French Tyre Manufacturers (and the FIA)

I do have some sympathy with their statement that the rules cannot be changed just because the right parts were not bought to a race. Bridgestone, after all, had tyres they were happy for their teams to use. Had both tyre manufacturers had problems that would have been different I guess.

However, because a compromise was not reached for the sake of the people that watch the races at the track and on television I am left with the impression that the fans are totally unimportant to the people that run F1.

I found this picture of a Bridgestone on a Ferrari at last year's event.

It's clear that we're not talking about some trivial and easily avoided tyre issue here.

(The picture was referenced on the AtlasF1 forums, I've hosted it separately, which I think is more polite than linking you to the original post)

Paul

quote:

The reason there wasn't a race is completely down to the FIA, a consequence of the way they run the sport leading to the problem

How is Michelin underestimating tyre requirements in any way the fault of the FIA or the way they run the sport? The "one set of tyres" rule has been in operation all season and they've known about it since before the end of last season. They were even warned about making sure their tyres were suitable after Kimi's incident (although I don't see what they had to do with that). Is that not enough time for a huge global organisation to produce some tyres for a race?
Why is driving slowly around the banking laughable but installing a chicane not? The only reason I can see for the michelin teams wanting a chicane, rather than taking the slowing down option is that would have allowed them to still win the race and take all the associated press time that goes with it. So what if Ferrari actually got the points? The average punter is just going to see Michelin tyred, <insert brand name> racing team won today's USGP. In other words they were only interested in a compromise that suited their own purposes.

One clue is in your use of 'underestimating'. You mean Michelin guessed wrong. If you look at the photo I posted you can see what the tyres have to withstand, that is not a normal state for a tyre, that is a resonance. Not reproducible other than on the track, which in this case is unique and where you cannot go and test. You have to commit prior to the event. The FIA rules require limited tyres, very limited running prior to qualifying and the race, and no tolerance except in the cause of safety, which in this case they elected not to show.

FWIW Bridgestone had a major advantage at this race having supplied tyres for the Indy 500 last month. Last year's experience at the GP isn't too useful since the tyres now have to last 4 times as long and the surface has changed.

The reasons the 'driving slowly' idea is laughable are obvious. You're asking one class of drivers to operate a virtual braking zone and to then run at an unspecified unnaturally low speed around the corner. What happens if a Minardi is close behind when you brake? What happens if 'slow' isn't quite slow enough? What speed would you suggest? What happens if a racing driver races and exceeds that speed? What happens if one driver out brakes another into the 'low speed' zone? The whole idea is unworkable and unsafe. And it would hardly be a race. It's as laughable as the farce that actually occurred.

A chicane would have allowed a race on level terms, a race where the winner would have had to have been the driver who was fastest, even if subsequently the Michelin runners were disqualifed, or had their points docked. It would have been a compromise that would have kept the people who matter more content.

The failure to resolve the whole thing is down to the tension between the motor manufacturers and the FIA. Bad politics about bad money.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
You have to commit prior to the event.

exactly, so how do the FIA rules affect this in any way? Michelin decided that their Barcelona tyres probably wouldn't work either and it's not as though they could have made a new batch in the time available no matter how much testing was allowed during the race weekend.

quote:

and no tolerance except in the cause of safety, which in this case they elected not to show.

The FIA stated that the Michelin teams could change tyres during the race so I'm not sure what your point is here.

quote:

FWIW Bridgestone had a major advantage at this race having supplied tyres for the Indy 500 last month.

and Michelin knew that the track had changed and that both indy and nascar teams had had tyre troubles due to new surface. Of course F1 cars are running around the circuit 'backwards' with significantly more downforce so what Bridgestone actually learnt from Firestone is anyone's guess. You also neglect to note that Michelin does a whole lot more testing that Bridgestone.

quote:

What happens if a Minardi is close behind when you brake? ...

what happens normally? You move off the racing line before doing it... Of course who said anything about braking? If, say, the tyres were going to self-destruct at 330km/h, they may have been perfectly safe at 300km/h (I have no idea and Michelin never said what they considered to be a safe speed for the tyres). So in theory, rather than braking you're accelerating to a 'michelin approved' top speed for the corner. The FIA offered to police the corner in the same fashion as the pit lane. Most of the Michelin teams are several seconds faster/lap than the Minardis/Jordans. They wouldn't have been racing for the win/2nd place but at least all the other points were up for grabs.

quote:

even if subsequently the Michelin runners were disqualifed... It would have been a compromise that would have kept the people who matter more content.

would you truly have been happy with that? I know I wouldn't. Would the drivers have been happy risking everything knowning that it was all for nothing? Here are the race results Kimi, Juan, Fernando, Giancarlo... oh sorry, they've all been disqualified. The winner is actually the first bridgestone runner and he actually finished, let's see... 10th. Yeah, brilliant idea.

The whole F1 scene is now laughable. In the interest of cost cutting it has turned into a very expensive joke. The cost is still going up despite new measures to decrease them. Now safety of the drivers and not to mention the spectators and marshals are jeopardised too as cars become less predictable (e.g. sudden tyre failures).

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
The cost is still going up despite new measures to decrease them.

Well any idiot could have told them that the changes wouldn't work to cut costs.
If a team has a budget of £100M they have a budget of £100M. Making changes to cut costs in one area just means they'll spend their £100M somewhere else. The only way to really cut costs is to cap the teams' budgets, but how exactly do you do that?

Actually I think that what occurred was pure sport and that there is no problem. I do consider that the FIA are bringing the sport into disrepute by their suggestions of 'reduced speed' and equating that with what happens when you simply have a slow car. Pure spin. The Mi teams couldn't race and therefore didn't. It's cost them championship points, what more is to be said?

FWIW part of the reason that all the teams that matter bar one are on Michelin is because Michelin offered a level playing field whereas Bridgestone were and are only interested in Ferrari.

Paul

Bit of interesting reading....
Minardi boss's account of the fiasco

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24926

regards,

michael

Hey check this out for a laugh!
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050621/OPINION02/306210001/1093

Also check this out from the Official F1 Website. MM's Interview. Fuel for fire .

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3218/740.html