Interview with Hirohide Hamashima Part 208/09/2010

Hamashima time – Pt 2

Q: We know that in 1996 Bridgestone was developing an F1 tyre, but were there any investigations before this?

HH: Before 1996 we made an F1 tyre in secret. We were able to test this as F1 and F2 tyres are similar in size, apart from the F1 tyre being wider. We said that we were undertaking a ‘fundamental study of the radial racing tyre’ and we obtained a budget. With this budget we made an F1 tyre, but unfortunately we had no F1 car to test them on.

Q: When did you first test with a Formula 1 car?

HH: In November 1989, we used a modified Reynard Formula 3000 car with Paolo Ballira driving. At that time, Mugen liked to check the engine for Formula One so they modified a Formula 3000 car to the same size as Formula One. For this they needed tyres, so we provided Formula One tyres to Mugen, This also enabled us to check our performance. Later, in January 1992, we used a Tyrrell 020 Honda-Mugen with Aguri Suzuki driving.

Q: 1996 was supposed to be a test year. Was 1997 supposed to be a test year also?

HH: That was the original plan. In 1995 our board members made the decision that they would enter Formula 1 in 1998. The plan said we would test and develop our tyres in 1996 and 1997. After our first tests however, our test results were promising so Bridgestone’s president told us to ‘push, push’ and enter one year earlier than the plan said.

Q: For the first two years you were in competition with Goodyear? How was that? How difficult?

HH: For the first few races we had the advantage of durability and handling, grip. This meant that cars on our tyres performed well. However, in the second half of the season, there were many power circuits, and because we were only with mid-field teams we could not fight for victories.

Q: If you were with more powerful teams do you think there would have been better results?

HH: Maybe. Even with the situation we did make a big impression, especially in Hungary, where Damon Hill in the Arrows overtook Michael Schumacher in the Ferrari.

Q: It was not the best circuit for Goodyear then?

HH: That is correct as they had blistering for many teams. Unfortunately our tyres were not on the winning car because a small part failed. But we showed what an impact the tyres could have, and not only for a top team.

Q: How did you plan for the next season?

HH: Before 1998, we were a little bit worried about the teams. If we kept the same teams in 1998, I thought maybe we couldn’t win, if Goodyear set the tyre properly for each race, the top team’s performance would be too good. Fortunately, McLaren and Benetton came to our side, finally, so then we had good strong competitive teams using our tyres.

At the first race, Mike Häkkinen got pole position and then McLaren scored a 1-2 so the season started very well. By the mid-season Michael Schumacher and Ferrari with their Goodyear tyres were fighting back well, but by the European GP at Nurburgring, our tyre performance was strong. Mika maintained his points lead so that at Suzuka we won together, before going on to achieve the first championship win on Bridgestone tyres.

Q: How was that first time supplying all teams in 1999?

HH: By 1999 we learnt all the teams’ features, every one has a big and strong identity so it was interesting and a good time of learning for us.

Q: And the next season?

HH: At the beginning of 2000 there was a rumour Michelin would come back to F1, but we doubted that rumour as Michelin had a strong fundamental business in Europe. We were participating in F1 to increase our brand awareness. I thought Michelin did not need to come back to F1. If Michelin lost to Bridgestone then it is not good for them. But they made an entry, so at that time I was happy for the competition we would face. I remember big tension and pressure for us at that time.

Q: How was the competition?

HH: At that time we faced some difficulties but we enjoyed a very good battle of tyre development.

Q: If you look at the whole competition period up until 2006, what are the big memories you have?

HH: In 2006, we produced very good, almost ideal tyres, so the cars performed well. However, sometimes the cars had trouble so we couldn’t win the championship, but I think we showed better tyre performance than Michelin in that year.

Q: The final race in 2006 in Brazil, when Michael had a puncture early on and made his way through the field, does that show good tyre performance?

HH: Yes and Takuma, he was in a weak team, but he ran at almost the same speed as Michelin’s top team.

Q: What about the 2005 US Grand Prix at Indianapolis, that was an interesting race?

HH: Well in 2005 in the USA we were very scared for our tyres. If we had experienced any tyre troubles during the race, then Michelin could have run, as it would have given strength to the argument that the problem was with the track and not their tyres. But then we didn’t have any trouble during the race, so it could be said that Michelin made a mistake while we had focused on safety, meaning our tyres had no problems.

Q: Then Michelin withdrew, leaving Bridgestone in 2007 as sole supplier and then Bridgestone became official tyre supplier in 2008. What are your memories of this period?

HH: Of course, we could learn so many things from F1 teams. We gave fair service, fair treatment and also we stabilised production so this was a completely different opportunity between the competition period and one make period.

Q: And the competition is very close, do you learn more when the teams find it difficult to find performance and the teams use the tyres better and better?

HH: Personally, competition is better, it makes for quicker tyres and making a tyre when there is no competition is very difficult.

Q: All the lessons, if you look at everything learnt during Bridgestone’s time in Formula One, has it been a valuable time?

HH: Yes I think so. Our tyre simulation technology was established by Formula 1 and this assists us with the development of all our tyres. We also have very good technology for evaluating the surface of a circuit which is also very valuable for us. The compound technology we have learnt is applicable to low rolling resistance tyres. Our 14 years of study in F1 is now reflected in Bridgestone’s standard production.

Q: What are the new challenges for Bridgestone tyres? Rolling resistance? Recyclable? Green materials? Half weight tyre?

HH: Well, F1 tyres are very light and have good grip and good wear rates, so maybe we can still find good technology from F1 tyres, for normal road car tyres.

Q: So if you look back at all your motorsport experience what have been the biggest challenges?

HH: Fortunately we developed the tyre step by step, and all of this technology came together in our F1 tyres. Firstly, Formula 2 Japan, competing with a Japanese manufacturer was very hard but through this we made some very good technologies for producing tyre compounds.

Next was the Formula 2 Europe project. Here we learnt so much about racing operations from the Michelin system. In addition we learnt so many circuits and a variety of types of circuits, because in Japan at that time there was only Fuji, Suzuka, maybe only 3 or 4 circuits.

In Europe we had to fight on so many tracks, which enabled us to recognise our weak and strong points.

In Group C we learnt about centrifugal forces and how to cope with high powered cars. Then DTM taught us about handling with high power. Next, IndyCar gave us high centrifugal forces for the duration of the race.

This is a list, step by step, of all the lessons we needed to learn to make a good Formula One tyre. This meant that the final step to Formula One was not as big as it otherwise could have been. The building blocks were very good for Bridgestone as we have all seen from our success in Formula One over the last 14 years.