Michelin vs Mosley again

[LongQ]

I see from F1.COM (and elsewhere) that Michelin have questioned the sudden change back to short life tyres and in race changes to which the FIA has rather sarcastically responded publicly and included a comment about Indianapolis.

Toys and prams spring to mind, though the Michelin point about increasing costs when so much the FIA does allegedly presents as cost control.

Of course we must not forget that the FIA is involved with a number of activities peripheral to F1 and motorsport - or should that be the other way around? - some of which are in partnership with a major tyre company which is not Michelin.

Michelin seem to think that the changes may be driven by ulterior motives. One would have to guess that they are not wrong.

[flemke]

LongQ said:

Michelin seem to think that the changes may be driven by ulterior motives. One would have to guess that they are not wrong.

How cynical!
And just because Ferrari was the only team that was hurt this year by the single-tyre rule, don't you dare think that that was a factor in the decision by FIAT, er, I mean FIA.

[rubystone]

I think Michelin have a point - but then they do have an historic advantage in making their tyres last longer than 20 laps...in fact, for Froggies, they're pretty decent coves.

[LongQ]

flemke said:

How cynical! And just because Ferrari was the only team that was hurt this year by the single-tyre rule, don't you dare think that that was a factor in the decision by FIAT, er, I mean FIA.

I do apologise. Far be it for me to be cynical about possible politics in F1 and business in the wider world.

And clearly MM is right since, were he not, he would surely have faced competition for his election?

I assume those involved and with a vote see him as some sort of benevolent dictator. The sort of approach which probably works, to the satisfaction of the majority of those who are interested enough to care, in a clan like F1 and motor sport in general but clearly failed to gain overall long term control a few decades ago when attempted in the wider sensibilities of the Eastern part of the Western world.

Still, I suppose one can learn from history if one gets close enough to the subject.

[rubystone]

Mosley's a crafty sod - or is it just that the garagistes cannot be bothered?...he changed the rules on election of the presidency last year (IIRC) in that the candidate needed the backing (or is it support?) of 22 individuals who would form his "cabinet" - I doubt Paul Stoddart could summon 22 individuals to support him (although I guess Ozjet might have a couple of dozen stewardesses, come to think of it...)

[heebeegeetee]

I have sympathy for michelin. Leaving Indy aside which obviously was a mistake, michelin have made better tyres than Bridgestone. Yet now it seems that because bridgestone can't compete, the rules have to be changed to allow them to be able to, which undoes the excellent work by Michelin.

So much for F1 being the white heat of competition, where excellence rules, blah blah blah.

[flemke]

rubystone said:

Mosley's a crafty sod - or is it just that the garagistes cannot be bothered?...he changed the rules on election of the presidency last year (IIRC) in that the candidate needed the backing (or is it support?) of 22 individuals who would form his "cabinet" - I doubt Paul Stoddart could summon 22 individuals to support him (although I guess Ozjet might have a couple of dozen stewardesses, come to think of it...)

Let's remember that the FIA electorate does not include Frank Williams, Ron Dennis, or other racing people.
Rather, the membership comprises nations that wish to be represented at the FIA by their national auto clubs.
For example, whoever represents Britain, IIRC, is a senior dude in the RAC.
It follows that, UN-style, each member nation has one vote and its vote is as powerful as the vote of any other member nation. Paraguay or Sri Lanka, for example, would have as much impact on who is FIA boss as Britain, Germany or the US would.
And whatever you do, do not imagine that Max would distribute to the various national representatives who might vote for him favours such as tickets to races, autographed photos of top drivers, meetings with big shots, etc. To do that would be unethical and therefore he would not associate himself with such base activities - unless it was in the interests of motorsport, of course.

[LongQ]

flemke said:

For example, whoever represents Britain, IIRC, is a senior dude in the RAC.

But surely the RAC is now a commercial operation most of which is far removed from its original sporting amd motoring intentions?

flemke said:

It follows that, UN-style, each member nation has one vote and its vote is as powerful as the vote of any other member nation.

Which of course is democratic in a sense though hardly in the sense of one person one vote and certainly not one motor sport participant one vote.

But was this not the same when Balestre was at the helm?

My guess is that MM is playing games to give him the upper hand when it comes to negotiating for the single tyre supplier position. He would not want someone difficult like Michelin in the game. If he can rile them early there may not be an issue, Michelin might withdraw of their own volition.

Or is that far too obvious? If the Ferrari factions decamp to Bridgstone are we simply looking at lines being drawn ready for the manufacturer's series going independent?

>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 31st October 16:35

>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 31st October 16:37

[rubystone]

LonQ - spot on there - Mosley has gone out of his way to antagonise Michelin - there are some downright rude (although amusing, it has to be conceded) retorts in the official FIA reponses to Indy and most recently the FIA response to Edouard Michelin's comments.

I'm not sure one could say that Michlin make better tyres than Bridgestone, more that their tyres suit the current regulations better than Biedgestones...which of course suit a multiple tyre-change type of scenario...

The only difference I see between the Balestre years and the Mosley years is the fact that Max has no credible opposition to him...

[LongQ]

rubystone said:

The only difference I see between the Balestre years and the Mosley years is the fact that Max has no credible opposition to him...

It was a while ago but I thought Balestre was, to all intents and purposes, unopposed until 'people' decided he should stand down. I think the way of the world back then was play charades to some extent to make it look like democracy in action whereas these days it seems that, worldwide and in all political situations, nobody feels the need for pretence any more. They have learned that the majority would not be concerned about matters unless it upped and smacked them in the face - and even then many would probably accept it and file for compensation.

[semprini27]

Okay, I have put my flak vest on and am ready for the abuse, but here goes anyway.....

How can Michelin complain about anything when they caused the single worst F1 event in decades, ruining the reputation of the sport in it's biggest market ?

Think they should shut up and get on with it really.

[LongQ]

semprini27 said:

How can Michelin complain about anything when they caused the single worst F1 event in decades, ruining the reputation of the sport in it's biggest market ?

"It's" being F1's or Michelin's biggest market?

One might of course counter argue that several years of Bridgestone/Ferrari/Schumacher domination represented some years of ruined perception of F1 as a sporting attraction, unless one is there once a year as a celebrity for the free lunch. But I guess the US is not the biggest spectator market for F1 by some way.

semprini27 said:

Think they should shut up and get on with it really.

Clearly there are broader underlying questions behind their very logical press release (did you read it by the way?)

If I were Michelin management I would be tempted to pull out of F1 at the earliest opportunity based on the situation as known to the public. After all they have won the championships and many companies previously have elected to get out whilst in that position. (Frank Williams even supported the idea for his top drivers, though they 'foolishly' chose to carry on elsewhere!)

So I assume there is more to it than that.

As I recall Bridgstone also had a couple of races where the Ferrari's suffered catastrophic tyre problems - as did Minardi at at least one race I seem to recall. We just did not notice much because, well, it was not so important to the results.

So a mainly Bridgestone shod grid might well have resulted in several races with the majority of the competitiors being forced out of the race. Not quite the same problems as not taking the start but the effect would have been the same multiplied by several occurances.

If Mosely is saying that the single tyre-set rule was wrong on performance and safety grounds for both suppliers, so be it. The FIA could hold its hand up and admit to a technical error and introduce the changes for next year. Such a situation would largely have seen off the Indy problem as well since I believe the majority of teams would have raced around the problem had changes been allowed on the grounds of safety. It might have proved challenging and compromised some people's performances but the alternative did anyway.

I think this is all a matter of honesty and logic. Is it really logical to change engines to reduce costs even though development costs will need to be carried?

If it was such a good idea in the first place, is it really logical to revert tyre strategy after a single season for any reason other than safety - which seems not to have been mentioned by the FIA?

Of course they might need to change the rules anyway to satisfy the requirements of the qualifying session changes next year, but that could have been done by allowing a change after the qualifying session, thus making just 3 laps (only 2 at racing condition) difference to the age of the tyre at the start of the race.

Irrespective of any of the above logic it is clear that, just like the governments of the world, FIA pronouncements are likely to be using spurious reasons to justify constant rule and policy decision changes.

Why is it so difficult to be honest?

And why do people no longer seem to care when the only explanations they are offered throw up divisive policies based on highly questionable logic?

Is dictatorship, with massive financial benefits for many involved in running the dictatorship, something we all seek to live under?

If it is a lot of time and effort has been wasted in recent decades.


Edit to add:

The other aspect that gives me concern is that a reasonably worded question, albeit with obvious loaded connotations, was answered by a sarcastically ad hominem attack on a corporation which has mostly provided good value for the sport and which has done much of its own volition and for commercial reasons to repair the alleged damage that the Indy fiasco created.

Presumably the Michelin boys don't take kindly to having a Paris based Brit telling them what to do and so are not prepared to cosy up in the same way that others might. Fair enough. Their commercial decision. It hardly justifies the response that the FIA seems to wish to make public without answering the question posed.

>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 31st October 17:50

[flemke]

semprini27 said:

Okay, I have put my flak vest on and am ready for the abuse, but here goes anyway..... How can Michelin complain about anything when they caused the single worst F1 event in decades, ruining the reputation of the sport in it's biggest market ? Think they should shut up and get on with it really.

Thanks for providing some food for thought, semprini.
A couple of responses:
- You say that Michelin 'caused' the worst event. What Michelin did was to design a tyre that they obviously thought would work properly.
Michelin did not have the advantage that Bridgestone had enjoyed, which was that Bridgestone's subsidiary, Firestone, had shod the cars at the Indy 500 a month earlier and therefore had a huge amount of data relating to the new track surface.
Michelin made a mistake that was very costly to itself and its partners. The consequences of their actions were completely unintentional.
The FIA (specifically Mosley, who obviously calls all the shots) and Ferrari (through sins of omission, at a minimum) had every opportunity to address the growing catastrophe and control it. They elected, however, consciously and willfully to take a course that, rather than rectifying the growing catastrophe, only exacerbated it.
- We might consider showing Michelin a bit of sympathy. Only a fortnight ago there was a major Nextel race at Charlotte. That track surface had recently been dressed with diamond-tipped tools, just as Indy had been earlier in the year.
In Nextel they use a control Goodyear tyre, so there is no need for the maker to take chances or go to extremes with the tyre compound and construction. Nonetheless in that race, IIRC, 17 cars crashed out because of separate high-speed tyre failures. So even with the best of intentions, things can go wrong.

Michelin have stood up and taken responsibility for their mistake - let's give them credit for that.
Can you think of the last time that the almighty FIA took responsibility for something that went wrong? I can't...but then again, I sometimes forget that Max is perfect.

[rubystone]

LongQ said:

rubystone said: The only difference I see between the Balestre years and the Mosley years is the fact that Max has no credible opposition to him... It was a while ago but I thought Balestre was, to all intents and purposes, unopposed until 'people' decided he should stand down. I think the way of the world back then was play charades to some extent to make it look like democracy in action whereas these days it seems that, worldwide and in all political situations, nobody feels the need for pretence any more. They have learned that the majority would not be concerned about matters unless it upped and smacked them in the face - and even then many would probably accept it and file for compensation.

Actually my statement was hugely tongue in cheek - Mosley brought the downfall of Balestre with the help of BCE thru FOCA IIRC.

It must massively irk Michelin that old Max suns himself in Monaco, free of legal retribution for anything he does or says whilst dropping bombs at every opportunity...he is preying on the natural arrogance of the French (sweeping generalisation, I know, but I have met plenty of them and worked for them too!).

Frankly, I have been utterly surprised at Bridgestone's inability to get to grips with the tyre requirements for this year, given their massive resources.

[heebeegeetee]

semprini27 said:

Okay, I have put my flak vest on and am ready for the abuse, but here goes anyway..... How can Michelin complain about anything when they caused the single worst F1 event in decades, ruining the reputation of the sport in it's biggest market ?

Because on the other hand they have supported motorsport for decades - centuries even, by providing excellent equipment. Think of le Mans, where they now double and triple stint the tyres, often in blistering heat.

F1 hardly had any reputation at all in America anyway, and the previous debacles had nothing to do with Michelin. Its the sheer lack of 'racing' in F1 that has long prevented the US fans to get excited.

[LongQ]

rubystone said:

Actually my statement was hugely tongue in cheek - Mosley brought the downfall of Balestre with the help of BCE thru FOCA IIRC. It must massively irk Michelin that old Max suns himself in Monaco, free of legal retribution for anything he does or says whilst dropping bombs at every opportunity...he is preying on the natural arrogance of the French (sweeping generalisation, I know, but I have met plenty of them and worked for them too!). Frankly, I have been utterly surprised at Bridgestone's inability to get to grips with the tyre requirements for this year, given their massive resources.

Ah, I suspected that was the case but my memory eluded me and, at the time, my interest in the politics of F1 was minimal to nothing.

Your second paragraph comments ring very true - I have also worked with and for French run companies. An interesting experience sometimes but it does not leave one seeking constant exposure to their management attitudes no matter that the majority are great people individually. (Outside Paris that is - or so many non Parisian French people have told me.

With only one competitive team as a partner I guess they will have a bad year if the partner has a bad year for whatever reason. Odd they should get themselves into that position. For Ferrari too ... but then that is another place where French influence can be identified.

Still, in their favour, the French did win both championships with a culturally diverse team.

[semprini27]

heebeegeetee said:

semprini27 said: Okay, I have put my flak vest on and am ready for the abuse, but here goes anyway..... How can Michelin complain about anything when they caused the single worst F1 event in decades, ruining the reputation of the sport in it's biggest market ? Because on the other hand they have supported motorsport for decades - centuries even, by providing excellent equipment. Think of le Mans, where they now double and triple stint the tyres, often in blistering heat. F1 hardly had any reputation at all in America anyway, and the previous debacles had nothing to do with Michelin. Its the sheer lack of 'racing' in F1 that has long prevented the US fans to get excited.

Knew I'd need the flak vest !! Presumably Michelin want to milk the commercial benefit of being in F1 and nobody can deny they produced a better tyre than Bridgestone this year at all bar one of the races. No doubt this is helped by working with so many top teams whereas Bridgestone and Ferrari have arguably shot themselves in the foot by only having input from one top team in the tyres.

One could argue that the change to no tyre changes advantaged Michelin when it was brought in as they clearly didn't have softer tyres to match the Bridgestones at that point in time.

Tyre changes undoubdtedly liven up F1 - it's all part of the show, the odd stuck wheelnut, the marvelling at sub 5 second 4 wheel changes, the pit crew races to get their man out ahead. It's not really as exciting wondering when the computer is going to shut the fuel off and send the car on it's way.

Just my opinion, but I say bring it back to help with the show.

[daydreamer]

Sub 5 second wheel changes are not really relevant in F1 anymore, as the fuel dictates the length of the pit stop.

There were two reasons for banning tyre changes - firstly to reduce lap times, and secondly to bring some variability into the races as managing the tyre could come back into a racing drivers skill set.

By and large the move succeeded on both counts - which is why it beggars belief that when the FIA actually succeeded in meeting its objectives, it goes and U turns.

I have every sympathy for Mitchelin here. They did a better job, they like Bridgestone, expended the additional money required for year one development testing, and now all that has to be thrown away.

F1 is very expensive, but when you have a governing body on one side saying it wants to reduce costs, then on the other making every conceivable change to increase them, things do get a little confusing!

Rich

[rubystone]

Daydreamer has hit the nail on the head here. I was marhsalling at Club Corner this year at the British GP this year - crowd marshalling, I hasten to add, hardly a life risking job, but the view was great . I had a great view of the entry into Vale and could not figure out why M Schumacher wasn't putting any moves on Trulli the Tank Engine when the opportunity existed for him to take him down the inside. Of course the reason why he didn't bother was that he was waiting for his pitstop.

If planned pitstops are banned, not only will the driver need to manage a changing fuel load, with the attendant effects on the car's handling characteristics, but he'll need to manage his tyres too.

(crowd marshall, not one of those boys I also think it's worth adding that the planned

[LongQ]

semprini27 said:

Knew I'd need the flak vest !!

Blimey - the responses so far are hardly flak!

semprini27 said:

One could argue that the change to no tyre changes advantaged Michelin when it was brought in as they clearly didn't have softer tyres to match the Bridgestones at that point in time.

Perhaps, though I can't see that the difference between the companies was quite so marked as it has been this year. If the tyres were that good all round - as opposed to on a Ferrari - why did other teams change to Michelin? Or were they not given the option by a Bridgestone/Ferrari agreement to exclude any teams likely to be slightly competitive?

semprini27 said:

Tyre changes undoubdtedly liven up F1 - it's all part of the show, ...

Not sure about that, especially if the pits are the only place that passing occurs. It may work as part of the entertainment on ovals in the States but that would be for entirely different reasons.

I suppose it is entertaining if the spectators are in the grandstand opposite the pits or have access to a large screen to watch from - assuming that the cameras can pick up all the action at the same time - or the TV coverage is OK. Whether tyre wear issues over 2 or 3 sets of tyres would increase the chances of passing on the track as well is doubtful I think. It seemed to make little difference in previous years.

But then again maybe F1 is not the thing to watch if regular passing moves and position changes are what one looks for from motor sport?

(Thinking about the earlier large screen viewing comment - most of the new tracks seem to keep the spectators well away from the action for most of the circuit so maybe the big screens are all that is required. Perhaps they could just keep the public in the car parks and project the images to them there. In which case the whole thing could be run as virtual reality and that means that the problems of tyre performance and passing could be overcome easily by setting a few parameters. It would give more time for interviewing the visiting celebrities as well.

Hmm. Must be time for another cup of coffee.)