⚠ Forum Archived — The THSCC forums were discontinued (last post: 2024-05-18). This read-only archive preserves club history. Visit thscc.com →  |  Search this archive with Google: site:forums.thscc.com your search terms

THSCC Forums

Tarheel Sports Car Club Forums
It is currently Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:11 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:16 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Jason Mauldin wrote:
And yet Bridgestone can produce a tire that will last more than 10 laps. Maybe Ferrari has a pretty decent set of standards?


No doubt Bridgestone got it right, but if an F1 team is shopping for tires, the chances of winning on Bridgestones is much beacuse your car is not the one for whom the tire is designed. I don't think the teams can be faulted for going wiht Michelin since it is the only way that they can compete for anything other than second.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:18 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Wes Eargle wrote:
I don't remember, wasn't 2004 when it rained and the Bridgestone wet compound beat the snot out of Michelin's similar one?


And the relevance of this is what? F1 teams don't purchase tires based on a wet since in a given season; the occurance of the wet getting more use than the dry would be unprecidented.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:18 pm 
Offline
I HATE hatchbacks!

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 11818
Location: Carolina Beach, NC
I can understand what you're saying, but which is better? A tire that is designed to meet the specs of one team, or one that is trying to meet the needs of several teams in one tire. Putting the hatred of Ferrari winning over and over again aside, they do have fairly deep pockets to put into developing a tire.

I'd take 2nd place over my tires falling apart any day.

_________________
In need of car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:24 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Jason Mauldin wrote:
I can understand what you're saying, but which is better? A tire that is designed to meet the specs of one team, or one that is trying to meet the needs of several teams in one tire. Putting the hatred of Ferrari winning over and over again, they do have fairly deep pockets to put into developing a tire.

I'd take 2nd place over my tires falling apart any day.


I agree and I am sure that if any F1 team reasonably expected Michelin to produce a tire that wouldn't last more than ten laps, they would have gone to Bridgestone and done they best they could. However, I think that most of the teams probably figured that since Michelin, a multi-billion dollar company, is putting their name on the line in the world's most glamorous motorsport, that they would step up to the plate and at least take a swing.

I think Michelin failed well below what the minimum expectation for any party involved in F1 (or any professional motorsport, for that matter) and should be punished accordingly. If the fuel supplier to F1 provided a fuel which parked 70% of the field, what we would say then? Michelin effectively cost EVERYONE involved a whole race.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:28 pm 
Offline
Retired Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 3276
Location: Durham, NC
Jason Mauldin wrote:
I'd take 2nd place over my tires falling apart any day.


Sounds good but that hasn't been the decision until now. It has been...

"Pick Michelin and win."

Michelin has been consistently beating Bridgestone. Running on Bridgestone tires this year has been a hindrance. If Ferrari wasn't "Ferrari" they wouldn't be doing as well as they have been on the Bridgestone.

Jason, welcome to the discussion. ;)

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:30 pm 
Offline
I HATE hatchbacks!

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 11818
Location: Carolina Beach, NC
Rich Anderson wrote:

I agree and I am sure that if any F1 team reasonably expected Michelin to produce a tire that wouldn't last more than ten laps, they would have gone to Bridgestone and done they best they could. However, I think that most of the teams probably figured that since Michelin, a multi-billion dollar company, is putting their name on the line in the world's most glamorous motorsport, that they would step up to the plate and at least take a swing.

Didn't you say that they had tire problems with Michelin last year at this site? Do you think after the 2nd year in a row, that if they come back next year, that they will still be on Michelins?


Quote:
If the fuel supplier to F1 provided a fuel which parked 70% of the field, what we would say then?
I'd look for another fuel supplier. If that fuel supplier hadn't thoroughly tested their product before selling it to be used at a race with this much money on the line, they need to reconsider how they do business.

_________________
In need of car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:32 pm 
Offline
I HATE hatchbacks!

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 11818
Location: Carolina Beach, NC
Richard Casto wrote:

"Pick Michelin and win."


Sure, that's a good way to look at it, but it sounds to me like they already had a known track record at this site. Like I said, I'd take solid finish over watching from the sidelines anyday....

BTW guys, I have no real opinions on this mess either way, I'm just messing with you all.

_________________
In need of car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:33 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Jason Mauldin wrote:
Didn't you say that they had tire problems with Michelin last year at this site? Do you think after the 2nd year in a row, that if they come back next year, that they will still be on Michelins?


One car had a failure that was very similiar to the ones that occured this year. If Michelin did not indicate that it was a problem, then I imagine that the teams chalked it up to a random failure. There is no proof, but this year's events make it look like it was not.

Quote:
I'd look for another fuel supplier. If that fuel supplier hadn't thoroughly tested their product before selling it to be used at a race with this much money on the line, they need to reconsider how they do business.


And that is my point. Michelin needs to reconsider how they do business and the FIA and F1 need to reconsider allowing Michelin in. F1 stands to lose a lot more than Michelin because of this.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:36 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
FIA press release
Quote:
2005 UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
20.06.2005

Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.

At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.

The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams’ lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tire manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that “tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances” (see correspondence attached).

A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally – from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.

The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tire: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.

It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:36 pm 
Offline
I HATE hatchbacks!

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 11818
Location: Carolina Beach, NC
Rich Anderson wrote:
And that is my point. Michelin needs to reconsider how they do business and the FIA and F1 need to reconsider allowing Michelin in. F1 stands to lose a lot more than Michelin because of this.


OR, if the organization won't allow a company to own up and fix a safety problem, then maybe Michelin needs to be more selective about who they do business with...

Like I said, I'm only yanking chains here, so take it for what it's worth. :)

To me it looks like a fair solution would've been to give all participants a fresh set of tires.

_________________
In need of car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:40 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Jason Mauldin wrote:
OR, if the organization won't allow a company to own up and fix a safety problem, then maybe Michelin needs to be more selective about who they do business with...

To me it looks like a fair solution would've been to give all participants a fresh set of tires.


They cannot fix the problem once the race weekend has begun. Those are the rules that have been in place all season. Michelin knew this. Expecting a change in the rules because you are having a bad weekend doesn't work. If you drive your DSP car poorly, should you be allowed to run in stock?

It would not have been fair as Michelin did not have a tire that would last more than ten laps. They failed to provide a safe tire and they solution was to modify the course or ask people to slow down.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:43 pm 
Offline
I HATE hatchbacks!

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 11818
Location: Carolina Beach, NC
Rich Anderson wrote:
If you drive your DSP car poorly, should you be allowed to run in stock?

Let's change that to something more similar.

If I cord a tire after my second run, should I be expected to just slow down for my remaining runs, or should I be allowed to change to a fresh tire.

_________________
In need of car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:45 pm 
Offline
JACKASS!!!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 3683
Rich Anderson wrote:
Wes Eargle wrote:
I don't remember, wasn't 2004 when it rained and the Bridgestone wet compound beat the snot out of Michelin's similar one?


And the relevance of this is what? F1 teams don't purchase tires based on a wet since in a given season; the occurance of the wet getting more use than the dry would be unprecidented.


The relevance is that in previous years, they had two different tire compounds to choose from. When it rains, or threatens rain, you shod the car with rain tires. In the wet, Bridgestones ran away from the Michelins. But when you run the "wrong" tire for the situation, naturally you are slower.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:50 pm
Posts: 616
Location: Cary
Yet the FIA has the ultimate responsiablity to put on a show and they showed no resonable comprimise with Michelin, and Rich I do agree that Michelin is the ultimate cause, but to not try and work with you suppliers and teams just smacks of politics.

_________________
David Teague
2015 Lexus IS 250c
1994 Honda Del Sol HS 39
2009 Dodge Journey R/T
http://teaguefamily.us


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:46 pm 
Offline
Sponsored by Wal Mart!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm
Posts: 687
Location: Making a mongrel
Jason Mauldin wrote:
Let's change that to something more similar.

If I cord a tire after my second run, should I be expected to just slow down for my remaining runs, or should I be allowed to change to a fresh tire.


If the rules say that you must pick one of two provided compounds and run the entire event on one set of tires of that compound, then no, you don't get to change it.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group