FORMULA Lol

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually . .if I remember correctly . .the more rain the track had the better the Bridgestone were .. the less rain(or drying track) the better the michelins.

In that race with alot of rain Michael was doing well until he spun out. Later that year(or was it last year) at the US GP, it also rained and as the track started drying out, Montoya was a good 2 secs faster than Michael.

US

 

[Dave Baumann]

When Michelin came back the general trend was that their wet tyre (in very wet conditions) was OK, but their intermediate tyres were shit to the point here the teams never used them (just hanging on to the wets until it was sufficiently dry to go straight to slicks).

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well I remember thinking that the FIA was always helping out the Michelin runners by making the SC come out all the time when it rained .. since as soon as the safety car came in .. the Michelin runners would always be quicker than the bridgestone's because there was less water on the track and their tyres worked better when there was less water.

Of course if could've always just been because the bridgestones sucked at getting the tyre preasure back.

The Bridgestones were always slower in extreme wet conditions, but as soon as it started drying out . .the Michelins would rule the roost.

US

 

[_xxx_]

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.

Well yes, the tires were dangerous this way or the other. The driver can't adjust the limits, it's done from the box via the telemetrics. They would have been much slower then, so no point in doing that. I guess that's why the teams didn't want it, since ferrari would have won both ways.

And if anything happend to someone, that team would really have to bleed, so they also wanted to stay clear of any responsibilities.

 

[PatrickL]

Hum US you forget what FIA did for Bridgestone and Ferrari that year ?
By removing the qualifying session with the empty cars, you know the one that bridgestone has huge problem with because their tires could not be hot fast enough and so Ferrari were always far behind ?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hum US you forget what FIA did for Bridgestone and Ferrari that year ?
By removing the qualifying session with the empty cars, you know the one that bridgestone has huge problem with because their tires could not be hot fast enough and so Ferrari were always far behind ?

I don't get what you're trying to say. Please rephrase. Thx

US

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Michelin Letter to FIA
FIA's reply to Michelin

Michelin's Second Letter to the FIA
FIA's Second Reply to Michelin

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

"Just slowing down" was not a solution, though, as how "slow" is safe enough?

So what was the point of Michelin asking for turn 13 to have a chicane added in order to slow the cars down?

The tyres were failing after 10 laps; how slow would they need to be to ensure that even slowing down at the entrance to the banked corner would be sufficient? The other issue would be that there were 6 other cars on that circuit that will be taking the entrance to the banking at full throttle - how often would they have come across another car that was just slowing down (fairly randomly to them), which is effectively like brake testing them. Even then, racers are racers and you can't see the likes of Kimi and others not pushing it more and more as the race goes on.

Slowing down for certain corner to make sure a car goes around it is what drivers do. If a car is not well set up, or doesn't have the pace of the fastest cars, or has tyre wear issues, drivers slow down for corners and the faster drivers overtake them. That's how it works at every race. Drivers who "push it more" would see their cars fail or not make corners - just as what happens at every other race.

At first impressions, I blamed Ferrari and the FIA for not dealing with the problem, but when I really thought about it, there is nothing they can do. There is no provision in the rules for making the race easier for teams that have poor tyres, or poor aerodynamics, or poor brake balance, or anything else that makes one car less competative than another.

In the first instance it's Michelin's fault for screwing up, but in the larger picture (when looking at the whole season, and the future of F1 in America) you have to lay the blame at the FIA's door for implementing rules that caused this sort of thing to happen. They made the tyres one of the most important components of the car (by reducing engine life/power and aerodynamics), and then ensured that race wear would get them to the point of having no grip, with teams caught between changing them and maybe being penalised, or racing with no grip and having accidents.

All of this was predicted when the new rules were forced in by Mosely, so we shouldn't be surprised. It's only become a big issue because so many teams were affected it turned the whole race into a farce, rather than just one or two.

 

[MPI]

Well yes, the tires were dangerous this way or the other. The driver can't adjust the limits, it's done from the box via the telemetrics. They would have been much slower then, so no point in doing that. I guess that's why the teams didn't want it, since ferrari would have won both ways.

The point is moot but,

AFAIK two-way telemetry(i.e. the pit to car kind) was banned from the 2003 season onwards. That's why you hear the pit telling the driver to use "throttle setting 5" and such. Also, that's the reason they have a bazillion knobs and buttons on the steering wheel, especially compared to 2001-2002.

Even imagining they had pit-to-car tel., coming up with such a solution within hours to the race with no testing whatsoever I don't think is feasible.


I'm feeling like I'm the only one in the world that's not demanding Michelin's head on a platter right now... :? Actually I feel a bit of respect. Yes, they screwed up on the tyres, but knowing that it would brew up a shitstorm like no one has ever seen before, they had the balls to bite the bullet and call it off. They had absolutely no gain in doing so, IMO, but to guarantee the safety. I think under the circumstances it was the right move not racing.

Everybody, the FIA, FOM, the teams, the fans and the sport lost in this debacle, pointing fingers and claiming the moral highground is fucking pointless IMHO. After this, everybody has got to pull their shit together and see that this doesn't happen again. If it does, I think F1 may be so hurt it never recovers, thinking about the upcoming post-Concorde(2008) agreement which hasn't even begun settlement, and the FIA already announcing radical ideas. If there's any kind of turmoil like this going into that kind of upheaval, I think the chances of there being a 2008 F1 season to speak of is slim to none, I'm afraid.

 

[Fruitfrenzy]

you have to lay the blame at the FIA's door for implementing rules that caused this sort of thing to happen.

Based on the FIA statement on the matter the rules state that teams are expected to bring a performance set and a backup (of a safer but perhaps slower design) to each race. If Michelin had done that this wouldn't have been a problem because they would have been able to switch tyres before qualifying.

 

[V3]

they had the balls to bite the bullet and call it off. They had absolutely no gain in doing so,

Calling it off was the best damage control they could have done. Racing and have all Michelin cars with blown tire would be worst for publicity, and even worst still if someone got injured, they could be sued. Calling it off at least they can point fingers and also safety first will always work

 

[digitalwanderer]

you have to lay the blame at the FIA's door for implementing rules that caused this sort of thing to happen.

Based on the FIA statement on the matter the rules state that teams are expected to bring a performance set and a backup (of a safer but perhaps slower design) to each race. If Michelin had done that this wouldn't have been a problem because they would have been able to switch tyres before qualifying.

Now that makes sense, I kind of wondered why the teams had no back-up tires. :?

 

[StefanS]

you have to lay the blame at the FIA's door for implementing rules that caused this sort of thing to happen.

Based on the FIA statement on the matter the rules state that teams are expected to bring a performance set and a backup (of a safer but perhaps slower design) to each race. If Michelin had done that this wouldn't have been a problem because they would have been able to switch tyres before qualifying.

Now that makes sense, I kind of wondered why the teams had no back-up tires. :?

Well, actually Michelin had a set of back-up tyres of a slower build, but they were just as bad...

 

[Basic]

MPI:
The reason people are pointing so hard at Michelin now is that initially the fingers were wrongfully pointing in the opposite direction, blaming FIA's ruling and Ferrari for what happened.

 

[MPI]

MPI:
The reason people are pointing so hard at Michelin now is that initially the fingers were wrongfully pointing in the opposite direction, blaming FIA's ruling and Ferrari for what happened.

Well, I think it certainly could've been handled better. Was the price worth it, mounting the high horses and taking the hard-line approach against Michelin? Only time will tell the damage done, ultimately. Michelin screwed up, and admitted it. Some sort of compromise(very biased in Bridgestone's favour, of course) could've been met, I cannot for the life of me think otherwise.

For me the MAJOR fault lies there(IMO, with the current regulations something like this with the tyres was bound to happen), NOT getting the cars on track in some way or form... the bickering and in-fighting is what is tearing F1 apart. It's like arguing who ran the ship aground instead of plugging the leaks.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Well, I think it certainly could've been handled better. Was the price worth it, mounting the high horses and taking the hard-line approach against Michelin? Only time will tell the damage done, ultimately. Michelin screwed up, and admitted it. Some sort of compromise(very biased in Bridgestone's favour, of course) could've been met, I cannot for the life of me think otherwise.

The rules don't allow for a compromise, and there was certainly none that offered the teams that bought viable cars (ie Bridgestone runners) the overwhelming advantage and points they enjoyed in the US GP. The main Bridgestone runner (Ferrari) had major problems with their tyres at the beginning of the year, including Schumacher blowing two tyres, but no one suggested changing the rules for the benefit of the Bridgestone runners.

Even if all the teams had signed up to a compromise, the stewards would probably not have allowed it because it would have breached the rules. There is simply no provision for this kind of major rule change on the fly because teams don't bring viable cars to the racetrack. It's certainly would not be fair for those teams that do bring viable cars.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

The FIA statement.

 

[digitalwanderer]

The FIA statement.

Quicky translation: IT'S MICHELIN'S FAULT!!!!!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As someone pointed out .. ultimately, it's gonna be the FIA's fault. Whatever they did do/could've done, they will always get the blame because they are the ruling organisation. Even if they were in the right, people will blame them.

They should've compromised, they should've put a corner in, they should've backed off from michelins demands and gotten them to race.

What a load of crock.

The teams, and tyre suppliers, know the rules. They've been playing the game for the last 6 years now. Just because they are the majority tyre they thought they could pressurise the FIA to change the rules to suit themselves. 9 Teams agreed to change the corner while the last said it was not their decision. Michelin tried to force the issue by saying that they would not allow any team to go out and race, met the teams and told them so, then met with the FIA to force the FIA to agree to their terms.

Whatever the FIA could've done, they would be blamed in the end. If they let the Michelins race buy took away their points, the FIA would've been blamed. If they made a corner and their were incidents, the FIA would've been blamed. If they let the Michelins race and they michelin teams won without consequences, the FIA would've been blamed. The FIA did right in that they stood up for their rules. Rules are there for a purpose.

Shame Michelin. I could only wish the FIA would charge them and make them pay for all the F1 Fans that went to the GP(including accomodation etc.). The US GP has always been huge with over 150 000 fans at race meetings. To loose the fan base in the US, is gonna hurt F1 a lot.. if it doesn't hurt F1 everywhere else too.

US

 

[davefb]

you are TOTALLY wrong US. the problem of 'bad' tyres is michelins,the problem of not having a race is the FIA's.
having problems with tracks is not a new thing, but it causes more issues due to the location of indy ( ie distant from europe where most f1 teams are based).
by just having a friday practice, then saturday qualifying there is a deliberate mechanism to create 'bad' setups. this was deliberate to avoid teams nailing the setups down. michelin before qualifying were trying to sort this by getting different tyres, but the FIA were standing firm . You can't just give the teams the tyres, they would have needed a delay / extra test session to check things could run.
this year indy track has been resurfaced ( i dont know about the f1 infield). Nascar and IRL had testing sessions, there were problems with the track , originally tyre problems (failures , grip? dont know). Later they had lack of grip , which is why there was a 'diamond' cut put into the track ( speed had dropped to 209mph,, at indy!)..
michelin requested help to sort a problem , the FIA stood firm. race doesnt run..
what i find staggering is to recommend some cars run slower through a 200mph bend, in what way was that safe? thats why the chicane in order that everyone slowed down.....