ColorChange

Here is Michelins press release on their Indy disaster.

http://www.sportssystems.com/novell/...host/GN854.pdf

This is such a piece of marketing BS!!!!!

Michelin:

You were there last year! You have data from last year! You not only have test data, you had ACTUAL RACE DATA. The banking in turn 13 hasn't change. You didn't need to run a "simulation", you just had to look at last years data. Ughhhh!!!!!!

Admit your mistakes like a man and take the beating you so deserve. While I was disappointed in your failure at Indy, this lame cover-up attempt is sickening and really makes me angry. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR INCOMPETANCE! - without false excuses.

38D

The last part says: "The problem was that we under-evaluated the extreme constraints to which tyres were exposed through Turn 13 in the specific context of 2005.."

I think Michelin pretty much admits they did not correctly account for T13. Sre they had race data from last year, but things changed. None of us are race tires engineers, so we don't know d*ck about the details, which is where the truth really lies. Like in all situations, there were many parties involved. Trying to pin the blame on a single organiztion/person is pointless.

Sloth

If last years race data was useful then they would not have had the problem. However, the track was resurfaced since last years F1 race. After it was resurfaced they ran a diamond grinder over it to because it was lacking grip. While this increased the grip it also caused the tires to wear more rapidly. The Bridgstone teams were better prepared for this b/c Firestone (sister company of Bridgestone) saw increased wear problems during testing for the Indy 500.

Flying Finn

Exactly!

Michelin had no chance of testing what the conditions would be with new surface, the fact that track lay-out didn't change doesn't mean much.

Bridgestone had the chance to collect data (through Firestone who had to cancel one IRL test day due to tyre problems) and prepare for the surface change but Michelin didn't have that possibility.

ColorChange

Sloth: I agree Bridgestone had an advantage. But, Michelin knew the surface was daimond ground and should have adjusted accordingly. But most important, if they would have said the new track surface somehow caused the problem, I could accept that. That is not what their marketing letter says.

Finn: Yes, but Michelin knew that the first tire test was cut short, and why, just like you and I did. They should have adjusted their compounds accordingly.

My point is, tell the truth. If it was the surface, say so.

Furthermore, Indy was diamond ground in 2002 so they have seen this before. This also not a unique process and they have seen it on many other tracks as well. They forgot to mention that also.

M758

Michelin is smart company. Lots of good Engineers there. If Michelin wanted to win at Indy just like any other track they would need to do their homework. That involved estimating daily temps, speed and track surface. They should have been watching the goings or at least monioting in someway of 500. Sure the cars are different, but given the resurface it is stupid not to learn what you can. Realize that Bridgestone will have more data as well. If there was unexpectedly harsh wear then bring two tires. One that is more durable that can stand-up to more punishment and another tire that maybe is little more on the edge.


Lets look at the facts.

1) Michelin has produced good tires for many years for Turn 13 at Indy.
2) Michelin produced a solid tire for the Supercup cars this year.
3) Michelin should have with realative ease been able to estimated the impact of banking as the banking has not changed.
4) Michelin should have been able to estimate downforce numbers at those speeds since they have to work with the teams to develop the tires any way.

5) The only unknown is abrasiveness of the surface. That seems to have changed form last year to this year. Remember last year's tire while not designed for full race distance would safely make it 1/2 distance so this 10 lap crap is purely a result of surface conditions.

So they knew it was resurfaced and they knew it was diamond ground. So they should have an extensive database to at least create reasonable bounds on the surface adhesion. Then bring the right tire. Simple enough to bring fast tire and slow tire that will last longer.


Simply put the tire problems (if they were not really team induced) were a result of Michelin playing it too close and trying to win too hard. It is the EXACT same thing as someone who runs a 15:1 CR or 25 psi boost grenade motor or running on the right on the edge of detonation. Then a the weather changes and they slip off the edge in the destruction zone. Or just like someone who puts in 1/2 gallon too small a fuel tank to finish the race. Sorry Charlie.... don't slow down the course because you brought the wrong size fuel tank. Just because an extra head wind causes you to burn more fuel than expected and you got your calcuations wrong does not mean all teams should should slow down to make sure you don't run out of fuel.

Bob Rouleau

Tim - I think you are being harsh. Michelin made a mistake and admitted it. Their press release looks like a so-so translation from French so it is a bit stilted. Elegance of language aside they admit that the tires were inadequate. The mistake has cost them a lot of credibility and I suspect financial loss as well. I see no reason to call their press release "marketing BS" though. What more would you have them do? Admit they made a mistake - they did that.

Rgds,

Sloth

CC
The initial point you were making is that they should have used last years track data in constructing this years tires. Obviously, last years data was of little use to either camp. Michelin is owning up to the fact their tires were not up to par and they are just telling why. Ultimately, they are responsible for providing safe tires and they can not blame the track for that failure.

Now who to blame for the race debacle itself... well, that one is about as clear as mud. Should be interesting to read what happens on Weds. at the hearing between the FIA and the teams.

JCP911S

To correctly design to the wrong parameters is just as bad as incorrectly designing to the wrong parameters. A f**k-up is a f**k-up is a f**k-up.

chrisp

I think the entire event was a debacle but Michelin was pushing the envelop like everyone else and went a bit too far considering the limited data.

Don't Supercup, IRL, Nascar, down to Formula BMW all run a spec tire?

Michelin needs to be at the hairy edge to beat Bridgestone (and vice versa). If F1 had a spec tire I bet they wouldn't push the envelope like they both currently do and all would have been well...like in the Indy 500, Brickyard 400, etc...

JCP911S

Its called "tire wars" and has been going on forever. Its a cycle. Things get out of hand and the sactioning body declare a spec tire to stop the madness, and after a while, the spec tire manufacturer gets too fat dumb and happy, and they introduce tire competition to liven things up a bit (and bring in big sopnsorship dollar$), and the whole thing starts over again.

THe "one tire rule" was F1's alternative to a pure spec tire, and obviously a clumsey, artifical, and ineffective one.

All that's really changed in 30 years is that drivers are no longer considered expendable.

Geo

But not as good as Tim.

As far as the wear issue goes, perhaps some of you are making incorrect assumptions. I think it was during the weekend's WC broadcast that I heard the Firestone folks said they had less wear at Indy this year.

From what I've gathered the problem is the tires cannot stand up to the forces they were seeing. Wear and physical construction were not the problem, but rather design. Also remember that the track surface is not the only thing that influences the forces the tires see or the only thing that changed from last year.

That said, Michelin screwed the pooch and they have admitted it. It seems to me they are being remarkably forthright in their disclosure and they just seem to be trying to explain how things got to the point they did.

Personally, I think you have to respect that. I've always believed that character and honor are not defined by not making mistakes, but rather what you do after you've made a mistake.

JCP911S

Of course if they covered it up and a driver had been killed, they'd really be in the soup...

Geo

But that's precisely the point. They fessed up that they screwd the pooch. As a result, they put nobody in danger of being killed once they found out they had a problem. I give them high marks for their conduct.

ColorChange

Joe: Great post. Bob, while some tone things could get lost in translation, please read below:

From Michelin’s press release:

“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 is a lie or they are idiots! The speeds in turn 13, and throughout the whole track, were NOT significantly higher than previous years. The banking angle was the same, only the surface was changed. Therefore, the loads were roughly the same. Unless they didn’t check their model with the real data they have from prior years, this is BS! (And if they didn’t check there own data, they’re idiots!)

Sloth: How do you conclude last years data was unimportant for either camp? I don’t understand this statement at all.

I agree with Geo, the construction of the tire was wrong and it was not a wear issue due to surface roughness. The fact that they could make such a gigantic error on a known track is astounding.