Article 77

[ralf fan]

Ok just got it from f1-live this what article 77 actually states i'm posting it in a new thread so evreyone is aware of the post and can read exactly

77 Quantity and type of tyres :
b) All dry-weather tyres must incorporate circumferential grooves square to the wheel axis and around the entire circumference of the contact surface of each tyre.
c) Each front dry-weather tyre, WHEN NEW, must incorporate 4 grooves which are :
- arranged symmetrically about the centre of the tyre tread ;
- at least 14mm wide at the contact surface and which taper uniformly to a minimum of 10mm at the lower surface ;
- at least 2.5mm deep across the whole lower surface ;
- 50mm (+/- 1.0mm) between centres.
Furthermore, the tread width of the front tyres must not exceed 270mm.
d) Each rear dry-weather tyre, WHEN NEW, must incorporate 4 grooves which are:
- arranged symmetrically about the centre of the tyre tread ;
- at least 14mm wide at the contact surface and which taper uniformly to a minimum of 10mm at the lower surface ;
- at least 2.5mm deep across the whole lower surface ;
- 50mm (+/- 1.0mm) between centres.
The measurements referred to in c) and d) above will be taken when the tyre is fitted to a wheel and inflated to 1.4 bar

[ralf fan]

Ok the pts to note are that it clearly states that only when new(so not after the race) ,the tyres must be these specifications, Hence Michelin were NOT running illegal tyres in all races as suggested in the other thread by some.

[Peter Mallett]

Although the bit about tread width is not restricted by timing (new or old) if one takes a view on the basis of the entire regulation it is is reasonable to assume the measurements are taken on the rim when new.

[R]

Let me see, the "WHEN NEW" bit is in the heading of both c) and d). That way of writing is therefore indicating that "when new" refers to all following points under the same letter - and especially as the tyres has only been measured prior to the race up 'til now, that is the only signal the officials have given to the competitors. This makes a clear case for arguing that Michelin has indeed acted - not only in good faith - but also within the written rules, the way those rules have been interpreted and indeed practiced for the entire season so far.

Case closed.

[Valve Bounce]

I note that there is a colon aftr the first line of para c) and each subsequent line is preceded by a dash. This clearly signifies that the condition for each of the subsequent lines is governed by the first line which contains when new.

I have written specifications for numerous engineering projects and I can say without fear of contradiction that the condition of the tyres can only be controlled When New. This also precludes any action Stewards can take if the grooves wear out.

According to para f) which is missing here unfortunately, if the FIA want to change the regs for next year, they only have today to do so because it must be done before September 1 of this year.

I have said before concerning the FIA's regulations, they are very poorly written, as anyone with a yacht racing background will know, from the explicit nature of the IYRU rules, and the lack of same in the FIA rules.

[Splatz the Cow]

I agree with you there VB and Peter, and RF.

The odd bit is the final sentence which states a tyre will be measured on the rim at specified pressure, as it does not say when this is done. So I think this is where the FIA is trying to act, but surely they are negated by the contents of sections c) and d).

It looks like Michelin have a case.

[Valve Bounce]

At this very exciting stage of the competition, the last thing we want to see is a long drawn out battle in the courts. Unfortunately, this is where it's going to end up, and we will not have a WDC until sometime next year after all the appeals are dealt with.

[ljakse]

79) Wear of tyres:
The Championship will be contested on grooved tyres. The FIA reserve the right to introduce at any time a method of measuring remaining groove depth if performance appears to be enhanced by high wear or by the use of tyres which are worn so that the grooves are no longer visible.

I already posted this in another thread, but any way...
BTW, article 78 is practicaly irrelevant for this issue, so I skiped it.

[Peter Mallett]

Well that is certainly depth but not width, so in support of this decision I think it is irrelavent.

[Red]

Sorry. The article 77 c) says what criteria must the front tyres met. And they are two of them:
1) When new, they need to have grooves blah-blah
2) Furthermore, the thread must not exceed 270 mm.

[ljakse]

Red, I'm afraid this is open for interpretation.
What I mean is it goes down to who has better lawyer.


Your lawyer says:
77 c) says what criteria must the front tyres met. And they are two of them:
1) When new, they need to have grooves blah-blah
2) Furthermore, the thread must not exceed 270 mm.

Mine says:
77 c) says what criteria must the front tyres met. And they are two of them. When new:
1) They need to have grooves blah-blah
2) Furthermore, the thread must not exceed 270 mm.


So, I guess it's up to them to prove what is the right interpretation.
Oh, BTW, your lawyer by default has almost no chance to make me believe he is right

[Red]

Ljakse, sorry. Is not about lawyers, is simply about reading comprehension. The 77c) article has 2 different paragraphs. One that say "when new" and the other one that doesn't.

PS: I don't have a lawyer. And I definitelly don't try to change your opinion. I just gave mines

[ljakse]

Oh, c'mon Red!
Why the part "furthermore...." than isn't 77d or 77x or whichever, just in order to avoid "when new"???

[ljakse]

Red, give me a minute to finish all my edits!!!

[ljakse]

What I mean is that those rules are so badly written that it really comes down to interpretation.
They are not even close to crash-test rules - you know the ones that have 0,00% tolerance.
I don't know what people here do for living, but my job often involves signing some kinds of contracts. Each and every of them was written better than these rules. I really think they had to cover these kind of things when they wrote the rules.
I would like to know which idiot stated that tyres can be checked after the race for groves, but said nothing about width???

[Red]

(11:53, was that enough?)
"furthermore what's the problem? Furthermore, means that in addition to "when hew it must incorsporate 4 grooves" whatever it must "ALSO DO NOT EXCEED 270 MM". Don't you think that "when new" the article would've sound something like:

c) Each front dry-weather tyre, WHEN NEW, must:
- incorporate 4 grooves which are arranged symmetrically about the centre of the tyre tread ;
- incorporate 4 grooves which are at least 14mm wide at the contact surface and which taper uniformly to a minimum of 10mm at the lower surface ;
- incorporate 4 grooves which are at least 2.5mm deep across the whole lower surface ;
- incorporate 4 grooves which are 50mm (+/- 1.0mm) between centres.
- the tread width of the front tyres must not exceed 270mm.

PS: For those who might be interested, please do not start a "FIA deliberately made the rules unclear" debacle.

PS: Ooops, too late

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Red
(11:53, was that enough?)

Yes, thank you , but since when is Romania in different time zone from Serbia?

Originally posted by Red
Don't you think...

No, I don't

Originally posted by Red
PS: For those who might be interested, please do not start a "FIA deliberately made the rules unclear" debacle.

PS: Ooops, too late

Waay to late...

[Red]

Originally posted by ljakse
Yes, thank you , but since when is Romania in different time zone from Serbia?

Actually that was the time that 1010ths site reported. For comparison purposes, your post was dated (I mean still is) 31 Aug 2003 11:49

[Rossi # 46]

Originally posted by Red
(11:53, was that enough?)
"furthermore what's the problem? Furthermore, means that in addition to "when hew it must incorsporate 4 grooves" whatever it must "ALSO DO NOT EXCEED 270 MM". Don't you think that "when new" the article would've sound something like:



PS: For those who might be interested, please do not start a "FIA deliberately made the rules unclear" debacle.

PS: Ooops, too late

Red, you raise a very good point here.

I agree with you 100%

[Gore]

My reading is as Red's: to the extent that these regs have been drafted by someone who wanted to be clear (...?), the tyre width rule would have been included in the bullet points covered by the "when new" statement if that was the author's intention.

As we're proving here though, it is certainly possible to argue over, which is what Michelin and their teams will be doing.

[Peter Mallett]

As you say it is interpretation and it therefore falls to interpreting the entire clause and not just one sentence. doing that we find that the only criteria inthe whole section (or clause) that refers to timing are the words "when new". Unfortunately there is no qualification against the tread width after the race so reasonably I would have to accept the measurements when new and not when used. But I'm a reasonable bloke. Max isn't.

I'm also not sure what law these regs are written under. In terms of EU and French law there is the concept of "good faith". If these rules are governed by those laws it would IMHO be hard to prove that Michelin weren't acting in good faith, especially if they sought clarification of the rules pre season.

[Liz]

Warning, what follows is a rant and does not necessarily represent the opinions of Ten-Tenths. (To be honest, it probably doesn't even represent the opinions of the poster when they aren't ranting.) The only thing I want to know is, How did Ferrari decide that this was the way they would carry out Ross Brawn's vow "This (the Hungarian Grand Prix results, particularly Alonso lapping TGF) must never happen again"? As soon as I heard that phrase, I knew we were in for a court battle of some kind! If you can't beat them on the race track, then beat them in the courtroom. I sincerely hope that the best season Formula One has had in many years is not destroyed by Ferrari's determination to "win" at all costs. We now return you to our normal ramblings.

Besides this personal opinion, I agree with those who have stated that the FIA regulations were drafted by people who started their journey with no idea where they intended to finish it.

[The Zuschauer]

As far as I know, there is a gentleman's agreeement between Michelin and Bridgestone, where they both said they wouldn't make tyres that turned into slicks.

It happened after Michelin (?) designed a tyre which discarded the grooves after two laps, turning itself into a slick. It was 2 seconds per lap quicker in testing, and when Bridgestone got word of it, they almost jumped ship immediately on the whole Formula One program. Somehow, they had a meeting and agreed on a handshake that they wouldn't make such tyres.

I know I'll get flamed like **** for saying this, but it's what I have heard (from people who've worked inside F1), and its the best explanation I have of why they aren't stretching the rules as far as they seem to allow.

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, I think I recall something about that but it we aren't talking slicks here, we're talking about overall tread width.

But taking your point, was it B/S who spilled these particular beans?

[The Zuschauer]

Ah... now that I've re-read this thread, I see that I missed the point. Sorry!