I saw this elsewhere. Shows the sidewall carcass damage. It's not the case that Michelin didn't build a tyre to spec, it's just that they run a far more aggressive design approach than Bridgestone. Bridgestone apparently build with ~20% design margin, whereas Michelin are ~10%. The tyre they brought to Indy has ~5% lateral stress margin...
FORMULA Lol
- Thread starter StefanS
- Start date
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
No stevem
Michelin has suggested used the Spanish GP tyres, but on sunday morning announced that these tyres would also not be up to scratch and could also not be used in the race. So in the end Michelin had NO tyres to compete in the race. Their only solution was to have the chicane installed. They had a whole year after Ralf's accident last year(which was also caused by tyre failure) to come up with a new tyre design for the indy race whcih they knew would be harder on the tyres since the 25% less downforce rule was implemented this year. Most of the time that would be gained would come from the tyres. Yet Michelin didn't build any new special tyres for the race and so had no tyre to compete in the race. Is that the FIA's fault? No!
Michelin are the only one's to blame.
_xxx_ , having a single tyre formula in the race can slow down cars big time. The FIA can just force the tyre manufacturer to create a slow tyre.
With two manufacturer's tho, it's difficult to do so, thus we've seen all these last few years where some races, bridgestone works better than Michelin or the other way around. This year it was different though. The tyres had to last one full race.
Bridgestone have had many issues with their tyre's yet have not complained to the FIA to change the rules because the rules were set before the beginning of the year before any of the races.
Michelin had a whole year to make a harder tyre for the Indy race yet never did so.
Michelin are the only people to blame.
US
Michelin has suggested used the Spanish GP tyres, but on sunday morning announced that these tyres would also not be up to scratch and could also not be used in the race. So in the end Michelin had NO tyres to compete in the race. Their only solution was to have the chicane installed. They had a whole year after Ralf's accident last year(which was also caused by tyre failure) to come up with a new tyre design for the indy race whcih they knew would be harder on the tyres since the 25% less downforce rule was implemented this year. Most of the time that would be gained would come from the tyres. Yet Michelin didn't build any new special tyres for the race and so had no tyre to compete in the race. Is that the FIA's fault? No!
Michelin are the only one's to blame.
_xxx_ , having a single tyre formula in the race can slow down cars big time. The FIA can just force the tyre manufacturer to create a slow tyre.
With two manufacturer's tho, it's difficult to do so, thus we've seen all these last few years where some races, bridgestone works better than Michelin or the other way around. This year it was different though. The tyres had to last one full race.
Bridgestone have had many issues with their tyre's yet have not complained to the FIA to change the rules because the rules were set before the beginning of the year before any of the races.
Michelin had a whole year to make a harder tyre for the Indy race yet never did so.
Michelin are the only people to blame.
US
Basic said:
It would have pretty much regulated the entry speed for all cars. The position they wanted the chicane was more or less directly before the entry to the banked section to the corner, which would have drastically altered their entry speed to it.
Basic said:
Its not as though they have speedometers in the car! But again, there would inevitably be the issues that the guys would push it, and the teams would be liable because they sent the drivers out knowing that the tyre wasn't to specification as the manufacturer had told them not to race.
V3 said:
Its not as though they can "do their homework" as this isn't a test track an no-one had been their in the first place.
sorry , but the fault is entirely the FIA.
the track has been changed at the indy circuit by the cutting of grooves into the track, the F1 teams do not race or practice here apart from in the grand prix. however as has been stated the bridgestone people did get the feedback from the firestone teams lapping at indy. now remember they get a very long test period due to to the unique indy conditions.
michelin had got no such information.
In fact this year because of the engine regulations and rule changes the teams have had LESS testing when they arrive at a cicuit. Michelin DID bring the spanish tyres, but were told they could not be used, they also would have needed them to have been tested. I believe the reason these were brought was only because they believed the problem to have been a manufactoring fault rather than actual design issue.
as for bridgestone and the rules. well actually they DID ask for a rule change because of schumacher having tyre failures , but michelin overuled this.. this obviously now looks like a bad discision.
you can't say "oh they could have just run xx laps" , because nobody knew how many laps was safe ( again lack of testing). in fact you'd have noticed that bridgestone spent a good deal of time inspecting schumachers left-rear at the first refuel ( which is why he was behind barrichelo).
why do i say it's the FIA's fault not michelin? well michelin had made a mistake,, but this shouldnt have stopped the racing, the only people who could have sorted that out are the FIA.. But since the FIA wants 1 tyre maker, they're hardly gunna help michelin are they...
the track has been changed at the indy circuit by the cutting of grooves into the track, the F1 teams do not race or practice here apart from in the grand prix. however as has been stated the bridgestone people did get the feedback from the firestone teams lapping at indy. now remember they get a very long test period due to to the unique indy conditions.
michelin had got no such information.
In fact this year because of the engine regulations and rule changes the teams have had LESS testing when they arrive at a cicuit. Michelin DID bring the spanish tyres, but were told they could not be used, they also would have needed them to have been tested. I believe the reason these were brought was only because they believed the problem to have been a manufactoring fault rather than actual design issue.
as for bridgestone and the rules. well actually they DID ask for a rule change because of schumacher having tyre failures , but michelin overuled this.. this obviously now looks like a bad discision.
you can't say "oh they could have just run xx laps" , because nobody knew how many laps was safe ( again lack of testing). in fact you'd have noticed that bridgestone spent a good deal of time inspecting schumachers left-rear at the first refuel ( which is why he was behind barrichelo).
why do i say it's the FIA's fault not michelin? well michelin had made a mistake,, but this shouldnt have stopped the racing, the only people who could have sorted that out are the FIA.. But since the FIA wants 1 tyre maker, they're hardly gunna help michelin are they...
Unknown Soldier said:
Your point, albeit narrow, is that Michelin is to blaim. Where did I claim their absolution? I pointed out differing design philosophies. The Michelin tyres conformed to the tyre specs but conditions at Indy were such that race margin was low on at least the setup for Toyota. After analysis, Michelin couldn't guarantee race distance at full turn 13 speed. Cars easier on rear set loadup may have sneaked in with bad tyre wear/pit stop safety change. The rules are poorly setup to accommodate these 11th hour occurances. That's where FIA/F1/manufacturers could have come up with a workable solution for the fans.
BTW, you don't think Michelin employed the same tyres/compounds as last year, do you...? It has more to do with carcass design than compound used. Their "B" tyre was a harder compund, but the carcass was the same as for "A". They tried something different. It didn't work (abysmally) - that's all...
davefb said:
NAFAIK. If it was a manufacturing defect, the rules provide for remedy of like for like. I'm pretty sure it's design. If it's not, it puts a new spin on things & the role of FIA/F1... The "Spanish" tyres are a different casing/construction/compound, so they couldn't be directly substituted. We'll find out, I guess. I agree with your other points.
Incidentally, Bridgestone & Michellin build their tyres differently, with eg Michelin rolling out their tread into the sidewall more than Bridgestone.
DAMN i missed this!
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
davefb said:
dave . .while I agree it should've been up to the FIA to get the race to run, I don't think it is their fault for the race not happening. Putting in a chicane at the last moment, with teams not having practised with the chicane would've been just as irresponsible for the FIA because accidents could've happened with the chicane too. And if there were accidents with the chicane, FIA would've been blamed again.
The FIA felt that the chicane was out of the issue, but felt that slower speeds around turn 13 would've worked.
In a car that makes so much noise, you would expect the drivers could've backed off slightly in turn 13. Then again, you most probably would've had drivers that would've taken it full out anyways, as their cars seemed better suited(Williams, McLaren?) The issue though also would've been later in the race, the tyres could(would?) be susceptible to tyre wear and thus could've been a problem.
Thus again .. Michelin were at fault. Ralf's accident was caused by tyre failure. Last year, Ralf's accident was caused by tyre failure. You would expect, michelin to have learnt from this, especially because of the higher grip requirements the tyres would have to endure this whole year.
Michelin should've picked up in the earlier year as all the races this year should've shown that this year, races were pretty hard on tyres.
*and* theres precedent.
http://www.planet-f1.com/features/race_features/story_19992.shtml
i'd totally forgotten about brazil 2003. ( and think about this all these people who want one manufactorer).
bridgestone didnt take a 'monsoon' tyre to interlagos , so when it rained heavily they had a problem.. step forward mr whiting who for safety reasons first delays the start then starts under the SC , but why? If we're saying that "rules is rules", then why should the michelin runners (who could have got round) be penalised? in a 'bit wet' race, then the michelins were at a disadvantage to the bridgestone "intermediates".
of course it was a 'safety' issue and nobody complained too much, so WHY didn't they do something here ? christ the precedent would have been to run the race behind the safety car !!!
If there ever is another US-GP, then the FIA will have to have extra test time for the circuit. this isnt without precedent , IRL wont allow rookies to race on the indy500 without doing extra practice, and i believe monte-carlo has different test time rules because of it being unique......
-dave-
london-boy , you missed nothing , it was embarrasing , it was obvious that they weren't gunna race ........
http://www.planet-f1.com/features/race_features/story_19992.shtml
i'd totally forgotten about brazil 2003. ( and think about this all these people who want one manufactorer).
bridgestone didnt take a 'monsoon' tyre to interlagos , so when it rained heavily they had a problem.. step forward mr whiting who for safety reasons first delays the start then starts under the SC , but why? If we're saying that "rules is rules", then why should the michelin runners (who could have got round) be penalised? in a 'bit wet' race, then the michelins were at a disadvantage to the bridgestone "intermediates".
of course it was a 'safety' issue and nobody complained too much, so WHY didn't they do something here ? christ the precedent would have been to run the race behind the safety car !!!
If there ever is another US-GP, then the FIA will have to have extra test time for the circuit. this isnt without precedent , IRL wont allow rookies to race on the indy500 without doing extra practice, and i believe monte-carlo has different test time rules because of it being unique......
-dave-
london-boy , you missed nothing , it was embarrasing , it was obvious that they weren't gunna race ........
Unknown Soldier said:
yeah but thats just barmy , nobody knew what speed was acceptable. i agree with you about the chicane though. but why was it left so late ? they had more than enough time to put the chicane in on sunday, then have an extra test session for it. again this *isnt* unknown for circuit changes to be made very late, but with the new reduced testing theres now less time for this to be done.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
davefb said:
Funny that.
I think that Michelin Full Wet's story is b/s.
US
_xxx_ said:
No, there's no actual representation of speed in the cockpit other than a gear number and the lights for the revs - all of this is highly dependant on the team as well, but basically the only feedback they have from the car is what is displayed on the steering wheel and I've never seen one have a speedo. The fact of the matter is that the acceleration and braking speeds of these things are so high that anyone that needs to look at a speedo to understand what they need to do at a corner is either going too slow in the first place or will have totally missed their breaking point by the time they register the speed. This is the reason why you still see people breaking the pitlane speed limit despite the fact they have thse buttons - they have no direct representation of speed and the limiters don't actually bring them down to speed, they just prevent them going over it again once they have dropped below it, so drivers can still be coming in "hot" even though the limiter is pressed.
FIA also banned any abilities for the teams to control any elements of the car from the pitlane a couple of years back.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
The bad side of the story. Paul Stoddart. Paul .. do yourself a favour and quit. You a disgrace. Either you support the pullout of the race or you don't. Don't come and say you support the pullout of the race but still go and race your cars just because Jordan are racing. Jordan cars were gonna beat your cars anyway .. so why would you care about ending 5th and 6th. Yes because it's the only points you'd get this season and points mean money.
You, Paul are a disgrace. If you really believed that the race was a farce you wouldn't have raced.
Ass***e
US
You, Paul are a disgrace. If you really believed that the race was a farce you wouldn't have raced.
Ass***e
US
DaveBaumann said:
They see it in the box, though. The cars do have speed regulation, for that they could have just used the limiter and set the top speed at, say, 300 kmh. This way the car can't exceed the given limit, regardless of the driver being able to see it or not, 'cause the engine controller unit does it all internally.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
stevem said:Unknown Soldier said:
Your point, albeit narrow, is that Michelin is to blaim. Where did I claim their absolution? I pointed out differing design philosophies. The Michelin tyres conformed to the tyre specs but conditions at Indy were such that race margin was low on at least the setup for Toyota.
Sorry stevem .. didn't see this reply.
I didn't mean to argue with you, I just wanted to point out that Michelin did think of using different tyres(spanish GP tyre) but then renegaded and said that tyre wouldn't work too.
My bad if I came off very harsh.
US
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Ok .. just read this
.............................
Q: (Bruce Martin - National Speedsport News) Michael, you must have mixed emotions because it was a situation with Ralf, his tyre failure on Friday, that kind of started all this. Obviously, safety is a major concern with you, so the fact something like that happened to your brother, what was going through your mind?
MS: What I looked after coming in from my run Ralf was out of the car. I saw his car was damaged but I hadn’t seen what happened. Afterwards I saw what happened, but knowing he was out of the car and talking to the doctor made me quite relaxed. But it actually started with Ricardo Zonta, who had a similar failure just in a different place, and then afterwards they figured out that plenty of teams and cars had the start of that failure.
Q: Michael and Rubens, I only want to know if it's true that this morning you agreed with the other drivers that a chicane was needed.
MS: No, we didn't agree on anything like this. It is not our position to agree, it's the FIA's position to agree on this, not us.
RB: I mean, if I had changed one of the corners in Bahrain, my tire would have finished, it wouldn't be in such a problem and I probably would have finished even on the podium. So why would we have to agree to that? People think, okay, you put in a chicane, but we haven't tested with that chicane so that could have been even more dangerous. If you take a different line and people spin to the other side, crash into the side wall, how can we do it? It's silly.
Q: Michael and Rubens, after what happened today, do you think that could be better for Formula One it would be only one tire and factory supplier?
MS: Obviously we have the wrong people here to talk to. Maybe you should talk to the teams, to Max, check with them.
RB: I have nothing further.
Q: (Joe Saward – F1 Grand Prix Special) Can I ask all three of you, if your tyre manufacturer said to you that your tire couldn't make it more than ten laps, would you race?
MS: No, there's no point.
TM: No, you can't take the risk and probably anyway your team owners wouldn't let you race anyway. It's a big responsibility.
RB: There was only one solution. If the problem was on 13, just come into the pits every lap.
MS: Yeah.
RB: And then they would finish seventh and eighth.
MS: Honestly I understood from talking to one of the drivers that despite turn 13, they would have had the problem anyway, with chicane or without chicane.
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index....m/en/headlines/news/detail/050620020419.shtml
.............................
Q: (Bruce Martin - National Speedsport News) Michael, you must have mixed emotions because it was a situation with Ralf, his tyre failure on Friday, that kind of started all this. Obviously, safety is a major concern with you, so the fact something like that happened to your brother, what was going through your mind?
MS: What I looked after coming in from my run Ralf was out of the car. I saw his car was damaged but I hadn’t seen what happened. Afterwards I saw what happened, but knowing he was out of the car and talking to the doctor made me quite relaxed. But it actually started with Ricardo Zonta, who had a similar failure just in a different place, and then afterwards they figured out that plenty of teams and cars had the start of that failure.
Q: Michael and Rubens, I only want to know if it's true that this morning you agreed with the other drivers that a chicane was needed.
MS: No, we didn't agree on anything like this. It is not our position to agree, it's the FIA's position to agree on this, not us.
RB: I mean, if I had changed one of the corners in Bahrain, my tire would have finished, it wouldn't be in such a problem and I probably would have finished even on the podium. So why would we have to agree to that? People think, okay, you put in a chicane, but we haven't tested with that chicane so that could have been even more dangerous. If you take a different line and people spin to the other side, crash into the side wall, how can we do it? It's silly.
Q: Michael and Rubens, after what happened today, do you think that could be better for Formula One it would be only one tire and factory supplier?
MS: Obviously we have the wrong people here to talk to. Maybe you should talk to the teams, to Max, check with them.
RB: I have nothing further.
Q: (Joe Saward – F1 Grand Prix Special) Can I ask all three of you, if your tyre manufacturer said to you that your tire couldn't make it more than ten laps, would you race?
MS: No, there's no point.
TM: No, you can't take the risk and probably anyway your team owners wouldn't let you race anyway. It's a big responsibility.
RB: There was only one solution. If the problem was on 13, just come into the pits every lap.
MS: Yeah.
RB: And then they would finish seventh and eighth.
MS: Honestly I understood from talking to one of the drivers that despite turn 13, they would have had the problem anyway, with chicane or without chicane.
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index....m/en/headlines/news/detail/050620020419.shtml
i suppose at least there was one really funny bit.
when schumacher nearly took both ferraris out!
then since we had the ferrari pit radio,, we here them getting told not to race after the 2nd pit stop... which of course explains rubens being angry about michael overtaking him at monaco! ( err it was monaco wasnt it?)
-dave-
thats not totally how i remember brazil btw, for all that season the michelin tyre (inter) was better in the wetter conditions, but weak as a track dried by a huge margin....... though as you pointed out, neither company had taken a monsoon tyre.......
when schumacher nearly took both ferraris out!
then since we had the ferrari pit radio,, we here them getting told not to race after the 2nd pit stop... which of course explains rubens being angry about michael overtaking him at monaco! ( err it was monaco wasnt it?)
-dave-
thats not totally how i remember brazil btw, for all that season the michelin tyre (inter) was better in the wetter conditions, but weak as a track dried by a huge margin....... though as you pointed out, neither company had taken a monsoon tyre.......
_xxx_ said:
AFAIK the problem was the lateral forces acting on the sidewall as the tire hits the banked corner, so any type of repeated high speed probably would have caused an issue - the rev limiter would have to be set very low, which would mean the driver would be adjusting it very high and very low every lap.
