Michelin Excuses - What A Joke!
06-29-2005, 06:45 PM
#61
Race Director
Tim, I agree that the magnitude of the miss is astounding. But it's one of the reasons I'd guess it has to do with something very transient that is just enough that it would slip through the cracks but serious enough that the damage gets done. It may also explain why even their alternate tire was trouble as well. No doubt I could be wrong.
As for Bridgestone not having a problem, perhaps they are just too slow to have the problem.
As for Bridgestone not having a problem, perhaps they are just too slow to have the problem.
06-29-2005, 09:54 PM
#62
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
From what I have gleaned for the info that was available early on the outer sidewall to contact area was overheating and failing. There was too little heat sink in this area and the carcass was failing internally. Ajustments to camber and tire pressures reduced the problem but also reduced peformance. I think Joe p and George have hit it and follows what I have been saying. They made the tires too fast. The teams could have pitted OR driven through T13 at a reduced rate. BOTH options were approved by Michelin and could be combined. The teams chose to disregard all but the one option that was never an option.
Enough of the nicey nice stuff. Get a room already.
Enough of the nicey nice stuff. Get a room already.
06-30-2005, 10:04 AM
#63
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other consideration about Michelin is why would they disclose the details of the failure anyway? It doesn't benefit them in any way. They are in competition and neither side is ready to let their secrets be known.
While Michelin was at fault, I believe a solution that kept the fans happy was possible. That was the real failure. Nobody really cared about the fans and personally, I hope this bites them hard. What the FIA could have offered was to let the Michelin teams run on whatever tire could have been flown in with severe penalties in the points (or even no points). Putting up a chicane was a poor option from the start as that would have penalized the Bridgestone teams. Let the race go on, after all, it's the fans that make F1 possible.
While Michelin was at fault, I believe a solution that kept the fans happy was possible. That was the real failure. Nobody really cared about the fans and personally, I hope this bites them hard. What the FIA could have offered was to let the Michelin teams run on whatever tire could have been flown in with severe penalties in the points (or even no points). Putting up a chicane was a poor option from the start as that would have penalized the Bridgestone teams. Let the race go on, after all, it's the fans that make F1 possible.
06-30-2005, 10:45 AM
#64
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kurt, while I am not sure if I like you or not .... you are funny. (and I think your post is the closest to what I understand as well regarding the failures) Now quit trying to stir it up. I have enough trouble dealing with the fires my "arrogant tone" starts.
Mitch: Agree 100%. The teams could have run, but wanted to stick it to the FIA and this was their chance to hide under Michelin's incredible blunder.
I have enough trouble dealing with the fires my "arrogant tone" starts.Mitch: Agree 100%. The teams could have run, but wanted to stick it to the FIA and this was their chance to hide under Michelin's incredible blunder.
06-30-2005, 05:15 PM
#65
Race Director
Here's something that hasn't been brought up and that is load is dependent upon grip and speed, even more so on a banked track. So while the car's weight and power has not changed, and the track's configuration, radius of corners and angle of banking remains constant, just changing grip of the surface will increase the loads on the tyres.
Why? Due to the extra grip. The track was resurfaced after the Indy teams complained of traction. So I'm assuming that the diamond-ground surface is gripper than before, like last year's surface. The gripper surface will allow the SAME tyres to generate more grip. Meaning the same car going around the same track will be going faster. Say last years speed through that corner was 180mph and this year due to the extra traction, it's 185mph. That will certainly increase the loads on the tyres, even though the car's weight and power is the same...
Yeah, I think Michelin was pushing things a litle too close to the edge and the combination of many factors threw them over the edge. I don't see why they can't offer the teams 10 different varying compounds and construction of tyres.
Why? Due to the extra grip. The track was resurfaced after the Indy teams complained of traction. So I'm assuming that the diamond-ground surface is gripper than before, like last year's surface. The gripper surface will allow the SAME tyres to generate more grip. Meaning the same car going around the same track will be going faster. Say last years speed through that corner was 180mph and this year due to the extra traction, it's 185mph. That will certainly increase the loads on the tyres, even though the car's weight and power is the same...
Yeah, I think Michelin was pushing things a litle too close to the edge and the combination of many factors threw them over the edge. I don't see why they can't offer the teams 10 different varying compounds and construction of tyres.
06-30-2005, 11:26 PM
#67
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by mitch236
What the FIA could have offered was to let the Michelin teams run on whatever tire could have been flown in with severe penalties in the points (or even no points). Putting up a chicane was a poor option from the start as that would have penalized the Bridgestone teams. Let the race go on, after all, it's the fans that make F1 possible.
Originally Posted by ColorChange
Kurt, while I am not sure if I like you or not ....
07-01-2005, 07:50 AM
#69
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ColorChange
We said repeatedly, speed did not increase significantly so while your analysis would be correct if speeds were higher, that is not what happened.
07-01-2005, 11:22 PM
#71
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJay,
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules... Are you even sure that Ralf's crash last year was caused by a LR tire failure or that the mode of failure was the same?
CC, how do you know that the speed at the apex of turn 13 was not higher? I was not privvy to that bit of telemetry. Was this data published? Only one left rear tire failure occured in turn 13. Zonta's tire failed in the infield section. The tire failure seems to resulted from the cumulative effects of loading the tire. Michelin indicated on Sunday that they were not entirely sure of the cause of the tire failures.
On what have you based your conclusion that tire loading in turn 13 was no different in 2005 than previous years? Do you know the speeds of various cars with different set-ups in turn 13 vs. years past?
Camber, caster, toe, spring and damper rates and downforce all contribute to the loading on the tire. Despite the complexity of the situation, you seem to be able to simplify things down to: "We said repeatedly, speed did not increase significantly so while your analysis would be correct if speeds were higher, that is not what happened."
In the extreme, if I could push a tire flat, with the sidewall against the tarmac would the loading and longevity be the same as if it was rolling properly on the designated contact area? Would it last as long?
Convince me that the magnitude and nature of the tire loads were not significantly changed from prior years. What empirical evidence do you have. The data is sacred in my world. The interpretation is far more suspect.
Enough of the simplistic analysis so you can call Michelin liars. While you may be an engineer, you have not a fraction of the experience of the engineers at Michelin when it comes to tire development and construction. It seems Michelin has done a pretty good job of kicking Bridgestones a$$ so far this season. They did made a mistake at the USGP. Bridgestone likewise had problems prior to the Indy 500 and may have learned from them. Michelin did not have that advantage, as Firestone was the sole tire supplier to the 500 teams.
You have a long way to go before you have proven that Michelin's statements during and after the debacle that was the 2005 USGP were lies.
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules... Are you even sure that Ralf's crash last year was caused by a LR tire failure or that the mode of failure was the same?
CC, how do you know that the speed at the apex of turn 13 was not higher? I was not privvy to that bit of telemetry. Was this data published? Only one left rear tire failure occured in turn 13. Zonta's tire failed in the infield section. The tire failure seems to resulted from the cumulative effects of loading the tire. Michelin indicated on Sunday that they were not entirely sure of the cause of the tire failures.
On what have you based your conclusion that tire loading in turn 13 was no different in 2005 than previous years? Do you know the speeds of various cars with different set-ups in turn 13 vs. years past?
Camber, caster, toe, spring and damper rates and downforce all contribute to the loading on the tire. Despite the complexity of the situation, you seem to be able to simplify things down to: "We said repeatedly, speed did not increase significantly so while your analysis would be correct if speeds were higher, that is not what happened."
In the extreme, if I could push a tire flat, with the sidewall against the tarmac would the loading and longevity be the same as if it was rolling properly on the designated contact area? Would it last as long?
Convince me that the magnitude and nature of the tire loads were not significantly changed from prior years. What empirical evidence do you have. The data is sacred in my world. The interpretation is far more suspect.
Enough of the simplistic analysis so you can call Michelin liars. While you may be an engineer, you have not a fraction of the experience of the engineers at Michelin when it comes to tire development and construction. It seems Michelin has done a pretty good job of kicking Bridgestones a$$ so far this season. They did made a mistake at the USGP. Bridgestone likewise had problems prior to the Indy 500 and may have learned from them. Michelin did not have that advantage, as Firestone was the sole tire supplier to the 500 teams.
You have a long way to go before you have proven that Michelin's statements during and after the debacle that was the 2005 USGP were lies.
07-02-2005, 03:18 AM
#72
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Official Jack off extinguisher
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Lothar
RJay,
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules... Are you even sure that Ralf's crash last year was caused by a LR tire failure or that the mode of failure was the same?
CC, how do you know that the speed at the apex of turn 13 was not higher? I was not privvy to that bit of telemetry. Was this data published? Only one left rear tire failure occured in turn 13. Zonta's tire failed in the infield section. The tire failure seems to resulted from the cumulative effects of loading the tire. Michelin indicated on Sunday that they were not entirely sure of the cause of the tire failures.
On what have you based your conclusion that tire loading in turn 13 was no different in 2005 than previous years? Do you know the speeds of various cars with different set-ups in turn 13 vs. years past?
Camber, caster, toe, spring and damper rates and downforce all contribute to the loading on the tire. Despite the complexity of the situation, you seem to be able to simplify things down to: "We said repeatedly, speed did not increase significantly so while your analysis would be correct if speeds were higher, that is not what happened."
In the extreme, if I could push a tire flat, with the sidewall against the tarmac would the loading and longevity be the same as if it was rolling properly on the designated contact area? Would it last as long?
Convince me that the magnitude and nature of the tire loads were not significantly changed from prior years. What empirical evidence do you have. The data is sacred in my world. The interpretation is far more suspect.
Enough of the simplistic analysis so you can call Michelin liars. While you may be an engineer, you have not a fraction of the experience of the engineers at Michelin when it comes to tire development and construction. It seems Michelin has done a pretty good job of kicking Bridgestones a$$ so far this season. They did made a mistake at the USGP. Bridgestone likewise had problems prior to the Indy 500 and may have learned from them. Michelin did not have that advantage, as Firestone was the sole tire supplier to the 500 teams.
You have a long way to go before you have proven that Michelin's statements during and after the debacle that was the 2005 USGP were lies.
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules... Are you even sure that Ralf's crash last year was caused by a LR tire failure or that the mode of failure was the same?
CC, how do you know that the speed at the apex of turn 13 was not higher? I was not privvy to that bit of telemetry. Was this data published? Only one left rear tire failure occured in turn 13. Zonta's tire failed in the infield section. The tire failure seems to resulted from the cumulative effects of loading the tire. Michelin indicated on Sunday that they were not entirely sure of the cause of the tire failures.
On what have you based your conclusion that tire loading in turn 13 was no different in 2005 than previous years? Do you know the speeds of various cars with different set-ups in turn 13 vs. years past?
Camber, caster, toe, spring and damper rates and downforce all contribute to the loading on the tire. Despite the complexity of the situation, you seem to be able to simplify things down to: "We said repeatedly, speed did not increase significantly so while your analysis would be correct if speeds were higher, that is not what happened."
In the extreme, if I could push a tire flat, with the sidewall against the tarmac would the loading and longevity be the same as if it was rolling properly on the designated contact area? Would it last as long?
Convince me that the magnitude and nature of the tire loads were not significantly changed from prior years. What empirical evidence do you have. The data is sacred in my world. The interpretation is far more suspect.
Enough of the simplistic analysis so you can call Michelin liars. While you may be an engineer, you have not a fraction of the experience of the engineers at Michelin when it comes to tire development and construction. It seems Michelin has done a pretty good job of kicking Bridgestones a$$ so far this season. They did made a mistake at the USGP. Bridgestone likewise had problems prior to the Indy 500 and may have learned from them. Michelin did not have that advantage, as Firestone was the sole tire supplier to the 500 teams.
You have a long way to go before you have proven that Michelin's statements during and after the debacle that was the 2005 USGP were lies.
07-02-2005, 06:33 AM
#73
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pole position
You must be a certified Michelin nuthugger or work for them and I bet my bottom dollar that you are a Ferrari hater too.
R+C
PS I hope you remember to wash your 'bottom dollar' after use.
07-03-2005, 08:38 AM
#74
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lothar
RJay,
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules...
I think you have made a very speculative stretch considering that there were no other left rear tire failures in turn 13 last year and the tires were not required to last race distance under the rules...and the downforce levels were not compromised by the new rules...
Are you even sure that Ralf's crash last year was caused by a LR tire failure or that the mode of failure was the same?
07-03-2005, 12:55 PM
#75
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJay,
I was just asking what information you had regarding Ralf's incident last year. I'll take your word for Williams explanation. I was more interested in the mode of failure and you have admitted that you are speculating that the physical evidence may not have been so conclusive with regard to CF being the culprit. I can't argue that a delamination may be possible but the fact that many Michelin shod cars finished the race last year after long stints at full speed through turn 13 without incident, would suggest to me that maybe Williams/Michelin's analysis in as likely if not more.
By the way, Bridgestone runners appear to have suffered two possible LR tire failures in this weekend's French Grand Prix. In at least one case, the carcass was separated from the sidewall after a sudden failure. I have no information at this point regarding any analysis of the failed tires.
How ironic. I am sure that both tire manufacturers are designing tires right to the edge of the performance/reliability balance. Michelin simply made a big mistake that led to a sad result at Indy. That doesn't necessarily make them liars, it simply makes them human. The flaw of being human has led to all of history's worst engineering disasters.
I was just asking what information you had regarding Ralf's incident last year. I'll take your word for Williams explanation. I was more interested in the mode of failure and you have admitted that you are speculating that the physical evidence may not have been so conclusive with regard to CF being the culprit. I can't argue that a delamination may be possible but the fact that many Michelin shod cars finished the race last year after long stints at full speed through turn 13 without incident, would suggest to me that maybe Williams/Michelin's analysis in as likely if not more.
By the way, Bridgestone runners appear to have suffered two possible LR tire failures in this weekend's French Grand Prix. In at least one case, the carcass was separated from the sidewall after a sudden failure. I have no information at this point regarding any analysis of the failed tires.
How ironic. I am sure that both tire manufacturers are designing tires right to the edge of the performance/reliability balance. Michelin simply made a big mistake that led to a sad result at Indy. That doesn't necessarily make them liars, it simply makes them human. The flaw of being human has led to all of history's worst engineering disasters.