It's the tire rule!!!

if the teams did not have to stop for fuel for some reason, say, they could have a big or super-cooled tank, then seriously guys, they would try to make the tyres last the whole race -- even if the rule say you can have 500 tyres in a race if you want.

The point is this: despite the tyre rules, the tyre is another mehanical part of the car:

- you can puncture a new tyre
- you can flat spot a new tyre
- you can crash on new cold tyres
- a new set of tyres can be slower than the prior set of old tyres (ask Schumacher if this happens)
- I remember an Orange Arrows (of Hill I think?) where the new tyre came off after the pitlane because the mechanic did not tight up the nut correct.

in another word, all I try to say is that I don't accept the tyre rule is the problem, is the teams (Michelin?) who don't try hard enough to make it work.

The FIA has been very smart to say if you have a saftey problem you MUST call your car in and change the tyres.

Anyway -- I only express my personal opinion. I no want to start a fight. Please no flame me !!

V.

 

Do you have ANYTHING that would show this statement to be true? Any links, documents, interviews, written op-ed pieces, ANYTHING? I find it hard to belive Michelin knew the tires would not hold up.

Forgive me, but I was laughing out loud reading this. Are you really serious that they should be banned? Why? I am glad they have a win-at-any-cost attitude. Apparently that cost does not include driver safety, which is good. Don't all teams have a win-at-any-cost attitude? I hope so! Banning a supplier of parts would be unheard of and would violate the rules. They should never even consider such a thing.

Some people hate Ferrari... why? Because they win. A lot. And people wait for the absolute SMALLEST of incidents and immediately call for the ouster of Schumacher, the banning of Ferrari, the removal of their points, etc, etc, etc. Go to any F1 site and read the forums. TONS of people are all over MS for every time he puts an aggressive move on an opponent. If his tire grazes the line, they scream bloody murder if he does not get a drive-through penalty, etc, etc. Well, we're seeing a reversal of roles here. Lots of Ferraristi appear angry at Michelin - more anger here than i ever see elsewhere. I dont know why they are so angry? If you are a F-fan, isn't it a GOOD thing that Michelin boned this race? People would be patting Michelin on the back if they made a tire SO good that all their cars finished 1-14 the rest of the year and Ferrari finished 15th and 16th?

 

The laundry list offered up by beast is well taken, BUT, IMO Michelin was in some sense operating within the rules, at least in 2003 (if I remember correctly, the tires were within the limit when measured at the times specified in the rules but ballooned during the race and possibly might have been out of spec after the race, but as stated above, they were in spec at the times specified to be measured), and possibly 2004. What happened in 2003 (as per beast) seems to me to be normal in almost all forms of racing, be it sailing or motorsports. Once a measurement rule has been "set," all designers and engineers (if they have the least bit of imagination) will set out to test and explore the rules.

In sailboat racing, innovations such as Mylar, Kevlar, bulb keels, shifting water ballast, fiberglass, overall length rules vs. waterline rules (such as Dennis Conner's multihull America's Cup boat), asymetrical spinnakers using bowsprits, etc., were often derided as rules violations.

In autoracing, one doesn't have to look much further than to Jim Hall's Chaparrals -- the 2Es with their wings on tall struts, the use of an automatic transmission which allowed a third pedal flap controller keeping the wings horizontal when accelerating and on straights, to the Chaparral 2J that had two motors - a 456 CI Chevy V8 powered the rear wheels, and a 274 cc Rockwell snowmobile engine powered a pair of "sucker" fans in the rear, with sliding Lexan sideskirts placed around the bottom to maintain the vacuum.

In both sailboat racing and in motorsports, sometimes the innovations were banned in certain classes with the development of new rules, and in other cases the innovations were incorporated into the rules.

If no rule was set on the thickness of tire tread or sidewall construction, what parameters would you, as an engineer, consider exploring? What if you believed that you in fact could make a tire that was extremely thin in some areas, but you believed could perform safely? You'd try, wouldn't you? Sure, you might be wrong, and unfortunately, the cost of being wrong could be quite high in motorsports, and might result in violating a general safety rule -- BUT, AGAIN, IF YOU HONESTLY THOUGHT YOU COULD MAKE A SAFE TIRE WHILE EXPLORING (AND EXPLOITING) THE RULES, ISN'T THAT WHAT INNOVATION IN ALL FORMS OF RACING IS ABOUT?

And, there should be no question in anybody's mind that THAT is precisely the kind of innovation that drives ALL of the F1 teams (subject to their own budgets) from Ferrari to Minardi -- they all are attempting to explore the rules (and loopholes are legitimate targets in my opinion). It is just that sometimes, the stars and planets line up for one team particularly well, and at other times, well ......

Now, as I stated at the top, this reply isn't intended as a defense of Michelin for taking any particular course of action that they MIGHT have known would compromise the safety of all involved, but rather, this is intended to recognize (and appreciate) the kind of engineering and design innovations that we all should expect to be fostered in racing. Admittedly, sometimes the results can be unexpectedly rotten.

Mark Nerheim

 

What a load of cr@p.

F1 in the days of 1500hp turbo charged engines (with NO ABS and NO tranction control, just real drivers) started and finished the race on a the same tyres. Yes they could change tyres but they didn't.

Again the problems with the tyres are due to 2 tyre suppliers pushing the limits with tyre technology ... not just the fact that they cannot change them.

Thus my solution is to get back to a single tyre supplier and then allow them to make tyre changes ... but to keep the racing real (as I really like the racing on the track, not this wait until a pitstop and then go fast for a few laps BS racing that we had last year and the few years before) specify that the tyre has to be hard and strong enough to go a full race distance. If it doesn't then allow them to change it but the teams that don't will not have the handicap of the extra pitstop.

Again lets get the racing on the track ... and when finally we return to NO fuel stops we will have that. Pitstops are the reason we hardly ever see passing ... not aero reasons, but because the drivers and teams opt for the easy way out, take that away and they HAVE to pass on the track.
Pete
ps: The full race distance tyre rule is the best thing that has happened to F1 in the last 10 years ... finally we are trying to return to a race, instead of a series of laps between pitstops.

And if you do not like racing on the track and simply get off on lap times ... go and watch a test session then!@!

And yes my comments about my own racing and go karts weakened my last post ... but when you guys stop bleating on about F1 being so different to other race series and get your feet back on the ground and realise that the equation is not actually that different. F1 is not completely different to other racing series at all, it is just the current peak ... car still has wheels, power to weight, wings (yep some other race series run wings too ... ), etc. Its just motor racing!

 

Good post Mark ... and exactly why having 2 tyre suppliers pushing the limits is compromising F1 safety.

Currently we have a WC that is 100% determined by what tyres you are running. Ferrari and MS ALONE did not win the last say 4 championships the superior BRIDGESTONE tyres did, while the other top teams were handicapped by Michelin tyres as Michelin struggled to catch up to Bridgestone. Infact it is completely possible that the Ferrari car was NOT the best car on the grid but just the best car and tyre package. If say Kimi's McLaren had been on Bridgestones in 2003, they might have blown Ferrari and MS away ...who knows, but the WC trophy really belongs in Bridgestones cabinet even more than it belongs in Ferraris IMO. And Ferrari know this hence why they have stuck with Bridgestone ...

This year (other than the US GP) every win has been by a Michelin tyre ... thus as Luca said the tyres are winning the races NOT the cars.

Do we really want that?
Pete

 

Thank god.... finally.

I was probably the only who blame it on FIA's tire rule right after US GP.
Here is my early thread.... http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63678


I hate the rule since the begining of the season..... If they continue with it, we will see lost of driver's life. no fun in that. Today, We just had a Ferrari accident in Malaysia killed driver and passenger.... cause of accident??? BLOWN TIRE!!!!

 

Patpong -

Do you have more information about the accident in Malaysia, or a link that you could post?

Mark Nerheim

 

Tires blow out on a dialy basis on roads and highways all over the Los Angeles much less the U.S. and the world. I had a Perelli tire blow out on me at 70mph once. Does that mean all Perelli tires are unsafe?!? Give me a break. This isn't even apples to oranges.

 

here is the link Mark..... real sad.

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64562

 

An intelligent response ... and unfortunately most tyre blow outs are caused by maintenance issues, ie. ran too fast on incorrectly inflated tyre, or plain and simply ran for too long.

Pete

 

EXCUSE MEEEEEE, senna21, but I thought that the accident originally mentioned by Patpong was a racing accident. Although sad, you are of course correct -- road accidents like that happen every day.....

Mark

 

... and even if it was a racing incident ... unless the drivers were MS and RB, it is completely irrelevant, cause the tyre rule that we are talking about only relates to F1.

Sorry for the families loss, etc. ... but lets stay on some sort of relevance that makes sense
Pete

 

I wasn't trying to bust your chops Mark. I apologize. My comments were directed more at this being raised in the racing section of the board as somehow a Michelin road tire construction had anything to do with the FIAsco at Indy.

 

PSk, as I stated above, I originally thought Patpong's posting was about a racing incident, and since it was posted on this thread, I also assumed that it was more closely related than what it turned out to be. Now that we know that it wasn't, then it isn't relevant to this thread. However, contrary to your statement, I would submit that the tire issues on this thread that do not directly involve MS or RB, but that do relate to F1, are relevant. But, these last few exchanges (including this posting) are becoming less and less relevant, and given the outcome of the meeting in Paris today, there doesn't seem like there is a lot more to be said, UNLESS this happens again this season.

Mark

 

Mark,

Agree ... I was referring to the fact that a Ferrari was mentioned. Last I looked MS and RB were the only 2 people that raced Ferrari F1 cars ... thus bringing the relevance back to F1

Pete

 

We keep hearing the excuse for the silly tire (tyre) rule is to save money. As we say in Texas...C'mon y'all...tires (tyres) are a small cost compared to a 13 million dollar car, or a human life! If F-1 is the "Pinnacle" of motorsports as these blokes put forth, then teams should be allowed to change the damn tire (tyre) every lap if they want.

Hopefully they will wake up. We saw how it took deaths in NASCAR to get proper rules in place (HANS for example). Let's not kill more drivers Bernie. Let the teams change their damn wheel...

 

Wrong then, wrong now. Bridgestone has not had a reliability/safety problem with their tires...

Patpong, why can't Michelin offer their teams a safe tire?

The problem was caused by Michelin and nobody else!!!

 

Although this tire topic has been refried ... in case you haven't seen it look at these tire deformations


http://tbk.fameflame.dk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19543

 

Not sure why I am even bothering ...

The costs involved in tyres is not the purchase price but the enormous amount of testing they do. The goal with the single tyre rule was to significantly reduce the input of the tyre to a fast lap, thus reducing tyre testing.

This ofcourse has not worked, because we have 2 tyre companies fighting it out ... and thus testing like crazy.

The real cost saving will come (probably next year) when they enforce a single tyre supplier rule. This will be a God send and save millions!. It will also significantly reduce the focus we currently have on tyres. This ofcourse the tyre manufacturers don't want ... but currently having 2 tyre suppliers is causing safety issues, as Michelin has pushed too hard and compromised safety.

If you still think changing the tyres throughout a race makes any difference, that is fine ... but wrong. Even if they were still allowed to change tyres we still have this overly competitive situation where we have Michelin proving themselves perfectly capable of compromising driver safety for possible performance. Indy was not just a fluke mistake it was a design direction and ignorance of safety and the rules by Michelin. Same company and people would make take the same risks to make them the winner ... whatever the rules (UNLESS ofcourse the FIA stipulated a minimum weight per tyre that is way over heavy ... but the FIA have shown that do not want to become tyre experts too. Should they? ... that is another discussion).

As Bill365 said: "The problem was caused by Michelin and nobody else!!!"

Pete