The 7 Michelin teams (Guilty verdict cancelled!)

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:19 am

mlittle wrote:require any tire suppliers who wish to participate in F1(Bridgestone, Michelin, Pirelli, etc.) to certify that their tires will be safe to use on all track surfaces, from asphalt, tarmac and banked surfaces. Until that is done, Bridgestone should be the exclusive tire supplier for F1, just as Bridgestone USA supplies its' Potenza slicks to the ChampCar series and Firestone uses its' Firehawk slicks in the IndyCar series.

Let's not stop there - let's also make it clear to the tyre companies that the FIA are under no obligation whatsoever to provide them with any testing on these surfaces, and if they fail to turn up with tractor tyres as an option when Bahrain is declared an open desert race (at the last minute) next year, that we'll sue the pants off them!

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:22 am

Kapel wrote:I hope the meeting on 29th doesnt end the great season we all are enjoying.

I just hope there's no penalty on the teams & no team is expelled from the championship(BAR).
As the teams has accepted their fault to spoiling the show,on safety grounds,for no fault of theirs;FIA should only ask the teams or Michelin to pay back the money to the 120,000 spectators who were the real losers on the day.(CAn they send money to us too )

I hope this issue is resolve soon & amicably,to restart the season with good races lying ahead.

The Fia has never put the interests of the paying spectator, or the home viewer, to the fore, why should they now?

Graham Ross · Post by **Graham Ross** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:11 pm

mlittle wrote:After reading the FIA statement concerning the seven Michelin-shod teams' refusal to race at the USGP Sunday, 19 June, it is clear that the teams broke the rules that the FIA set by not competing. If anything is done, the FIA and Formula 1 Mgmt. should IMMEDIATELY require all 10 teams to use Bridgestone tires from the next race(Magny Cours-France) on to the end of the current season and require any tire suppliers who wish to participate in F1(Bridgestone, Michelin, Pirelli, etc.) to certify that their tires will be safe to use on all track surfaces, from asphalt, tarmac and banked surfaces. Until that is done, Bridgestone should be the exclusive tire supplier for F1, just as Bridgestone USA supplies its' Potenza slicks to the ChampCar series and Firestone uses its' Firehawk slicks in the IndyCar series.

Sorry but why is there the assumption that Bridgestone are totally safe ?

This year at the Spanish Grand Prix Michael Schumacher had not one but two tyre failures. Barrichello retired in Malaysia because of his tyres.

No need for a knee jerk reaction. These are two very respectable tyre companies competing at the highest level. Michelin failed miserably at Indy but don't forget that they won the first 8 races of the season.
Bridgestone's so called conservative approach failed in Malaysia and Spain to name two events ? They were on the limit there werent they ?

A single tyre supplier has to be coupled with strict rules regarding testing otherwise tyres would be favour one team over another.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:15 pm

Graham,I think the whole idea of introducing a single tyre is to reduce, and tightly control testing, in order to try and even out the costs for the teams. You would still have teams choosing different compounds to add to the mystique

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:15 pm

From what i read of Bernie's statement,its looks like Michelins days in F1 are numbered

One tyre rule mayb applied as son as 2006.N if this is conveyed to the teams on the 29th,i wonder if the motivation level of Michelins ppl would be high to compete for the rest of the season.

I hope i'm proved wrong.

F1greyhound · Post by **F1greyhound** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:36 am

MICHELIN face a bad name to the brand now. In case they should race their final season they must be extremely motivated to go out as WINNERS...

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:14 am

Don Lindsay wrote:I have a stong feeling that the outcome of this meeting will be the deciding factor for bringing in the GPWC. The straw that will break the Camel's back so to speak.

I agree. If the Council comes down hard on the Michelin teams, what would be the end. Frankly, though, I'm not sure that them *not* doing so would do anything but delay the (now totally inevitable, I think) blow-up.

The teams (and everyone else, actually - look at the way he leaned on poor old Tony George, who had *nothing* to do with this) just don't trust Max not to screw them in the future. Even if he lays off now, that's not any kind of evidence he has reformed, and won't screw them in the future. I mean, no matter how much the two sides claim they have kissed and made up, there's still going to be a lot of residual hostility, and no way to guarantee it won't break through again. And Max has proved he's more interested in putting his foot on their throats than the good of the sport...

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:18 am

N. Jones wrote:I have a bad feeling we are seeing the beginning of the end of F1 as we know it.
I think the FIA is going to come down hard on all of these teams.

Well, Max is certainly coming at this like a lawyer (the transcrupt of his recent press conference is most interesting), so the signs are not good.

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:24 am

F1greyhound wrote: Maybe Bernie didnt make such consequences clear enough last Sunday, otherwise we might have seen a real race...

Did you not see the transcript of Bernie's interview on the grid (with Martin Brundle)? It was most interesting; among other things, he said "The incident's not the fault of the teams, to be honest with you." So I'm not sure that Bernie (at least) felt there was anything the teams could do (and therefore nothing that he could push them to do).

It's not clear from reading it who he does blame, but reading between the lines I suspect his position is much the same as a lot of other people's: Michelin screwed up big-time, and brought defective tires to the race, but it wasn't done deliberately; and once it was discovered that there was a problem, the vast majority of the blame for the fiasco that ensued lies with the FIA - and that failure *was* concious.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:50 am

jnc wrote:
N. Jones wrote:I have a bad feeling we are seeing the beginning of the end of F1 as we know it.
I think the FIA is going to come down hard on all of these teams.
Well, Max is certainly coming at this like a lawyer (the transcrupt of his recent press conference is most interesting), so the signs are not good.

I would never let Max stand behind me

sgd · Post by **sgd** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:43 pm

polo2028 wrote:Does the collapse of Formula One mean the birth of GPWC (if it is possible)?

Hopefully it will!!

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:28 am

julian mayo wrote: I think the whole idea of introducing a single tyre is to reduce, and tightly control testing, in order to try and even out the costs for the teams.

Well, those are all true, but a single tire provider would also probably make the tires safer, too. See, when there are two competing manufacturers, they have an incentive to "push the envelope", and make tires that are closer to the edge, so that they can beat the other guys. With only a single vendor, they can afford to be more conservative in their tire design.

Not that this will guarantee that something like the Indy situation doesn't come up, of course; it's still not clear how Michelin's problem arose (I saw one rumour on ITV-F1 that it was down to a bad batch of materials), but human error has not yet been outlawed, as far as I know. However, if such an event were to happen again, *all* the teams would be in the same boat, and the FIA wouldn't have "fairness" leg to stand on when it came to e.g. putting in a chicane.

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:22 pm

I agree than probably one tyre manufacturer would be safer,but i'm sure with different compounds available ,some teams would try to optimise the situation to its advantage & sometimes would fails.But then at that point,the teams would who fail would be responsible & not the tyre company or the resurfaced area.

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:40 am

Thinking of this a lot over the last week, I think F1 has lost one of it's enduring images - pit teams busting their balls to do tyre changes. It is a spectacle I just realised I miss and another reason to get rid of the present rules for next season. I think they should even change the rules now - that you can change tyres, but only tyres or fuel, not both. It seems foolish/dangerous to wait for a puncture before you change a tyre under the present rules.

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:36 pm

Byron Forbes wrote:Thinking of this a lot over the last week, I think F1 has lost one of it's enduring images - pit teams busting their balls to do tyre changes. It is a spectacle I just realised I miss and another reason to get rid of the present rules for next season. I think they should even change the rules now - that you can change tyres, but only tyres or fuel, not both. It seems foolish/dangerous to wait for a puncture before you change a tyre under the present rules.

Alas i agree to what u said