MONTEZEMOLO BLAMES US FARCE ON TYRE RULES Last Updated: Thursday, 23, June, 2005, 16:09 Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has said that the crisis which hit last weekends US Grand Prix was the almost inevitable by-product of the 2005 tyre regulations. Instead of blaming Michelin, Montezemolo turned his fire on the rule requiring a single set of tyres to be used for qualifying and the entire race distance, which he argues gives the teams no room for manoeuvre if a tyre problem comes to light. I have too much respect for Michelin, with whom we too have won plenty of times in the past, to pass judgment and fail to understand the delicate situation in which they are finding themselves, Montezemolo told Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport. Besides, in a championship Ive long been defining as of tyres, sooner or later the exasperation and the risks of the most extreme innovations were almost inevitable. The fact that tyres cant be changed during a race is against nature, so when there are some problems they tend to be magnified, resulting in what unfortunately happened in Indianapolis. There the most damaged party was without a doubt the public, but Formula 1 had one of its darkest moments. Montezemolos show of sympathy for Michelin did not extend to endorsing its proposal for an impromptu chicane to be added to the Indianapolis circuit, however. The Federation [FIA] showed itself to be very responsible by not surrendering to demagogies and to the rightful expectations of the public, for which, unfortunately, a fine figure was not cut, he said. The idea of an improvised chicane at the last minute was absolutely absurd this is not the circus. Its like a soccer team missing its top scorers [asking] to have the goal posts moved to shrink or enlarge the goals. What a joke. Montezemolo added that Ferrari did its best for the fans by giving life to a real race among our two drivers and not just going on a stroll, as the television audience [testified to] through some notable ratings. He also claimed that the Maranello team has been a consistent upholder of the integrity of the sports regulations, which in the last three years have been changed as many times in order to make life hard for Ferrari. I want to highlight that Ferrari are the only team who, since 51 years ago, have always participated in racing with sporting spirit and respect for the regulations, Montezemolo said. In the F1 world Ferrari are always Ferrari, by respecting three values passion for the sport, fair challenges and our fans. What Ferrari did in Indianapolis was perfectly in line with our history. http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33233 I agree with Luca - the USGP fiasco is the logical outcome of the current tire rule. Yes, Michelin didn't build a safe tire (and no doubt will pay a heavy price), but it is hard to conceive of a less safe tire rule than the one currently enforced. Mark Nerheim
Finally somebody with sensible reaction and comments. Just somebody who knows what is talking about, unlike some of us... But it's not for free, don't forget that until this mess came up, Ferrari was last and far away from other top teams, beacause of what ? TYRES. TYES. TYRES. I agree 200% about everything, Mr Montezemolo ; expect may be that, even if the rules have certainly been changed last years in order to disturb Ferrari's supremacy, the Red team has always been considered as the most INFLUENCING team and often critiziced for that, if you see what I'm saying... So, puting aside all the LOVE I have for Ferrari, I'd thank Michelin for having scrambled this last boring years of championship, and making so much passion waking up around F1. Scandal will always be good for ANY businesses. But it should not impact the spectators and fans coming on the track and paying their place....
This is exactly what I thought- 80 percent of the blame is to the FIA for this terrible rule, 20 percent to Michelin for not making the proper tires.
The rule sucks........ we've all been saying it. They need to change it. Though, it was my understanding the teams wanted it to save money. I still think the teams could have come out to play and changed tires when conditions required it.
I agree that the tire rule was a bad one. Sooner or later it was going to bite someone. I don't think the FIA thought it would bite them!! It is a joke to think that you are going to make a dent in a $500,000,000 budget with a few sets of tires per race. Of course making ALL the teams redesign their engines, now THAT's a money saver...... PLEASE!!!
The tire rule is just about the worst rule in racing -- it is bound to invite not only financial ruin, but also a high human toll in injuries or deaths. I can't believe that persnickety Charlie Whiting and the F1/FIA medical staff didn't cut the cord on that one. Mark Nerheim
Guys you are not fully understanding what Luca said, I quote: Thus what he is actually saying it was inevitable that we would end up with these sorts of issues due to having 2 tyre suppliers, ie. A championship 'of tyres' and innovations, etc. Thus we have 2 companies busting their arse to make the very best and fastest tyres, thus safety factors, etc. are being compromised. He then correctly states that the lack of tyre changes magnifies this problem BUT is not the cause. Again guys please do not go on and on about not being able to change tyres during a race causing safety issues. RS did bugger all laps and thus would not have even reached his first pitstop window, if he was at all competitive for a race win. And the race before and Kimi's tyre failure was not caused by not being able to change his tyre ... it was caused by a massive driver error flat spotting the tyre. Note also that this was AFTER his last pitstop and thus even if he had new tyres on he would have fncked it ... and McLaren would STILL not have pitted him to change it and thus loose the race. If you think about what you are saying ... you are saying that in this modern world we cannot make a piece of rubber, etc. go 70-80 laps of a race track. Come on we can send a space probe to fncken Mars for Pete's sake. To quote myself (from this thread): Or we can continue to run around screaming the sky is falling, etc. ... heck I'm going home from work and I better pull in to a tyre shop and get brand new rubber for the run home Pete ps: I've raced for more than 1 season on the same rubber ... and I also know of go karting guys that do many races between new tyres. F1 is just another race series, they CAN safely make a tyre last easily a race distance ... just take away the competition. [EDIT:] It does appear that Michelin purposely designed a tyre not to last the full race distance ... if you read and believe this: Michelin say that tyres might NOT work at SPA also !! ... problem still solved by a single tyre supplier, and I don't think it will be Michelin [/EDIT]
Flat-spotting has nothing to do with two suppliers. You'd need tires made of stone to prevent flat-spotting. What you seem to be saying is that they should improve safety by giving all F1 teams the same set of really, really bad tires. (It would slow the cars.) But I've seen the changes in street tires since the Goodyear days. Gatorbacks were pretty good tires, back when they were based on GY's F1 rain tire. But today's S03s and Pilot sports are miles ahead of Gatorbacks. Racing *does* improve street hardware. So competition is to our benefit -- even if it causes the teams headaches ... especially when they come up on the losing side (like Ferrari has, most of this year).
PSk - 1. No, YOU misapprehend the issue. 2. OK, what MAJOR series follows the same "no tire change" rule as F1? And the answer is??????????????? 3. The fact that Kimi managed to flat spot after his last scheduled pit stop does nothing to establish the safety rationale for the "no tire change" rule. What if it had happened much earlier in the race? Shouldn't Kimi have been able to try to recover from his mistake rather than continue on and possibly cause serious injury to himself or others on the track? For that matter, who really knows what the cause was? How do YOU know for sure that it was driver error? YOU weren't in the car, so how do you know? If you race, as you claim, I can't imagine that you are always able to instantaneously determine cause and effect during a race, or whether any particular piece of equipment on your car will last the distance. It is also possible that Kimi himself, despite what he might have said after the race, would not really know the cause -- but one thing is for sure -- after he flat spotted, he knew he had a serious problem. If I were driving in F1, I'd feel much safer relying upon my own instincts, and the knowledge and expertise of my race engineer and the tire engineers, to make an IMMEDIATE decision regarding the safety of my tires, rather than worry about some flatulent FIA stuffed shirt second guessing my team's decisions under the ridiculous "no tire change" rule. 4. The fact of the matter is that so far, NO ONE has made (or used) a tire that can go a full race distance under typical F1 conditions, let alone 2 or 3 race distances, as you suggest. Further, it is hard to understand the relevance of our ability to send a space probe to Mars to this issue. So what? We've also managed to kill a lot of people on launching pads, and on space shuttles .... 5. You may prove me wrong, but for the life of me, I can't recall a time during Goodyear's defacto reign as the sole tire provider in F1 that there ever was a "no tire change" rule in effect. If there was, it sure didn't last very long. One thing's for sure, Goodyear experienced tire failures too, despite being the only game in town. My point? A "no tire change" rule didn't make anymore sense with one tire supplier than it does now. 6. KARTING? Are you for real? (No disrespect to karting, but the issue here is F1's "no tire change" rule, and not whether karts are fun or demand incredible skills and proper set-up to be truly fast.) How many major karting series have a no tire change rule? Or, better yet, a no tire change rule for a whole season? For that matter, how many karts do 200 MPH +? There is no per se rule, is there, PSk? 7. KARTING? Again, are you for real? I know there are some pretty powerful lawn mower engines out there (YES, I KNOW THAT THEY DON'T ALL USE LAWN MOWER ENGINES), but you can't possibly be arguing that there is a relevant comparison between the forces karting tires experience and those experienced in F1. BUT, IN FACT, YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THAT POINT, AREN'T YOU? OK, fine, just find some karting tires that will run safely over 200 MPH and slap them on that Minardi you've got in you garage and go racing. PROBLEM SOLVED. 8. You've raced 1 season on the same tires? Club racing your 1750GTV? "Jolly jolly good, Stebbins." 9. I can just imagine next year's Australian "Malibu Grand Prix." I'll be sure to book my tickets tomorrow. Mark
The one tire rule is stupid. BUT!!! It's even more idiotic for a tire manufacture and a team manager who are "supposed" to be the best of the best create a situation we have before us today.
am I the only person who remeber when the F1 cars of Prost, Mansell and Senna etc. etc. was filling up with petrol and going the whole race with NO stops at all ? I dont understand the reasons why people are complaining suddenly that there is only 1 tyre for the race ? OK, in the 'old' days there was 1 tyre for quilfying and then a different (and brand new) tyre at the start of the race, but I thought that the guys today get 6 set of tyres for the weekend anyway (maybe this bit I didnt understand correct?). Anyway, I just dont see any problem with the current tyre rules in the context of what the old turbo cars were doing (faster). I agree there was never a "no tyre rule", but to win you had to make a tyre last the distance, there was no limit on the size of the petrol tank (the only reason people are stopping today). Of course there were failiures, who can forget mansell's spectacular tyre failiure in the williams, but nobody complained in those days. Nice picture to remind you: http://f1-facts.com/results/race/1986/Adelaide In the same race Keke Rosberg retired due to tyre failiurs also.
I didn't watch F1 during the time of one tire and tank of gas. I'm new since 1995 or so. I hate the new rule and think with all the money going around on testing , wind tunnels, crew size, driver saleries, research and testing that a couple sets of tires is not out of line. How much are they saving. It cost Kimi a race and nearly killed him.
Because, like it times past, as you have stated....The one tire rule causes failures. Also, people have been complaining about this rule ever since it was put back into place. It todays world were there is a money grubbing attorneys at every corner looking for "prize money" you would think the "smart people" who run/supply this sport would get a clue and not repeat histories blunders.
I remember and I enjoyed the H#LL out of it! I think the one tire rule is a good one. I also think they should ban refueling as they did in the 80s. That was the only time in the last 25 years that any technological implementations in F1 (ECU) made it's way to road cars and the general public at large. And actually there was a rule on the maximum size of the fuel tank. To get around it teams would super cool the fuel in order to put more into the tank and fuel lines. As the race progressed and the fuel began to expand the consumption would be more than the expansion so there wasn't too much worry. Unless the race was for some reason delayed. Then lots of people would worry about fuel literally expanding and blowing the seams off the fuel cells. Ahhh... Good times, good times.
QUOTE: I remember and I enjoyed the H#LL out of it! I think the one tire rule is a good one. I also think they should ban refueling as they did in the 80s. That was the only time in the last 25 years that any technological implementations in F1 (ECU) made it's way to road cars and the general public at large. QUOTE. Despite the refueling ban, there wasn't a "no tire change rule" then.
I may be wrong here but...... I remember the tire on Kimi's car was starting to flatspot before the last pitstop. It was not changed because the FIA MAY NOT have decided the tire was unsafe and issued a penalty. And back to the "Good old days" At least those tires had rubber across the entire tire. And didn't those cars have abs and traction controls? Not sure, but I think they did. I still think the one set of tires rule is unsafe. Sure, most teams *can* or *may* be able to finish the complete race with no problem, but if one does arise, either from a slow leak or puncture, flat spot, whatever, it gives the team and driver a safe way to stay in the race.
I'm of the opinion that F1 should move forward, not back. What I mean is, there should be an all out effort to safetly get around the track in the fastest way possible. If that means tire changes or more down force, so be it. These are supposed to be the best of the best. If they don't, then it opens the door for another series to fill the need.
Y'know, if I was a real cynic about the whole thing, I'd say F1 should remove all the human drivers and just have computerised cars that go around the track as fast as they can. With heuristic programming, these computers can even learn to improve ! At any rate, given the technological possibilities, the real limiting factor in the track times has more or less become human driver skill. You want to compare individual driver skill ? There're always series like the new A1 series, where all the cars are identical, and have no major electronic aids. Actually, I'd like to see something like this. If A1 actually became the premier (human) racing series, we'd actually get to see drivers of the caliber of MS, RB, Kimi and Alonso duking it out in absolutely identical cars. Now wouldn't that be a hoot ?
QUOTE: I may be wrong here but...... I remember the tire on Kimi's car was starting to flatspot before the last pitstop. It was not changed because the FIA MAY NOT have decided the tire was unsafe and issued a penalty. QUOTE. zsnnf - I was simply paraphrasing PSk's earlier posting. Like you, I believe Kimi may have had problems earlier in the race. Mark
Golly, why start a new series? Why not just play musical chairs with the current cars and drivers in F1? That'd be WILD......maybe, maybe not....... Mark
No ABS or Traction control back then. Or E-Gear shifting. Just driver finesse. All of the other stuff came into play in the early 90s. We're refering to the 80s.
If we had the one tire rule in place with no ABS, Traction Control Etc. The tires would not hold up at all. I am not a big fan of the 1 tire rule. But it is a rule that all the teams have to live with as well as the tire manufactures. Bridgestone have always erred on the conservitave side of the equation. This year it is bitting them and Ferrari in the A$$. On the other side of the coin Michelin has decided to take a not prisoners attitude and it bit the sponsors of the Michelin Shod teams and the fans of the USGP in the A$$. History keeps repeating itself over and over again Michelin will do any thing they want to in order to try and get an advantage. 2003 : Produced tires that were at the FIA tread width limit once it was discovered that the tires went over the limit in the race Michlin was no longer competitive that year. 2004 : Indy Michelin Produced a tire so thin that one little sliver of carbon Fiber was enough to cause Alonso and Ralf to crash out of the race both in the higher speed sections of the track. 2005 : Michelin tires have no visible grooves in them after the races (A direct violation of the FIA F1 Rules) They get warned about not compromising safety over performance by the FIA. Reply to the FIA that the tires might not be safe at Spa because the drivers bounce over the kurbs. Then Show up at Indy with only 1 tire choice for all teams. That choice perhaps Michelin knew would not work before they even sent them to Indy. Michelin should be banned from producing tires in F1 right now!!!! They ignore the rules and have a win at any cost attitude then if thing dont go there way they create a political protest at the USGP's cost.
