Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Results of Michelin investigation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney AUS
    Posts
    161

    Results of Michelin investigation

    Michelin has completed its investigations concerning the tyres used at Indianapolis and has communicated the results of these investigations to its partner teams:

    "The tyres were not intrinsically flawed, but were insufficiently suited to the extreme racing conditions encountered through Turn 13 of the Indianapolis circuit this year."

    Given the evolutions concerning the cars' aerodynamics, the regulations which govern the sport and the nature of the track surfaces, etc., Michelin carries out testing in the course of each season with a view to developing the tyres which are the most suited to each event. Two key elements must be known about the Indianapolis circuit:

    *Turn 13, with its severe banking, is the only turn of its kind in a season of 19 races.

    *Testing at Indianapolis was not possible.

    As a consequence, in order to define the specification of its tyres for Indianapolis, Michelin had to carry out simulation work based on the results of less severe testing at other venues and on estimations concerning the specific conditions likely to be met at Indianapolis in 2005.

    The Michelin investigations have revealed that the loads exerted on the rear left tyre through Turn 13 at Indianapolis were far superior to the highest estimations of Michelin's engineers. This year, the situation through this corner turned out to be altered by the extreme combination of the speed, lateral acceleration and additional dynamic load. The tyres which Michelin took were therefore insufficiently adapted to the extreme conditions of Turn 13 in 2005. This was a problem.

    On the other hand, investigations concerning the materials and construction employed for the tyres produced for Indianapolis have confirmed the absence of any anomaly. The tyres did not have an intrinsic flaw but they were not insufficiently suited to turn 13. Moreover, this analysis confirmed the pertinence of the tyre solutions specified for all the other circuits.

    In retrospect, this analysis perfectly validates the pertinence of the precautionary measures requested by Michelin and its partner teams in the interests of driver safety and fully confirms that the addition of a chicane at the entrance of Turn 13, which would have guaranteed lower speeds through Turn 13, would have enabled spectators not to be deprived of a high class competition, while at the same time guaranteeing the safety of the drivers.

    As a consequence:

    1. Based on these investigations, Michelin has revised its simulation model for 'banked' corners such as Turn 13 at Indianapolis in view of the special effects caused by this corner.

    2. Michelin requests that it be possible in the future to undertake testing at Indianapolis before the Grand Prix.

    3. Michelin confirms that it will be present with safe, competitive tyres at the forthcoming Grand Prix races.

    In conclusion, Michelin Competition's Director Mr. Pierre Dupasquier declared: "The problem was that we under-evaluated the extreme constraints to which tyres were exposed through Turn 13 in the specific context of 2005. We are grateful to our partners for their work with us right up to the last moment to seek a solution that would have permitted the race to go ahead in total safety. We regret that the spectators did not see an exciting race. However, in keeping with its principles, Michelin did not sacrifice safety for performance."

    27-06-05
    Personally I disagree with the statement that they "did not sacrifice safety for performance", if they had brought the correct tyre in the first place then all of this could have been avoided.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Thats the problem; they didn't have the correct tyre. At all. Anywhere.

    They realised the ones they brought were uncompetitive, and dangerous, and they knew the other tyres they manufacturered would not stand up to the conditions without making the teams using them uncompetitive.

    They admit they were dumb enough not to test under the parameters of Turn 13. Thats a start.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,288
    *Turn 13, with its severe banking, is the only turn of its kind in a season of 19 races.

    *Testing at Indianapolis was not possible.

    If it wasnt possible to test, then i wouldnt say they were dumb. they test at every track from the way that is sounds but it wasnt possible to test that track so they did their best to find a similar turn but obviously that didnt work. The FIA could have prevented all of this, with better rules or just changing turn 13. Both would have been wonderful solutions that would have worked and still alowed a race.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by scottie300z
    If it wasnt possible to test, then i wouldnt say they were dumb. they test at every track from the way that is sounds but it wasnt possible to test that track so they did their best to find a similar turn but obviously that didnt work. The FIA could have prevented all of this, with better rules or just changing turn 13. Both would have been wonderful solutions that would have worked and still alowed a race.
    Perhaps it wasn't possible because they didn't pay for it.

    The FIA has some responsibility, but the fact remains, Michelin made the call to tell the teams not to race.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    Perhaps it wasn't possible because they didn't pay for it.

    The FIA has some responsibility, but the fact remains, Michelin made the call to tell the teams not to race.
    Perhaps, but perhaps not. Im not going to condemn anybody for something im not sure about. thats just guessing. And id rather guess that they were willing to pay for it if they paid for all other tracks, why skip this one?

    And if the tires werent safe then maybe they shouldnt race. Im sure you would have enjoyed watching all of those cars blow their tires just like ralph did. I really think what happened is atleast better then that. Or maybe they just dont drive as fast, that would have been great racing too with them all milling around turn 13, well i dont think so.

    I wouldnt blame michelin for having the drivers safety in their mind (and frankly i wouldnt call it just safety, i would call it the driver's lives.), and if you were a driver you wouldnt either. Its not like michelin says dont race and the teams do whatever michelin says, they thought it over and decided it was the best choice even if they would get punished.

    And if michelin didnt say anything and atleast one driver died or got seriouslly hurt (broken back, cut off legs or whatever) b/c of it, you would be right there w/ everone else wondering why michelin didnt say anything.
    Last edited by scottie300z; 06-27-2005 at 07:00 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Quote Originally Posted by scottie300z
    Perhaps, but perhaps not. Im not going to condemn anybody for something im not sure about. thats just guessing. And id rather guess that they were willing to pay for it if they paid for all other tracks, why skip this one?

    Because they probably thought it was just an oval and calculated using the banking angle, but didn't factor in the resurfacing.

    And if the tires werent safe then maybe they shouldnt race. Im sure you would have enjoyed watching all of those cars blow their tires just like ralph did. I really think what happened is atleast better then that. Or maybe they just dont drive as fast, that would have been great racing too with them all milling around turn 13, well i dont think so.

    can you imagine telling an F1 driver not to go as fast as possible?
    I concur that it would have made for a great spectacle if they raced and their would have been more crashes, but they are rather expensive cars.....


    I wouldnt blame michelin for having the drivers safety in their mind, and if you were a driver you wouldnt either. Its not like michelin says dont race and the teams do whatever michelin says, they thought it over and decided it was the best choice even if they would get punished.
    It's the bottom line; driver safety. There hasn't been a driver fatality in F1 since Senna in 1994, and thats a record they would like to keep intact.

    It doesn't help they were in liabilty hell (America) where if someone gets injured they can sue everyone within a three mile radius.

    Turns out their getting sued anyway.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,288
    Michelin carries out testing in the course of each season with a view to developing the tyres which are the most suited to each event.
    Because they probably thought it was just an oval and calculated using the banking angle, but didn't factor in the resurfacing
    They test every season. If they were into guessing they wouldnt test every season, they would take data collected from previous testing.

    And i dont really understand what it matters that they were in america, if someone gets injured it would be a driver and him being in america doesnt make him want to sure more then he would if he got injured somewhere else, and i doubt a driver would do any suing anyways. They decide to race and take the risk and this time they decided not to. And if a driver decides its not smart to take this risk i believe him b/c they know what they are doing, they know their cars and their limits and they take those risks as a living. Im not going to second guess them. They sit in those cars like you would sit in your minivan, but if this one time makes them think its not right to go, then it isnt right.

    Im not coming here to argue, but im just stubborn with my opinion. It could pretty much be stated as a fact that those tires would have failed on a significant amount of cars running them, so what were they to do?
    Last edited by scottie300z; 06-27-2005 at 07:14 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by scottie300z
    Perhaps, but perhaps not. Im not going to condemn anybody for something im not sure about. thats just guessing. And id rather guess that they were willing to pay for it if they paid for all other tracks, why skip this one?
    F1 teams don't actually test at all the circuits they race on. I think what Michelin are saying is that all the different kinds of non-banked corners they might encounter in a season are pretty much duplicated at one or more of the test tracks they use. The tracks they test on are predominantly Silverstone, Barcelona, Jerez, Valencia, Paul Ricard, Mugello, Vallelunga and of course Ferrari test at their own track Fiorano. These tracks provide a good variety of styles and corner types, but obviously none have a 9 degree banking like at Indy. From a combination of data from previous years, and data from similar types of surface and corner radius etc it the tyre manufacturers then put two and two together and come up with a suitable tyre. Alas at Indy they seemed to put two and two together and come up with five!

    There are some oval courses in Europe (Rockingham, Lausitz Ring) but I doubt it would be cost/time effective to run a full test session at one of these tracks just for the sake of generating data for one single corner on the F1 calendar.

    Bridgestone had the obvious advantage in that their Firestone brand ran tyres in the Indy 500 just a few weeks ago and had plenty of data on the track conditions etc. Though it was interesting to hear that Firestone actually used the same spec tyre in 2005 as it did in 2004 for the Indy 500, and actually noted that the new surface everyone has been making a fuss about is actually a "little less severe" than before. The track has apparently been "diamond ground" since 2003 anyway, so Michelin shouldn't really have any excuses there.

    http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=24932
    uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    It's not like Michelin wished this on itself. But as a result of underestimating tyre loading on this unique-in-F1 (and recently modified) corner 13, Michelin were in a lose/lose situation if the race was to go ahead as-was

    Either proceed to race, suffer awful negative publicity for the resultant disaster, and possibly be held liable for consequences (accidents, injury, or worse) in litigious-mad America

    Or state the bloody obvious, that unfortunately their existing tyres were unsuitable to race on, and still endure negative publicity for their product

    Leading edge technology isn't easy, nor is engineering a foolproof science. Look at NASA, eg. Or the multitudes of product recalls throughout industry. Given the no-win situation it subsequently found itself confined within, as a responsible company Michelin did the only course of action it could; be honest and take it on the chin

    The resultant farce doesn't put me off buying Michelin product one iota

    as an aside, do US spectators expect compensation (including travel, accomodation) and sue if a Nascar or Indy 500 event is delayed or cancelled by rain?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    *Turn 13, with its severe banking,
    Bahahahahahahahahaha 9 degrees is severe, bahahahahahahahaha!
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,288
    Thanks for the info jack, that helped alot.

    And i agree w/ nota.
    and i have a question too, is it tire or tyre? is it a country thing?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by scottie300z
    Thanks for the info jack, that helped alot.

    And i agree w/ nota.
    and i have a question too, is it tire or tyre? is it a country thing?
    Yeah it's a country thing. Tire for you new-world'ers, for Oz & UK etc our worn tyres tire out

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,579
    Tire is when your over something; Ie: I tire of this situation
    Tyre is the Round Donut-shaped thing we drive on: Ie: I have more than 1 tyre on my car.

    and in the wonderful world of F1, 9 degrees is the steepest banked corner in the entire series.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,534
    You may have more than one tyre on your car, but I used to have four completely different tyres on my old Rover!

    Anyhoo, I think Michellin cocked up big time and should just admit it. Which they basically have with that press release, so goodo there. The expectation that the track could be changed for them is silly though, as then that would presumably put the Bridgestone runners at a disadvantage. I'm only presuming here, but would not a tyre that is suited to the banking be less grippy and slower than the Michellins? The uproar from the other side of the camp would be justifyably huge, and for better reasons. They did nothing wrong, yet they're being punished. Michellin could conceivably have come up with suitable tyres in time for the race, given that that corner has been in the series for several years now, resurfaced or not they have experience with it. As to whether the teams should be fined, well.. it was a legitimate safety concern, but the stunt they pulled was stupid and against the rules that they have all agreed to, so there is recourse for penalty there. They should just take it on the lip and get back to the business of racing, F1 isn't a democracy. There shouldn't be politics involved.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney AUS
    Posts
    161
    While I agree with you that politics shouldn't be involved in F1 (or any other sport for that matter). I've been watching F1 for over 25years and there isn't a single one of those years that politics wasn't involved.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stoddart's official USGP comment....
    By fpv_gtho in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-22-2005, 09:45 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-04-2004, 07:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •