THSCC Forums

And yet Bridgestone can produce a tire that will last more than 10 laps. Maybe Ferrari has a pretty decent set of standards?

I don't remember, wasn't 2004 when it rained and the Bridgestone wet compound beat the snot out of Michelin's similar one?

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'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.

If the fuel supplier to F1 provided a fuel which parked 70% of the field, what we would say then?

"Pick Michelin and win."

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

If you drive your DSP car poorly, should you be allowed to run in stock?

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.

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.