open treadβ¦less rubber on the road than the Bridgestone, which adds to the traction and grip deficiency of the stock Goodyears versus the Bridgestones, beyond the width deficiency.
