Can anyone dispute this?

[LampCord]

A simple question. Can anyone dispute this claim with evidence? A quote from one of the teams / drivers / etc.? I've read a lot of posts claiming that the teams brought 2 sets of tires but I've yet to see a quote of anyone in charge at any team disputing this:

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

(From the F1 statement...)

And if no team did bring the second set of lower performance tires, aren't they the ones responsible for this problem?

[ascarmarshal]

I thought that the tyre company brought all tyres to an event not the teams

[Tone]

Each team is allowed a choice of 2 tyres from their supplier, Michelin will have brought at least 2 compounds to circuit (more depending on teams requests).

All tyres had same construction so the problem wouldnt have been avoided choosing a different compound..

[paul-collins]

From the Stoddart piece:

. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competitionl

It doesn't directly address your question as to whether there were two types available at the start of the weekend, but it does say that they made an alternate available in time for the race, but that it turned out to be vulnerable too.

[chillibowl]

also had this question about how many tires the michelin teams had. after ralf's accident i saw teams fiddling with the tire pressure but never saw any one actually change tires.

[LampCord]

My understanding of the rule is that they are supposed to bring a second lower performance / more reliable tire in case there is a problem with the high performance one.

I still have yet to see a quote by any team official claiming that they fullfilled this requirement.

This seems to be at the core of the FIA's case. If it was indeed a rule and no team fullfilled their obligation then I have to side with the FIA on this one. As much as it pains me.

I'm still waiting for a team official to dispute this...

[Adam43]

They did bring two tyres like they do to every GP. That is what they test on Friday.

No one has said otherwise, because there is no need to as it always happens and a given. I have yet to see a team confirm that they ran four tyres on the cars in every practice session too.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by LampCord

My understanding of the rule is that they are supposed to bring a second lower performance / more reliable tire in case there is a problem with the high performance one.

No.

That's not in the rules.

The tyre supplier has to supply the team with 2 sets of 2 types of dry-weather tyres - rule 73b.
The team has to use (part of) friday practice to decide which type of dry-weather tyre they will use on saturday and sunday - rule 74a.
The team has to make sure that their cars will be capable of safely completing the qualification and the race - rule 7.

----------

So it is up to the teams to make sure that their tyres-supplier will bring them at least one type of tyre which is certainly safe enough.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

also had this question about how many tires the michelin teams had. after ralf's accident i saw teams fiddling with the tire pressure but never saw any one actually change tires.

Each team has got 4 sets of dry-weather tyres: 2 sets of one type, and 2 sets of another type.

During friday practice, they can (and must) use 1 set of eacht type.

Ralf's accident happened at the second practice.
I've read that the tyre blew on its first fast lap. In other words, he used one set during the first practice session, and he used the other set during the second session.

Asuuming more Michelins had done that, there would not be much sense in changing the set of tyres they were finding an initial setup for in that session, by the set of tyres that they already found an inital setup for in the first session.

Furthermore, we can assume that approximately half of the Michelin cars had used the "weaker" tyre during first practice. For them, there was certainly no good reason to take the "unknown" tyre off, and replace it with a "known" tyre which might very well be unsafe.

[Adam43]

Is it just an assumption that the teams stick to one type of tyre in each session? I'd have thought it made more sense to try them both in each session, when conditions are more the same. What is the general practice for all this?

My guess is that most teams had used both sets in the first session. Also the problem was a general one for Michelin. This has been covered in the other thread.

Could you provide a link or source to that it was the first flying lap for that tyre. All I have read is that it was the first flying lap of that session:

Originally Posted by Autosport

Schumacher crashed when he lost control of his car heading into the final corner on his first flying lap of the second session ...

http://www.autosport-atlas.com/news.aspx?id=44976&s=5

Thanks

[LampCord]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

They did bring two tyres like they do to every GP. That is what they test on Friday.

No one has said otherwise, because there is no need to as it always happens and a given. I have yet to see a team confirm that they ran four tyres on the cars in every practice session too.

Originally Posted by Don K

No.

That's not in the rules.

The tyre supplier has to supply the team with 2 sets of 2 types of dry-weather tyres - rule 73b.
The team has to use (part of) friday practice to decide which type of dry-weather tyre they will use on saturday and sunday - rule 74a.
The team has to make sure that their cars will be capable of safely completing the qualification and the race - rule 7.

----------

So it is up to the teams to make sure that their tyres-supplier will bring them at least one type of tyre which is certainly safe enough.

So this quote by the FIA is then a lie?

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Is it just an assumption that the teams stick to one type of tyre in each session? I'd have thought it made more sense to try them both in each session, when conditions are more the same. What is the general practice for all this?

My guess is that most teams had used both sets in the first session. Also the problem was a general one for Michelin. This has been covered in the other thread.

Could you provide a link or source to that it was the first flying lap for that tyre. All I have read is that it was the first flying lap of that session: http://www.autosport-atlas.com/news.aspx?id=44976&s=5

Thanks

I would think that the teams would normally be using both types of tyre in each session.

But I've heard lots of peoples claiming that Ralf's tyre blew on its firs fast lap.
Wheres Ralf did 7 laps during the first session.

So apparently, he used one set for his first session, and one set for the other session.

-----------------

Next,
if Ralf did use one set for his first session and another set for the other one, we can assume that Trulli did the same thing (possibly in the different order), because at the end of the day both cars need to know which tyre suits that car+driver best at that circuit.


Seeing that the (race) drivers only use a limited number of laps on friday, I assume that most teams do a similar schema (with the third cars using both types during both sessions of course, and probably with the third cars going out early in the session, trying to gather data which might help the race drivers later on in the session.


So an efficient way to use the friday sessions seems to be:
- First wait until some other team has done some laps.
- Than send your third driver out to do a number of laps.
- Have your third driver change tyres.
- Send your third driver out on the other spec of tyres.
- (Try to analyse the data as fast as possible).
- Let both racing drivers do a fast lap (on different specs of tyres).
- Analyse data, change setup
- Let both raceing drivers do another fast lap.
(And while the racing drivers do this, the third driver could do some more testing.)
Between the sessions, analyse the data. The team should have a basic idea by now how both drivers will have to setup for the "other" spec tyre.
So during the second session, both racing drivers would have quite some time to do their laps. It might be wise to do one more (fast?) lap with the tyre they used in the first session towards the end of the second session. And it might be wise to make sure that the third driver could still do some testing during the second half of the second session, just in case the team needs it because on of the racing drivers does not have enough data yet.

---

But all this is just a guess.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by LampCord

So this quote by the FIA is then a lie?

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

I would read that more that they didn't bring a 'slower and absolutely reliable' tyre (called a 'back-up') not that they only brought one tyre type.

I haven't found the statement you are referring to to check if that inference is correct.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Don K

In other words, he used one set during the first practice session, and he used the other set during the second session.

i guess this is really the heart of the argument, even if there were two tire compunds,which is a given, how different were they? two sets could have easily been brought simply for the sake of appearances.

either way, im not convinced that a team or a driver would just use one tire choice per session. if it was clear that one compound was lacking why waste the rest of the session by staying out on that compound and risk wear on the car and engine?

[Tone]

They definitely brought two because webber said that they had chosen their tyres for the race..

[Don K]

Originally Posted by LampCord

So this quote by the FIA is then a lie?

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

No.

Why should it be a lie?

They have to bring 2 types of tyres.
And they have to make sure, that at least one of those is safe enough.

------------------

In case neither of the tyres is good enough, the team has got a problem.
They can let their tyre supplier bring them some new tyres, but under normal circumstances those extra tyres can not be used during the event: According to the rules, it is up to the stewards of the meeting whether or not they act in such a way that those tyres can enter the event.

------------

In case those extra tyres are brought into the event, the eams are still not allowed to use them.
So if they want to use them, some decission has to be made about the penalty.

Etcetera.

--------------

In fact, this has already been explained to you earlier in this thread (quite recently, iirc).

[LampCord]

OK, again for claritie's sake, the FIA is claiming two things:

1) Each team is supposed bring a second set of lower performance tyres. Not a different compound mind you, but a backup, safer, more reliable tyre in case there is a problem with the main tyres.

2) None of the teams did that.

Here, once more, is the quote taken directly from the FIA's statement:

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html

paragraph 6.

So, did the FIA lie? Is that not a rule? Did the teams not violate the rule? Am I misunderstanding that statment? If so, please explain. Show me the quote where a team principle disputes the FIA's claim.

[LampCord]

Originally Posted by Don K

No.

Why should it be a lie?

They have to bring 2 types of tyres.
And they have to make sure, that at least one of those is safe enough.

------------------

In case neither of the tyres is good enough, the team has got a problem.
They can let their tyre supplier bring them some new tyres, but under normal circumstances those extra tyres can not be used during the event: According to the rules, it is up to the stewards of the meeting whether or not they act in such a way that those tyres can enter the event.

------------

In case those extra tyres are brought into the event, the eams are still not allowed to use them.
So if they want to use them, some decission has to be made about the penalty.

Etcetera.

--------------

In fact, this has already been explained to you earlier in this thread (quite recently, iirc).

You're missing the point. The FIA is claiming that the teams DID NOT BRING A BACKUP.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by LampCord

My understanding of the rule is that they are supposed to bring a second lower performance / more reliable tire in case there is a problem with the high performance one.

Ah, I see.


No.

They have to bring two types of tyre, and they have to make sure at least one of them is good enough.



In F1 you are supposed to go (nearly) to the limit of what is possible.

So in most cases, the teams bring one type which is faster, and one type which is stronger.
In that case, if the friday test shows, that the faster tyre is good enough to last the entire race, they can use the faster tyre, otherwise they have to use the stronger tyre.

Instead of that, they are also allowed to bring two types of tyres which are both strong enough.
In that case, on friday they only have to find out which one of them is faster.

What they allegedly might have done this time, is to bring two types of tyres which are both fast.
If you do that, you have a problem if neither of those types is strong enogh: in that case you would be breaking a rule, I think.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by LampCord

OK, again for claritie's sake, the FIA is claiming two things:

1) Each team is supposed bring a second set of lower performance tyres. Not a different compound mind you, but a backup, safer, more reliable tyre in case there is a problem with the main tyres.

2) None of the teams did that.

Here, once more, is the quote taken directly from the FIA's statement:

"The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html

paragraph 6.

So, did the FIA lie? Is that not a rule? Did the teams not violate the rule? Am I misunderstanding that statment? If so, please explain. Show me the quote where a team principle disputes the FIA's claim.

Yes, it is a second set.

They are allowed and obliged to bring two types of tyre.

And they are obliged to have a type of tyre which is secure.

So they have two possibilities:
- Bring two types of tyres, both of which are safe.
- Bring two sets of tyres, one safe, and one fast (which may or may not be safe enough).

Obviously, the second option will give you (on average) a faster tyre on race day.

---

The FIA did not lie (as I have told you twice before).

You just misunderstood what the FIA said.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by LampCord

You're missing the point. The FIA is claiming that the teams DID NOT BRING A BACKUP.

No.

The FIA claimed that they brought a second set which also was not safe.

[Adam43]

Let us take a step backwards from potentially abrasive and patronising remarks.

Can I clarify the question here?

LampCord, are you asking if Michelin brought two different types of tyres? i.e you are saying that the FIA quote says they only brought one set.

OR

Are you saying neither of the sets could be classed as a "back-up" set (as defined in that quote from the FIA statement)?

Thanks

[LampCord]

Originally Posted by Don K

Yes, it is a second set.

They are allowed and obliged to bring two types of tyre.

And they are obliged to have a type of tyre which is secure.

So they have two possibilities:
- Bring two types of tyres, both of which are safe.
- Bring two sets of tyres, one safe, and one fast (which may or may not be safe enough).

Obviously, the second option will give you (on average) a faster tyre on race day.

---

The FIA did not lie (as I have told you twice before).

You just misunderstood what the FIA said.

OK, so the teams are at fault.

This is what I've been trying to get at. If the accusation by the FIA is true, then it is the fault of the Michellin teams that this happened because they failed to live up to their obligation of bringing a safe, reliable backup tire.

Since no team principle is disputing this, I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

As much as I hate to admit it, the FIA appears to be right and further sanctions are justified.

[LampCord]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Are you saying neither of the sets could be classed as a "back-up" set (as defined in that quote from the FIA statement)?

Bingo! That's what I'm saying.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by LampCord

Bingo! That's what I'm saying.

Ah, I think some of us missed that in your original post. Although I was there in my previous post!

It is clear that neither set was suitable, otherwise the teams would have chosen it! So there is nothing to dispute (so that is the end of this discussion point then!).

In addition now that has become clear it becomes clear that it is relevant in the other thread. http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70474

So this one is closed