Michelin Bashing!!

[Toronto]

Please post all the Bashing you want, all the rants you want, and point all the fingers you want
Nobody Cares!!! :D

info here
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/200605-01.html
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/190605-02.html
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/190605-03.html
http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html

[SilviaEvo]

i think its gay because the site of the track calls the 360 a classic

[Toronto]

^^^ great first post, who you bashing?

[air_rjordan23]

himself I think :lol:



back on topic :

michelin suck and I really hope that next season we see a 1 make tire rule and that bridgestone are awarded the contract ... for sure michelin deserve to be kicked out as there is absolutely no excuse for them to be making the kind of mistakes as seen at the us gp.. they must have a few gajillion bytes of data from the bazillions of miles of testing carried out on their tires

DOWN WITH MICHELIN !!!!!!!!

:mrgreen:

[Sir_GT]

What excuse?

This was a show of strength to scare Bernie and Max. If the breakaway series does happen in case the talks in 2007 fall apart, who do you think the organisers/constructors (of the breakaway series) are going to choose as the sole tyre supplier?


It shore ain't gonna be bridgestone son.

[|Nuno|]

^^

Michelin said more than once that they're not interested in being a sole tyre supplier. They'll only stay if there's competition (or so they say). :wink:

[mindgam3]

I think it was (obviously) michelins fault that 14 cars could not go around turn 13 at high speed but I think it was the FIA's fault that the fiasco turned into a complete and utter disaster.

The fact is, on saturday night, it was obvious 14 cars could not compete properly in the race unless something was done. From then on the FIA should have made a decision that would enable 20 cars to be racing, for the sake of the fans. Whether it would be a championship race or not is a different matter.


It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.


And allowing 7 teams to run unsafe tyres would be the right thing to do? :?

[5vz-fe]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24932

Firestone rubbing it in for Michelin

[graywolf624]

The fact is, on saturday night, it was obvious 14 cars could not compete properly in the race unless something was done. From then on the FIA should have made a decision that would enable 20 cars to be racing, for the sake of the fans. Whether it would be a championship race or not is a different matter.

How else could it be fair to those who were prepared other then the options FIA gave?

Say you joe schmoe studied really hard for a test that would decide how much you make next year. Meanwhile 6 other people didnt study for that same test. How would you feel if we changed the test to something completely irrelevant that you might not have studdied for to help those 6?

[mindgam3]

The fact is, on saturday night, it was obvious 14 cars could not compete properly in the race unless something was done. From then on the FIA should have made a decision that would enable 20 cars to be racing, for the sake of the fans. Whether it would be a championship race or not is a different matter.

How else could it be fair to those who were prepared other then the options FIA gave?

Say you joe schmoe studied really hard for a test that would decide how much you make next year. Meanwhile 6 other people didnt study for that same test. How would you feel if we changed the test to something completely irrelevant that you might not have studdied for to help those 6?

Run the race with 20 cars and the chicane and possibly just allow bridgestone runners to gain championship points whilst the rest is the decided for the french quali.

On saturday night, the FIA knew that michelin teams could not run as it is. They had ages to sort something out.

They could not see the bigger picture: championship points was the least of their worries. If 20 cars had run the situation would be a lot less worse. Michelin made a mistake yes, but michelin can't be held responsible for F1 as a sport - its the governing bodies problem and they didn't sort it.

What would happen if michelin was the only tyre supplier? Would no cars run at all?

[graywolf624]

Run the race with 20 cars and the chicane and possibly just allow bridgestone runners to gain championship points whilst the rest is the decided for the french quali.

Isn't telling the other teams to keep there speeds down or stop alot the same thing as not allowing them points, just self mandated?

[Sir_GT]

^^

Michelin said more than once that they're not interested in being a sole tyre supplier. They'll only stay if there's competition (or so they say). :wink:

And Microsoft wouldn't want to exist if Apple Mac wasn't around?

C'mon mate, you know that no competition claim is just rubbish.

[|Nuno|]

^^

Note the "or so they say". :wink:


But I believe that we'll see the whole grid on Bridgestones in a couple of years. Even more after Indy.

[mindgam3]

http://www.minardi.it/press/dettaglio.asp?IDComunicato=1875&LN=UK&IDGara=&IDComunicatiTipo=

"Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.


While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, affect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.


Background
For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday’s United States Grand Prix.


The Facts
Friday, June 17
I noticed that Ricardo Zonta’s Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumacher’s accident, both on the monitors, and more significantly, I could see what took place from my position on the pit wall. This necessitated a red flag, and in the numerous replays on the monitors, it looked very much like the cause of the accident was a punctured rear tyre.


Throughout the afternoon, numerous people in the paddock suggested it was a tyre failure and commented that it was similar to the serious accident which befell Ralf Schumacher during the 2004 US Grand Prix. Later that evening was the first time I was aware of a potential problem with the Michelin tyres at this event. In all honesty, I didn’t pay a great deal of attention, as our team is on Bridgestone tyres.


Saturday, June 18
On arriving at the circuit, the word throughout the paddock was that there was a potential problem with the rear tyres supplied to all Michelin teams for this event, and it became evident as the first and second sessions were run that most of the affected teams were being very conservative with the amount of on-track running they were doing. In addition, Toyota announced that it had substituted Ricardo Zonta for Ralf Schumacher, who would take no further part in the event. Speculation was rife in the paddock that some Michelin teams might not take part in qualifying. Also, during the practice session, I was informed there would be a Team Principals’ meeting with Bernie Ecclestone at 1430 hrs after qualifying, which I incorrectly assumed would centre around the Michelin issue.


Qualifying took place, and indeed, all 20 cars qualified for Sunday’s Grand Prix.


At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise, and in fairness, it was not discussed in any great detail. I personally found this strange, but as I have stated, it did not affect Minardi directly, and therefore I had no reason to pursue the matter.


Throughout Saturday evening, there was considerable speculation in the paddock that the tyre issue was much more serious than at first thought, and people were talking about a fresh shipment of tyres being flown overnight from France, and what penalty the Michelin teams would take should those tyres be used. By the time I left the paddock, people were taking bets on Minardi and Jordan scoring points!


Later that evening, I checked with our Sporting Director on what developments had occurred, and was told that the issue was indeed very serious, and the possibility existed that the Michelin teams would not take part in the race.


Sunday, June 19
I arrived at the circuit at 0815 hrs, only to find the paddock was buzzing with stories suggesting the Michelin teams would be unable to take part in the Grand Prix. I was then handed a copy of correspondence between Michelin, the FIA, and the Michelin teams that revealed the true extent of the problem. By now, journalists were asking if Minardi would agree to a variation of the regulations to allow the Michelin teams to compete, and what penalties I felt would be appropriate.



A planned Minardi press briefing took place at 0930 hrs, and as it was ending, I was summoned to an urgent meeting, along with Jordan, with Bernie Ecclestone, the two most senior Michelin representatives present at the circuit, IMS President Tony George, Team Principals, and technical representatives from the Michelin teams. At this meeting, Michelin, to its credit, admitted that the tyres available were unable to complete a race distance around the Indianapolis circuit without a change to the track configuration, so as to reduce the speed coming out of the last turn onto the banking. Much background information was provided as to the enormous efforts that Michelin, with support from its teams, had undertaken in the preceding 48 hours to try and resolve the problem, but it was clear that all those efforts had failed to produce a suitable solution that wouldn’t involve support from the non-Michelin teams, and ultimately, the FIA.


What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to the only sensible solution – a chicane. During this discussion, a technical representative with specific knowledge of the Indianapolis circuit, together with representatives from IMS, were tasked with preparing the design of a chicane, and Bernie Ecclestone agreed to speak with the one Team Principal not present, Mr Todt, and to inform the FIA President, Max Mosley, who was not present at Indianapolis, of the planned solution to allow the successful running of the US Grand Prix. With only a few hours now remaining to the start of the race, we agreed to reconvene as soon as Bernie had responses from Messrs Todt and Mosley.


At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith. These words had a familiar tone to me, as they were similar to those I had heard around midnight on the Friday preceding the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, when I was told by all the senior FIA representatives present that the Australian Grand Prix would be cancelled forthwith if I did not withdraw pending legal action between Minardi and the FIA. Once again, Mr Mosley was not present at that Grand Prix! It is fair to say at this point that the vast majority of people present in the room both felt and stated that Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence.


By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non-championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur.


By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his team and drivers to conduct themselves in the spirit of providing an entertaining race for the good of Formula One.


At this point, we called for all 20 drivers, and indeed, all 20 arrived, at which point we informed them of our plan. While I cannot testify that each and every driver agreed with what we were proposing, what I can say with certainty is that no driver disagreed, and indeed, members of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association discussed overseeing the construction of a suitable chicane. Jean Todt was the only significant team individual not present, and the Ferrari drivers stated this decision was up to Mr Todt.


I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster.


After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters.


I’m sure this sentence will be treated with contempt by Mr Mosley, but what must be realised is that there are various reasons that other Team Principals, and the most senior people in Formula One, will not say publicly what they openly feel privately about Mr Mosley, his politics and his governance of the sport. There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history.


Discussions then took place concerning the other telephone calls with Mr Mosley from, among others, Bernie Ecclestone, Ron Dennis and Tony George, and it was clearly revealed to what extent Mr Mosley was prepared to go in order to achieve his aims. To my total disgust, it was stated that Mosley had informed Mr Martin, the FIA’s most senior representative in the USA, that if any kind of non-championship race was run, or any alteration made to the circuit, the US Grand Prix, and indeed, all FIA-regulated motorsport in the US, would be under threat – again, exactly the same tactic that was used in threatening the Australian Grand Prix and Australian motorsport in March of this year.


By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix.


At this point, the pit lane had opened and a hasty discussion took place concerning whether or not the Michelin teams would go to the grid. A radio had been delivered to me by team personnel at this stage, and I was able to know which cars were going to the grid. It is interesting to note that the Jordan Team Principal was not present at this time, and indeed, it was the Jordans that first proceeded to the grid, followed by the Ferraris. After discussion with Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed the Michelin teams would go to the grid, but were absolutely prevented from participating in the race because of the tyre situation.


We then proceeded to the grid, at which point I asked Jordan’s Colin Kolles if he intended to stand by the other teams or participate in the race. In no uncertain terms, I was told Jordan would be racing. I was also approached by a Bridgestone representative, who informed me that Bridgestone wished us to race. This left me with one of the most difficult decisions I have had to take during my time in F1, as I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not. I made it clear to Bernie Ecclestone, and several Team Principals, that if the Jordans either went off or retired, I would withdraw the Minardi cars from the race.


It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt.


For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.


Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation.


Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!


Paul Stoddart
June 20, 2005"

[jakaracman]

Bullshit ...
They could have changet tires every 10 ten laps and raced ...

[loliea]

No test were done to prove that the tires could safely last 10 laps. Maybe a pit stop every lap could have done it? :wink:

Anyway, even if the show was damaged, I still think that Michelin did the right thing: safety first.

[jakaracman]

Michelin said to FIA that they would last 10 laps.
Annd no, they diod not do the right thing. They shoud have provided the show, even if they need to stop every 10 laps ...

[mindgam3]

The 10 laps would have to of encoporated a chicane or speed restrictions. They couldn't guarantee they'd last 10 laps

[jakaracman]

Did you read all the letters between Michelin and FIA? Michelin stated that the tires would be OK for 10 laps at full speed ...

[mindgam3]

Did you read all the letters between Michelin and FIA? Michelin stated that the tires would be OK for 10 laps at full speed ...

Which ones? The ones linked to at the top of the page? Michelin do not say anywhere that they can gurantee the tires for 10 laps.

I highly doubt this would be a reasonable solution and that michelin would have this as an option as its risking life. When they know the forces generated in the corner are enough to destroy a tyre it would be ridiculous to let teams race at full pace for any number of laps.

Anyhow, Michelin and its partner teams, 2 bridgestone teams, FOM (formula one management), IMS (indianapolis motorspeed way) representitives were all willing to compromise to get a race underway. It was only the FIA (in the form of max mosley, who wasn't even there!) and jean todt that were getting in the way of having a race in some shape or form....

[loliea]

Provide the show, but not at all cost. Honestly you want to see crashes, wounded and dead people don't watch F1 but buy one of these DVDs about Car Crashes... or even watch NASCAR, you are sure to see at least 5 spectacular crashes per race (that's why it's so popular in USA where show is king).

F1 is not a show, it is a respectable sport where the primary objective is to go faster than the other competitor. The show is a plus.

[graywolf624]

The ones linked to at the top of the page? Michelin do not say anywhere that they can gurantee the tires for 10 laps.
The official wording wasnt a guarentee, it was a they will only.. Not implying they were safe for 10 laps but rather theres no way theyll reach 90 laps.

Sorry but changing the course which is far more dangerous then driving the cars within what tires will handle is not a compromise.

They drive all the time at 5/10 to conserve fuel or tires. They should have been willing to do that.

[mindgam3]

The ones linked to at the top of the page? Michelin do not say anywhere that they can gurantee the tires for 10 laps.
The official wording wasnt a guarentee, it was a they will only.. Not implying they were safe for 10 laps but rather theres no way theyll reach 90 laps.


Thats what I thought


Sorry but changing the course which is far more dangerous then driving the cars within what tires will handle is not a compromise.


Even if 20 drivers, 9 team principals and all the significant heads of bodies bar Max Mosley seem to think its the best solution for what they were given?

If the FIA had acted when they first knew michelin weren't going to be able to run they would have had plenty of time to build and test the chicane.....

Just as much hassle in that as there is fitting FIA speed monitors to each car and limiting their speed and IMO causing a more dangerous situation. And what speed would you set? Michelin wouldn't know the speeds that set a boundary between a lasting tyre and a devastating failure would lie.

[jakaracman]

You dont get it, do you. The rules are rules and You dont change a course, especially i 2 days. The prescribed process tkes much longer (inspections, simulations, technical inspectpns, new safety plans etc ... then issuing of new homologation). Plus: then you have a problem with brakes (1 more hard braking a lap than planned, so brakes have to be different) plus a libility prob if anyone crashes in chichane.
There's no need for speed monitors, there's telemetry ...
How much would the tires alst at full speed?
"Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the
affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left
rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed)."
So change it at 9 (or 2, if you're really worried) ...
How much would they need to reduce speed? Michelin engineers said forces would have to be reduced somwhere between 10 and 20%, which is 10-20 mph less ...
Let's get one thing sztraight: there are rules to follow and sloution has to be within rules. Chichane isn't, boycotitng isn't, however reducing speed and changing tires is ...
It's sad to see JW member falling so easily to Michelin PR ... Instead of debaitnk how bad Michelin tires are, we're debating FIA ... Exactly what they wanted.

[mindgam3]

You dont get it, do you. The rules are rules and You dont change a course, especially i 2 days. The prescribed process tkes much longer (inspections, simulations, technical inspectpns, new safety plans etc ... then issuing of new homologation). Plus: then you have a problem with brakes (1 more hard braking a lap than planned, so brakes have to be different) plus a libility prob if anyone crashes in chichane.
There's no need for speed monitors, there's telemetry ...


They wouldn't let it be done by telemetry as it is team data, and as we saw from BAR's fuel tank case, it just doesen't cut the mustard apparently :P


How much would the tires alst at full speed?
"Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the
affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left
rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed)."
So change it at 9 (or 2, if you're really worried) ...


That was just a suggestion from michelin, they couldn't gurantee it. There was no way they could possibly gurantee a tyre even for one lap at high speed around turn 13.


How much would they need to reduce speed? Michelin engineers said forces would have to be reduced somwhere between 10 and 20%, which is 10-20 mph less ...
Let's get one thing sztraight: there are rules to follow and sloution has to be within rules. Chichane isn't, boycotitng isn't, however reducing speed and changing tires is ...
It's sad to see JW member falling so easily to Michelin PR ... Instead of debaitnk how bad Michelin tires are, we're debating FIA ... Exactly what they wanted.

lol, the rules state that you cannot have pitstops to change the tyre so how is that not following the rules? :P

They did not boycott the race. Michelin said they could not race under the circumstances and their is no way you can send your drivers out to race with unsuitable equipment.

What would happen if say brembo who supply a few teams said they're brakes were faulty and suggested to the teams they could not run in the race? Would you let your drivers go out with brakes that are likely to fail? I highly doubt it.

When you're at the edge of research you have to expect mistakes: thats why we get engine blow ups, brake blow ups etc...

Michelin made a mistake, yes they've accepted full responsibility for it and refunded and paid for next seasons tickets.

But you are not looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is not the rulebook. After michelin said they're tyres were not going to make turn 13 it was all about damage limitation for F1.

Max stuck to the rules and look what happened, F1 has been seriously degraded in the states where the majority of the teams income comes from and where they can potentially increase viewing figures and hence profit dramatically..... fat chance of that now.

If there had been a 20 car race under some circumstance, the whole situation would be a lot less worse.

Max Mosley and the FIA are a bunch of pricks. And ultimately this FIAsco is down to the new rules which are potentially lethal - see Raikonnens crash the other week; all down to the fact that he couldn't change his tyre.

The FIA charging the teams is a complete farse too. How the fuck was it their fault they couldnt run?

They were found:

guilty of failing to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix; but with strong, mitigating circumstances;

* guilty of wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race, having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap;

* not guilty of refusing to race subject to a speed restriction, having regard to the absence of any detailed plan for this;

* not guilty of combining to make a demonstration for the reason that they had hoped to race until the last minute;

* not guilty of failing to inform the Stewards of their intention not to start (Article 131) for the same reason.

In relation to the finding that they failed to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres, the Teams point out that they reasonably relied on Michelin, an approved FIA tyre supplier and a highly reputable manufacturer of tyres worldwide, to provide suitable tyres for that race. As Michelin have already acknowledged, they were responsible for the supply of unsuitable tyres for the Indianapolis circuit. The FIA's decision accepts that there were “strong mitigating circumstances” for the Teams. In truth, those circumstances provided a complete answer to the charge, given that the Teams cannot be held responsible for what occurred.

In relation to the finding that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap, the Teams respond as follows. The charges suggested only one means by which the Teams could safely have raced (the use of a speed restriction). On that charge, the Teams were found not guilty. The Teams cannot understand how they can be found guilty by reference to another proposed solution, which was not part of the charges brought against them, which was not suggested by the FIA at Indianapolis, which was considered unsafe and which, in any event, would not have achieved a satisfactory race for the fans.

Roll on GPWC

[graywolf624]

Even if 20 drivers, 9 team principals and all the significant heads of bodies bar Max Mosley seem to think its the best solution for what they were given?

If the FIA had acted when they first knew michelin weren't going to be able to run they would have had plenty of time to build and test the chicane.....

It still wouldnt have been safe, do you have any concept of the dificulty of installing a chicane and how setup those cars are to a given track. that would be way more dangerous.

, the rules state that you cannot have pitstops to change the tyre so how is that not following the rules?
Actually no.. they state they cant be changed except for safety reasons(which this would be) without penalty.


What would happen if say brembo who supply a few teams said they're brakes were faulty and suggested to the teams they could not run in the race? Would you let your drivers go out with brakes that are likely to fail? I highly doubt it.
Maybe bridgestone should have sold them some extras;).. That would have been allowed with penalty but michilin would have taken it in the ass.

At the end of the day the rule book had nothing to do with the failure to run. It had to do with michilin being completely incompetant as there tires couldnt even run what they ran the year before.
Solution wise the only solution would be for the f1 cars to control there speeds, as a chicane would have been dangerous period.. read a book on how long it takes to design a course to get a bad idea of how bad it would be... someone would almost definitly have died, and it might have been the crowd.

[loliea]

This is non sense. Let me remind you that this is a speed competition, if you can't compete safely why should you attend?
For this GP the FIA was again very slow and not creative in finding solutions. They knew since the crash of Shumacher that something was wrong with the tires. Michelin reacted immediately shipping another set of tires. What did the FIA did? NOTHING... They had one idea: the speed limitation that was an absurdity because dangerous (one line in turn 13 some cars going at 190mph and others at 150... ok if there is no competition otherwise it's dangerous...).

Their only moment of creativity was this week, giving interviews to the press, releasing statement and insulting a company that has much more experience in sport auto than they do.

They have already proved their inaptitude in managing the FIA: they killed two great series (DTM and GT) without counting the near death of Rally and other series. They are killing little by little F1: the interest of the F1 races is declining since they are behind the cash register (look at the numbers), the regulation is a non sense, the coverage is weak (look at the stat you have during an Indy or Nascar race and then watch F1 you will see the difference)...).

In few words: Michelin did a mistake, but the FIA is not helping.

[graywolf624]

Michelin reacted immediately shipping another set of tires.
How much did that help... those tires sucked too.

[loliea]

These tires were safe, not made for this track but were ok. The major problem again was the ... FIA who got up from its throne and proclaimed: "THEIR WILL BE SANCTIONS..."

[graywolf624]

These tires were safe, not made for this track but were ok. The major problem again was the ... FIA who got up from its throne and proclaimed: "THEIR WILL BE SANCTIONS..."
Safe for someother track is not safe for the track they are at.. What are they supposed to do, move the race to laguna seca?

The second set of tires had the very same problem with binding the first set had.

[loliea]

The second set of tires had the very same problem with binding the first set had.

No tests were made. If Michelin did the necessary to have these tire from the GP of Barcelona being shipped as a solution they must have been ok (Barcelona is a very demanding track for tires with a very abrasive tarmac). Teams were ready to test them but the FIA said "THEIR WILL BE SANCTIONS..."

[graywolf624]

No tests were made. If Michelin did the necessary to have these tire from the GP of Barcelona being shipped as a solution they must have been ok (Barcelona is a very demanding track for tires with a very abrasive tarmac). Teams were ready to test them but the FIA said "THEIR WILL BE SANCTIONS..."
Incorrect entirely.

The tires dropped in on saturday Michilin themselves said did not meet the binding requirements and had the very same problems. FIA said they could run a change of tire with penalty if they werent found to be unsafe.. That isnt a sanction, thats a situation where theres a cost for being unprepared(probably either a drive through or start from the pits.). But it didnt matter cause michilin had no alternative.

[mindgam3]

Actually no.. they state they cant be changed except for safety reasons(which this would be) without penalty.


Thats debatable as a deteriation in sidewall strength would not neccesarily be as easily detectable as say no tread on the tyre. Bringing the car in every lap to change tyres would hardly be a race now would it?


Maybe bridgestone should have sold them some extras;).. That would have been allowed with penalty but michilin would have taken it in the ass.

At the end of the day the rule book had nothing to do with the failure to run. It had to do with michilin being completely incompetant as there tires couldnt even run what they ran the year before.

The tyres this year are completely different from last year. The aerodynamic "bouncing" which is what caused the tyre failures is due to the lower amount of downforce created this year.

Michelin created a harder tread but to try and give the same properties as last year, softened the sidewall. They should have taken into account this aerodynamic bounce due to the banking but made a mistake. There was little to no evidence they could go on from previous years as aerodynamically, this year the cars are fundamentally diferent.

[loliea]

The tires dropped in on saturday Michilin themselves said did not meet the binding requirements and had the very same problems.

Where did you get this info? Reference?

Anyway, even if this is correct it wouldn't have solve the safety issue and thus Michelin (with an "e" in the middle :wink: ) did the right thing declaring it was unsafe to race.

Again YES they did a mistake I am not denying that, but I am also saying that the FIA didn't try (and rush) to find a solution that would have satisfied everybody. In fact it seems that they are happy about what happen as they are trying to give the tap of next year GP to Michelin...

[graywolf624]

Thats debatable as a deteriation in sidewall strength would not neccesarily be as easily detectable as say no tread on the tyre. Bringing the car in every lap to change tyres would hardly be a race now would it?


Run at half speed then, as they do any time they have a tire issue...
The point is changing the track wasnt a solution and michilin didnt have a tire that would work for the race track regardless of tire rules.

The tyres this year are completely different from last year. The aerodynamic "bouncing" which is what caused the tyre failures is due to the lower amount of downforce created this year.
Maybe so, but then again the down force could have been adjusted as well.

If bridgestone could do it so could michilin.. if I were a michilin team I would have considered michilin in breach of contract and made a deal then and there to run bridgestones that day.

[5vz-fe]

The tires dropped in on saturday Michilin themselves said did not meet the binding requirements and had the very same problems.

Where did you get this info? Reference?

Anyway, even if this is correct it wouldn't have solve the safety issue and thus Michelin (with an "e" in the middle :wink: ) did the right thing declaring it was unsafe to race.

Again YES they did a mistake I am not denying that, but I am also saying that the FIA didn't try (and rush) to find a solution that would have satisfied everybody. In fact it seems that they are happy about what happen as they are trying to give the tap of next year GP to Michelin...

Satisfy everybody??

They are currently saying that with speed limit on Michelin runners and no-limit on Bridgestone would also create safety concerns.

"4. Not all cars would have been subject to the speed restriction. At least 6 cars would have been going through Turn 13 as fast as possible i.e. over 320 km per hour. The other cars - if they all complied - would have had to slow suddenly going into the Turn, travel at a much slower speed through the Turn and then accelerate back to racing speed."

IMO, that is complete BS, Bridgestone driver will be aware of that fact and may take another line or something.......if F1 drivers can't deal with these then they may as well go into NASCAR

[graywolf624]

Where did you get this info? Reference?
Read the info from the race.. Im not going to dig it up cause Im on vacation, but check the f1 usgp thread in this forum.. Id guess its one of the first 10 pages. lol

FIA didn't try (and rush) to find a solution that would have satisfied everybody.
I find the offer to help michilin teams keep down there speeds in this area of the track a more then satisfactory solution. It isnt fias fault that those teams refused to race without a rule breaking unsafe last minute change to the track that could hurt both drivers and spectators.

[loliea]

There was little to no evidence they could go on from previous years as aerodynamically, this year the cars are fundamentally diferent.

... and the fact that the track has been resurfaced with a more abrasive compound (about which Bridgestone had data about as Firestone supplied the Indy 500 race).

[graywolf624]

... and the fact that the track has been resurfaced with a more abrasive compound (about which Bridgestone had data about as Firestone supplied the Indy 500 race).
As reported here previously.. Firestone said that in the Indy 500 race they used the same tires as last year and saw less wear... Kinda rips that a new one.

[loliea]

I find the offer to help michilin teams keep down there speeds in this area of the track a more then satisfactory solution.
Not really. It was a dangerous solution there was only “one line” in turn 13 and with some cars going at 190mph and others at 150mph it would have been dangerous...
and anyway this solution would have generated tons and tons of problem as it would have been tricky to check the speed in a curve (for a speed radar you have to face the car exactly, and with taking the time between two line you have to incorporate the position of the car in the curve...) and thus it would have lead to lots of complain, appeal... everything that the FIA loves! (Remember when the speed limits were imposed in the pit?)

[loliea]

... and the fact that the track has been resurfaced with a more abrasive compound (about which Bridgestone had data about as Firestone supplied the Indy 500 race).
As reported here previously.. Firestone said that in the Indy 500 race they used the same tires as last year and saw less wear... Kinda rips that a new one.

It doesn't mean that the pressure on the tire is identical, but rather that thanks to the additional grip, there is less skid, more grip and greater constrains on the tire.
Still they were able to acquire more data that Michelin didn’t have access to.

[graywolf624]

Not really. It was a dangerous solution there was only “one line” in turn 13 and with some cars going at 190mph and others at 150mph it would have been dangerous...
and anyway this solution would have generated tons and tons of problem as it would have been tricky to check the speed in a curve (for a speed radar you have to face the car exactly, and with taking the time between two line you have to incorporate the position of the car in the curve...) and thus it would have lead to lots of complain, appeal... everything that the FIA loves! (Remember when the speed limits were imposed in the pit?)
Why would it be more dangerous? They do it all the time.. Ive heard that arguement 2x now with nothing to back it up. It happens every lap with minardi and jordan on the track, and thats ignoring situations where they baby tires cause of problems and things. As for tracking speed, not that hard if the teams enforce it on their own cars, just watch the revs.

It doesn't mean that the pressure on the tire is identical, but rather that thanks to the additional grip, there is less skid, more grip and greater constrains on the tire.
Still they were able to acquire more data that Michelin didn’t have access to.
Pressure on the tire, what the hell are you pratting on about. It means there was less friction on the tire.. Less friction means less heat.. The heat is what caused the issue with binding.
Michelin didnt bother to do optional testing on indy unlike bridgestone, that prolly has alot to do with it as well.

[loliea]

For the speed limit the problem is not to respect it, but to monitor it. Do you really think that the FIA are going to trust the team on that?
On each track there is a clean line. When you are outside this line during a curve you have less grip because of more dust, debris, the track is colder... that could result in lost of control. At 150 mph I wouldn't try it especially with aerodynamic disturbance coming from the car that is passing you ... Would you?

For the tire failure I think you are wrong about the head thing. mindgam3 said it earlier and Dupasquier said it again today, the failure was caused by miscalculation of the bouncing factor primarily, not the heat. (http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050701195517.shtml)

[graywolf624]

For the speed limit the problem is not to respect it, but to monitor it. Do you really think that the FIA are going to trust the team on that?
On each track there is a clean line. When you are outside this line during a curve you have less grip because of more dust, debris, the track is colder... that could result in lost of control. At 150 mph I wouldn't try it especially with aerodynamic disturbance coming from the car that is passing you ... Would you?

Why would the fia need to monitor it.. They dont monitor when a team limps around track to save fuel or the tire. Its on the team, as is there requirement to be safe.
As for the clean line.. There is more then one clean line across that section of the track. Its a nascar straight, they usually go 3 abreast there. Not to mention we are talking slower speeds here, which means less grip and traction is required. Regularly Ive been passed doing 60-80 on a race track by someone doing double that.. take a spec miata to a track day and youll experience it every time. What you just stated would insinuate that passing is never safe which is bullshit.


For the tire failure I think you are wrong about the head thing. mindgam3 said it earlier and Dupasquier said it again today, the failure was caused by miscalculation of the bouncing factor primarily, not the heat.
You clearly have no understanding of how tires work. The bounding factor created more friction and thus more heat leading to failure in binding. We are saying the same thing. The calculation of the buildup of heat in the tire is the calculation that was thrown off. The binding glue heated up beyond its operating temperature.. Giving way under the forces and causing a blowout.

[5vz-fe]

For the speed limit the problem is not to respect it, but to monitor it. Do you really think that the FIA are going to trust the team on that?
On each track there is a clean line. When you are outside this line during a curve you have less grip because of more dust, debris, the track is colder... that could result in lost of control. At 150 mph I wouldn't try it especially with aerodynamic disturbance coming from the car that is passing you ... Would you?

If what u are saying is true, then all car will be crashing out during the Friday pratice. A clean line is created when cars repeatedly go over that line and taking away the dirts and stuff. If the faster bridgestone cars keep running on a different line, there will be a seperate clean line for bridgestone runners. Drivers are not machines, they will and can adapt to changing conditions.

[loliea]

I am not saying that you should crash if you are not using the clean line (!!!), I am just saying that you have more chance of losing control... The further you go away from this line, less grip you have and more rubber debris (espacially during the race where the traffic is more dense than durring practice... well normally...). And that's what I am talking about: if you are not on the clean line, the car doesn't stick as well and can eventually lead to a lost of control. I am using "eventually". I have used "could" before. The lost of control is not automatic, it depends wether you go over the limit.

What you just stated would insinuate that passing is never safe which is bullshit
For the aerodynamic effect, I wouldn't compare Nascar, your car (even my car :wink: ) to the aerodynamic of a F1. Cart and Indy yes: they are open wheels car, with big wings and ground effect.

You clearly have no understanding of how tires work.
Peace men... I do, I even have a degree to prove it

[graywolf624]

The lost of control is not automatic, it depends wether you go over the limit.

Yes but as discussed before michilin teams wont be over the limit... and the bridgestone cars will create their own line. The clean line is where people drive period.

For the aerodynamic effect, I wouldn't compare Nascar, your car (even my car ) to the aerodynamic of a F1. Cart and Indy yes: they are open wheels car, with big wings and ground effect.
The air isnt gonna lift the other car off the ground or throw it off that much.. Itll effect it but your overestimateing. Yet again f1 cars do it almost every race for 1 or 2 cars.. Minardi and Jordan are often this far off the pace.

Peace men... I do, I even have a degree to prove it

Then why are you sitting here arguing against what Im telling you about the heat causing bindings to fail and how it relates to the suspension and aerodynamic modifications throwing off the calculations of heat. Besides this being exactly what michelin stated, its also a given related to binding failures. Also which degree is a degree in tire engineering?

[loliea]

The lost of control is not automatic, it depends wether you go over the limit.
Yes but as discussed before michilin teams wont be over the limit
It's a competition. Put yourself in the seat of the pilot: if it's good at 150 maybe it will be ok at 151, 155, 160 ... then bang the accident. Even if they are regulated, in the heat of the competition they will be tempted to cross this limit.

The air isnt gonna lift the other car off the ground or throw it off that much..
We have seen F1 taking off with a little help... BUT that's not what I was talking about: when you are in the air cone of the car in front of you you have almost not turbulence. When you are outside you have the normal weather turbulence (wind...) but in between when you are at the edge of the cone it is hell you get tons of turbulence that modify heavily the behavior of your car.

Then why are you sitting here arguing against what Im telling you about the heat causing bindings to fail and how it relates to the suspension and aerodynamic modifications throwing off the calculations of heat. Besides this being exactly what michelin stated, its also a given related to binding failures.
Again peace, don't hate me ... :lying: we are just talking as F1 fan.
I don't know where you are getting this info about heat (and I have looking so if you have the url I would appreciate), but a failure can also be caused by other reason: vibration, high pressure, friction, punction... Michelin didn't talk about heat but about extreme load on the tire which could mean anything. (:arrow: Result of the investigation (http://www.michelin.com/corporate/actualites/en/actu_affich.jsp?id=15484&lang=EN&codeRubrique=4))

Also which degree is a degree in tire engineering?
:?: tire engineering... Don't know if it's supposed to be funny or insulting. :hmm:

[jakaracman]

They wouldn't let it be done by telemetry as it is team data,
Oh yes, they would, The're reqiured by rules to let FIA check ANY telemetry data.


That was just a suggestion from michelin, they couldn't gurantee it. There was no way they could possibly gurantee a tyre even for one lap at high speed around turn 13.
They told their teams that tires would last 10 laps. Thats enough for me.


lol, the rules state that you cannot have pitstops to change the tyre so how is that not following the rules? :P
From the FIA leter to michelin:
"Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty."
So no penatlty if they chage the tire after number of laps specified by Michelin.

What would happen if say brembo who supply a few teams said they're brakes were faulty and suggested to the teams they could not run in the race? Would you let your drivers go out with brakes that are likely to fail? I highly doubt it.
As there's no rule about 2 sets of brakes that would not be a problem.

Michelin made a mistake, yes they've accepted full responsibility for it and refunded and paid for next seasons tickets.
They did not accept resposibility, if they would, they'd advise the teams to race with reduced speed and then tell the world that that was neccessary because they mahe danegrous tires. Instead they chose to play a PR game and diver attention (and, by the way, destroy a race). They should also pay not only for tickets, but also a ciompensation for ruined race. About 100.000 US$ per spectator would be OK ...

But you are not looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is not the rulebook. After michelin said they're tyres were not going to make turn 13 it was all about damage limitation for F1.
You can only limit damage wizthin the rules.

Max Mosley and the FIA are a bunch of pricks.
I agree with that 100%, but in this case they were right

And ultimately this FIAsco is down to the new rules which are potentially lethal - see Raikonnens crash the other week; all down to the fact that he couldn't change his tyre.
These are the rules all teams agreed to. If only one said no to them, they would not be passed (concorde...). So don't blame just FIA.

The FIA charging the teams is a complete farse too. How the fuck was it their fault they couldnt run?
They signed contracts that they would run. Now it's teams thing to sort it out with michelin. That's how legal system works. You sign the contract, you have to fulfill you obligations.

PLUS there's a thing you're forgetting: they did not brig 1 type of deadly tires, they brought 2 types. They were reminded by FIA few week before the race to always bring 1 100% reliable type - and play any games they want with the other. That way there's a backup exactly for situations like this. But no, those french idiots brought 2 types of unsuitable tires. How stupid can you get? :?

[jakaracman]

The second set of tires had the very same problem with binding the first set had.

No tests were made. If Michelin did the necessary to have these tire from the GP of Barcelona being shipped as a solution they must have been ok (Barcelona is a very demanding track for tires with a very abrasive tarmac). Teams were ready to test them but the FIA said "THEIR WILL BE SANCTIONS..."
FIA stated hat those sanction would very probaly not include wxclusion - so they'd just add time or make na big$$$ fdine or both. But it didn't Matter, because that tires again proved that Michelin can't make tires.

[loliea]

But it didn't Matter, because that tires again proved that Michelin can't make tires.
Yep but they are more beautiful than the Bridgestone :lol: ... and accessory they won more World Championship than any other tire manufacturer every car competition included (for F1 alone I don't know, they were competiting against Pirelli in the 80s and early 90s and I guess before in the 60s and 70s. Maybe on the 50s too...).

[graywolf624]

It's a competition. Put yourself in the seat of the pilot: if it's good at 150 maybe it will be ok at 151, 155, 160 ... then bang the accident. Even if they are regulated, in the heat of the competition they will be tempted to cross this limit.
First one could argue the same thing when they ease the cars around in any race when cars or damaged.. Also if its a competition then that means that bridgestone should not have race dumbed down to allow michelin to compete with them.

We have seen F1 taking off with a little help... BUT that's not what I was talking about: when you are in the air cone of the car in front of you you have almost not turbulence. When you are outside you have the normal weather turbulence (wind...) but in between when you are at the edge of the cone it is hell you get tons of turbulence that modify heavily the behavior of your car.
Still isnt all that dangerous, happens constantly every race.


I don't know where you are getting this info about heat (and I have looking so if you have the url I would appreciate), but a failure can also be caused by other reason: vibration, high pressure, friction, punction... Michelin didn't talk about heat but about extreme load on the tire which could mean anything.
Read the f1 thread again. The failure was due to the glue in the binding givng way. This was caused by heat due to added stress not calculated. They stated this clearly from the very begining. The investigation is clearly to determine why there was added heat causing failure of the glue.


tire engineering... Don't know if it's supposed to be funny or insulting.
Its called in this country theres no such thing. You can be a tire engineer but that isnt a degree. The degree would probably be a me... The guy who I am ats house at the moment is a tire engineer.

[5vz-fe]

Teams offer to stage Indy re-run

The Formula One teams who pulled out of last month's US Grand Prix over tyre safety concerns have offered to stage a non-championship race at Indianapolis.

Furious fans saw a six-car parade led by Ferrari on 19 June after the seven Michelin-supplied teams pulled out.

Michelin have already offered to buy 20,000 tickets for the 2006 US Grand Prix to be given to this year's fans.

But the teams have put an offer to race on 23 October to Indianapolis boss Tony George via F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone.

Renault, McLaren, BAR, Williams, Red Bull, Toyota and Sauber all followed Michelin's advice not to race because no changes were made to the circuit following the tyre failure that lead to Ralf Schumacher's smash in Friday practice.


Schumacher claims farcical US win

McLaren team principal Ron Dennis said: "It is an offer from the teams and would supplement the offer of Michelin.

"We support anything that can repair the image of F1 so that it can once again be a community.

"The teams at Indianapolis and post-Indianapolis put forward suggestions as to how we should address the issues at Indianapolis.

"One of those options was to go back and race free of team costs.

"The suggestion was seriously made. It is possible, the logistics are challenging but possible.

"It was made through Bernie to Indianapolis and it is up to them what they want."

However, it is expected that the teams who use Bridgestone tyres and completed the US Grand Prix - Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi - would be unwilling to incur extra costs and would therefore not travel to take part.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4644927.stm

[szumszer]

re-run with no points at steak ... who wants to see that, it add insult to injury; just do a better job next year, real fans will come, everybody else can go watch nascar

[szumszer]

michelin made a mistake, it happens, teams made the wrong decision, they should have raced and changed tyres during the race, as they knew they were dangerous, since this is allowed in the first place; and it seems like everyone blames ferrari and schumi for racing at indy ... well, maybe not everyone, a lot of people are pissed of a michelin ... I feel that each team should have more than one supplier, and simply pick the best parts for each race, that would be true competition, if michelin is the best tyre, let's use michelin, if good years are best let's use good year tyres and so on ... let them compete this way to earn the right to be on a F1 car, it is a privilege for most of the companies and they know it, as they are willing to pay millions for advertising on F1 cars