News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

You may be right on that point, gm. But I do agree with you on your last line, that, chances are, we'll be seeing less of Michelin in 2006 and possibly a third tire supplier, as well.

GhoGho wrote:Maybe the teams could have all run wet tires on an artificially wet surface?

would this have made any difference?

this would also penalise bridgestone, who had managed to bring the correct tyres for a dry race

Byron Forbes wrote:Here's what's on this site -

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.

Actually, after reading what's on this site again, carefully , it is actually specified here too, but IMS specificaly is not mentioned. Bloody ambiguous!

Byron,

Michelin in their statement are saying that "evolutions concerning the cars' aerodynamics, the regulations which govern the sport and the nature of the track surfaces, etc" may have led to this problem.

All tracks evolve from one year to the next and Michelin's statement clearly does not point the blame squarely at the surface nor at the car aerodynamics nor at the new single tyre regulations.

They are saying that they underestimated Turn 13 in their simulation testing and not being able to test at Indy made that worse. They have offered an explanation to what happened but accept that they got it wrong and took responsibility for it.

As for testing at F1 circuits, Indy is not the only track they don't test at, as a matter of fact, they don't test at most of the circuits on the calendar even if they are resurfaced. Canada being the most recent one before Indy.

bundy wrote:

GhoGho wrote:Maybe the teams could have all run wet tires on an artificially wet surface?

would this have made any difference?

this would also penalise bridgestone, who had managed to bring the correct tyres for a dry race

True Bundy, the explanation I offered was assuming that Bridgestone would be happy to go with that suggestion to save the race.

Ed wrote:

Byron Forbes wrote:Here's what's on this site -

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.

Actually, after reading what's on this site again, carefully , it is actually specified here too, but IMS specificaly is not mentioned. Bloody ambiguous!

Byron,

Michelin in their statement are saying that "evolutions concerning the cars' aerodynamics, the regulations which govern the sport and the nature of the track surfaces, etc" may have led to this problem.

All tracks evolve from one year to the next and Michelin's statement clearly does not point the blame squarely at the surface nor at the car aerodynamics nor at the new single tyre regulations.

They are saying that they underestimated Turn 13 in their simulation testing and not being able to test at Indy made that worse. They have offered an explanation to what happened but accept that they got it wrong and took responsibility for it.

As for testing at F1 circuits, Indy is not the only track they don't test at, as a matter of fact, they don't test at most of the circuits on the calendar even if they are resurfaced. Canada being the most recent one before Indy.

Ed,y dont you use the "emoticons" in ur posts

I know which one u would have used above
Chill Ed,Byron has been on the resurfacing trip even before the race had started(or not started) when he read the bridgestone preview

Hey Julian,relax mate. Ok fine,i know,he pissed u..fine...Use ur axe if you have too

Ed wrote:

Byron Forbes wrote:Here's what's on this site -

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.

Actually, after reading what's on this site again, carefully , it is actually specified here too, but IMS specificaly is not mentioned. Bloody ambiguous!

Byron,

Michelin in their statement are saying that "evolutions concerning the cars' aerodynamics, the regulations which govern the sport and the nature of the track surfaces, etc" may have led to this problem.

All tracks evolve from one year to the next and Michelin's statement clearly does not point the blame squarely at the surface nor at the car aerodynamics nor at the new single tyre regulations.

They are saying that they underestimated Turn 13 in their simulation testing and not being able to test at Indy made that worse. They have offered an explanation to what happened but accept that they got it wrong and took responsibility for it.

As for testing at F1 circuits, Indy is not the only track they don't test at, as a matter of fact, they don't test at most of the circuits on the calendar even if they are resurfaced. Canada being the most recent one before Indy.

Well, we still cant jump to the conclusion that normal track evolution from year to year is all they mean. If that is all they mean, then their entire statement is a pure admission of cockup on their part since there is no difference between what they faced compared to Bridgestone. I sincerly hope some reporter specifically addresses this issue soon

Kapel wrote:Hey Julian,relax mate. Ok fine,i know,he pissed u..fine...

and let me tell you, it was mightily painful too!

Byron Forbes wrote:

Kapel wrote:Hey Julian,relax mate. Ok fine,i know,he pissed u..fine...

and let me tell you, it was mightily painful too!

My sympathy is with u mate,a lotta ppl have come under the hammer here

Byron Ed and other interested parties,

Being in the engineering field myself, I have tired to not point fingers at the resurfacing as i do not believe that it made such a big difference.

I just came across an article about the resurfacing performed at IMS and it makes for very interesting reading. It says:
?When the asphalt paving work was finished, the result was a good, smooth track surface. The problem was that the drivers were used to the previous surface, which gave them more grip because it had been diamond-ground in 2001. The drivers had been driving on a diamond-ground surface for four years and they liked it.?

Why then all the fuss over the diamond-grinding of the new surface if the teams had all run on that type of surface previously? (or did Michelin not attend the previous US Gran Prix?)
It seems to me that Michelin underestimated the advances made by the teams in terms of improved aerodynamics and power outputs since last season and found themselves with a product not suitable for its intended purpose.

GhoGho wrote:Why then all the fuss over the diamond-grinding of the new surface if the teams had all run on that type of surface previously? (or did Michelin not attend the previous US Gran Prix?)
It seems to me that Michelin underestimated the advances made by the teams in terms of improved aerodynamics and power outputs since last season and found themselves with a product not suitable for its intended purpose.

I must say that in light of Michelin themselves mentioning the aerodynamics, regulations and track (I suppose refering to the track they are simply refering to the high banking, not resurfacing?) that you are probably correct. I'm blaming it all on Neil Crompton from channel 10 here in Australia if so! The way he spoke about it before the race was very convincing that it was the resurfacing and that Bridgestone/Firestone had data from the Indy500 that would help them have the correct tyre.

Mind you, I still want to hear a reporter address this issue specifically with Michelin - there is still ambiguity. If they do say the resurfacing was a big factor, then to date their PR has been very poor!

Byron Forbes wrote:
I must say that in light of Michelin themselves mentioning the aerodynamics, regulations and track (I suppose refering to the track they are simply refering to the high banking, not resurfacing?) that you are probably correct. I'm blaming it all on Neil Crompton from channel 10 here in Australia if so! The way he spoke about it before the race was very convincing that it was the resurfacing and that Bridgestone/Firestone had data from the Indy500 that would help them have the correct tyre.

Mind you, I still want to hear a reporter address this issue specifically with Michelin - there is still ambiguity. If they do say the resurfacing was a big factor, then to date their PR has been very poor!

Click here for the article i mentioned earlier.


it also describes the diamond grinding process in detail where you will see that the artificial texture created is acually less than 1mm deep at the end of the process
#Enjoy#

Click here

Great read. Anyone who thinks that track is the same is kidding. 2 1/2 inches they took off the top for starters. And I can see why Neil Crompton mentioned tearing - if those grooves from the diamond cutting dont have all the sharp edges worn down, imagine how that could mess with a groove treaded F1 tyre?

But still, why am I doing Michelins PR work and they haven't even mentioned this?

Byron Forbes wrote:Click here

Great read. Anyone who thinks that track is the same is kidding. 2 1/2 inches they took off the top for starters. And I can see why Neil Crompton mentioned tearing - if those grooves from the diamond cutting dont have all the sharp edges worn down, imagine how that could mess with a groove treaded F1 tyre?

But still, why am I doing Michelins PR work and they haven't even mentioned this?

Cos they know a little teensy weeny bit about marketing? They are trying to recoveer from a huge blow to one of their most profitable marketing areas. Ie How much does a 13 - 14 inch tyre cost ( the most common european tyre size) How much does a 16 -19 inch tyre cost? What is the most common tyre size on new to 2 yo cars in the USA. What is the profit margin between a 14 in tyre and a 17 in tyre.Sadly, in OZ, I know, my tyre man gleefully pointed it out. I have gone back to 16's for that and a couple of other reasons.

Halloo out there in computer land:

How come suddenly the right hand margin stretched? to read the postings on the last pages of response to the Heretic, I had to roll my screen back and forth because, all of a sudden, the right hand margin rolled out.

Am I nuts? or the same people running this place that run Mushin's computers?

Jim Watt

Jim Watt wrote:Halloo out there in computer land:

How come suddenly the right hand margin stretched? to read the postings on the last pages of response to the Heretic, I had to roll my screen back and forth because, all of a sudden, the right hand margin rolled out.

Am I nuts? or the same people running this place that run Mushin's computers?

Jim Watt

No you are not nuts Jim,

The URL posted a few posts earlier was too long that it forced the right margin further to the right. We have placed a "Click Here" instead of the long URL and that should fix it.