Its not fair to accuse them of that. If the issue was down to a compound which was to soft then I would agree but this was a construction issue and gave no performance advantage. They had no experience of the diamond surface and misjudged the implications. Then second tyre that people go on about is the same thing, it will have a common construction with a hard, durable compound to last well.
Ahhahh… perhaps therin lies the root of our disagreement then…
The tyre companies are NOT supposed to bring two compounds… they are supposed to bring a primary tyre that has maximum performance and a second tyre that is safe under ALL circumstances and will probably have inferior performance (that might, and most probably will, mean a different construction but it does NOT mean a simple different compound !!) You see it looks to me like Michelin were actually offering their ‘partners’ two compounds, instead of doing what they really should have been doing… infact this is the case because the construction of all their tyres seems to be the same which is why they couldn’t provide a suitable back-up – hence my assertion, they were taking a risk with the rules and ballsed it up methinks… good-luck to em where they have gotten away with it but this time it back-fired BIG TIME, and Bridgestone should not have been compromised or expected to help them with a solution. Nor should the track have been modified in short timescales to help them and compromise those who brought the corect equipment
The diamond cut surface thing is just a red herring - apart from the fact that every other series uses it and the fact that Michelin are supposed to be one of the most professional tyre outfits in the world should have put paid to this as an issue. In fact i don’t think even Michelin are saying it was a contributory factor.
The diamond cut surface thing is just a red herring - apart from the fact that every other series uses it and the fact that Michelin are supposed to be one of the most professional tyre outfits in the world should have put paid to this as an issue. In fact i don’t think even Michelin are saying it was a contributory factor.
Really? Firestone told Bridgestone is was a problem from the Indy 500.
If I was Michelin I wouldn’t say my multi-million dollar set-up was stupid enough not to put an expert on a plane to check the location 3 weeks before! Due diligence!
i’m not saying its not a wear issue, just that its not as if Michelin shouldn’t have taken it into account - anyway, their tyres weren’t wearing out… they were catastrophically failing
Nobody can deny that Michelin messed up and its nice to see that they are refunding all the fans. I don’t beleive their mistake was down to trying to gain an unfair advantage though, just poor evaluation of the track. The situation could and should have been sorted so that a race could take place and a chicane was the only viable option for this to happen. Max Mosley decided to flex his muscles to the detriment of the fans and F1 as a whole.
What is interesting is that the people who are in agreement that the FIA to blame seem to be those who have had direct experience of the FIA and how they work.
FYI.
In the August issue of Racecar Engineering they’re not spaking about the fiasco (probably did’t make the deadline), but there is a sidebar where they put the latest gossip and there is one that caught my attention:
Bernie Ecclestone > has been offered a new job with the FIA. The new role would see Ecclestone looking after Formla 1’s administration, allowing > Max Mosley > to concentrate on other areas
I see that in an interview in today’s Autocar that even Max admits that the FIA got it wrong… although he still denies that a chicane was the answer (still covering up his mistakes in glib lawyer speak) . He also makes the point about “what if the Bridgestone runners had asked…” I still think this is ducking the issue of banging heads and making it work…
The upshot in simple terms is that the Michelin shod cars wanted to race with a fighting chance of winning while Mosely didnt think they deserved that opportunity.
This wasn’t the case at all, the Michelin guys were willing to concede points, start from the back, whatever it took for a race to take place.
Maybe, but its still not a race. I think measures should have been agreed to get a race in place that mean Ferrari had to actually earn their points.
The upshot in simple terms is that the Michelin shod cars wanted to race with a fighting chance of winning while Mosely didnt think they deserved that opportunity.
This wasn’t the case at all, the Michelin guys were willing to concede points, start from the back, whatever it took for a race to take place.
Maybe, but its still not a race. I think measures should have been agreed to get a race in place that mean Ferrari had to actually earn their points.
More of a race than six cars running around so that Ferrari could get those points they have been licking arse for.
They should have run something, whatever it took, to many bodies trying to control F1, surely amongst them and all their resource they could have come up with something, even if it isnt ideal. No points for meet, all on bridgestones, or something. unbelievable! talk about losing sight of the fact it’s suppose to be a sport in essense. just shows it isn’t really!