Ferrari complaining, never

[GXH]

If sheuy does not win the season, do you think Ferrari will complain about the points Williams scored on the tyres they had to change be4 last weekend, so he will declared champ by Christmas.
Just a thought

[Gt_R]

Irregardless of whether Ferrari challenge the results. If say JPM wins the WDC, the question mark would be how much he benefitted from the "not very legal" Michelins prior Monza. Looking at the performance difference between Monza and Hungary/Germany/etc, i would say he gained quite a fair bit of advantage.

Either way, it's gonna taint any Michelin and their related team/driver's championship...

[ralf fan]

I think they might try to swing it in their favour, but i doubt they have a case because clearly before Monza the tyres were to be checked tbefore the race

[Jordi]

They could have a case, because from Atlas F1 (pay) the Williams had 276 mm at Hungary. Thing is, that tyre was probably full of **** and debris from the cool down lap. How do you measure something that is covered up?
It's also a fact that no other Michelin runner was oversized, so it could be argued if it wasn't the Williams setup that made the tyres too big.

I believe that if Ferrari don't win the title, they will protest. They will want to win, regardless of the damage they may do to the sport.

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Irregardless of whether Ferrari challenge the results. If say JPM wins the WDC, the question mark would be how much he benefitted from the "not very legal" Michelins prior Monza. Looking at the performance difference between Monza and Hungary/Germany/etc, i would say he gained quite a fair bit of advantage.

Either way, it's gonna taint any Michelin and their related team/driver's championship...

I've read somewhere that if Ferrari do lose the championship they are going to protest the previous races. It would be a difficult one to prove, I would have thought. For instance, GtR reference above - surely the Michelins were wholly legal, 'cos the fia measured them and said they were legal. Someone else has said "only just" legal, but the fia measured them, and said they were legal. There's no only just.

If I buy something for £5.00, pay the man, he counts the £5.00, he may say "ooh, it's only just right" if he wants to, but it's still right. I'm not gonna pay £5.10 just to be sure he's got £5.00.
It's right or wrong. Presumably the fia measured the tread of all the tyres of both manufacturers and were happy with them. Now, apparently, the tread seems to have got wider on the Michelins as they wear, which is strange, 'cos the fia measured the tread, and were happy with them. Where did the extra tread come from?

Still, I guess all this has been said before.

[enemy-ace]

Considering that Schumacher is currently leading the championship it is his to lose. If he loses it now against the 'now supposedly' inferior rubber of Michelin who's to say he would have ever had the advantage against said same 'legal or illegal' rubber in the earlier races.
If Ferrari wins it they can spin it in their favor, but if they lose now to the legal rubber and protest they will just look like poor losers.

[Gt_R]

It's a pity really. What i'm stating in my previous post is that i feel sorry for Kimi or JPM...IF they win the WDC. Just like what some people say, even IF Ferrari did not protest, the controversy stirred up is going to taint either of the driver's first WDC and making it doubtful, which is a pity for their deserved performance.

The whole thing was FIA's way of covering the issue to minimise affecting one of the most exciting championship in years. The Michelin's do not conform to the rules by testing loopholes, and they had hugely gained quite an unfair advantage in Germany/Hungary/etc...hence Ferrari's protest. FIA warned Michelin, clarified the tyres regulation for BOTH teams, and tightened the checks. BUT FIA did not punish Michelins with fines/bans/oveturn results and in the press, did not say that Michelin's were illegal simply because if they do, it's really going to ruin the whole season, something MAX and Bernie would want to avoid.

So, Michelin's weren't really correct in the regulations, but for the better of F1, the issue's treated as a "clarification" of rules. Michelin's were forced to use correct and legal tyres and instantly, their "we can lap Michael in a race!" domination is immediately lost in the sand. If Michelin's earlier tyres were THAT legal, it would not have such a difference.

It's disappointing that the tyres got in the way, and JPM/Kimi/Michael are just poor victims of that rubber war.

[jawa]

Ferrari will probably protest JPM's Hungary result - unless they need more points...

[Hungary 89]

I think people are being unfair by saying that the Michelin Tyres were illegal, all they did was exploite a loophole in the rules, The FIA said that the tyres would be measured at the begining of the race and the tyres were within the specified dimensions at that time. (As I recall the reason that they measure at the begining of the race was to avoid another potencial controvercy over the grooved tyres wearing down to slicks) Exploiting loopholes is the what F1 is all about, Look at the brabhams of the early 80's with there skirts that sealed the underside of the car when it was in motion, Ferrari's Flexible wings of the late 90's

IMHO closing the loophole does not make exploiting it illegal and as for ferrari harping on about a non level playing field thats only because they didn't think of it they could have been doing the same thing if they had thought of it at the time.

[massifheed]

That's the issue here. If Ferrari had thought of it first, you can bet they wouldn't have classed it as cheating.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Ferrari will complain if they loose either championship, because their Ferrari, its what they do!
They're like the clever kid at school, very good at all the nerdy stuff but complain when it all gets a bit too tight.

[Gt_R]

You know how true your statement is... not!

I agree F1 is about exploiting loopholes. Unfortunately, FIA is just not good enough to monitor the situation, nor set a foolproof set of rules and regulations. And in this situation, i do hope that there is no need to resort of protests of results come the end of the year. It is mainly FIA's fault for not earlier addressing to a problem that had been threatening F1 since grooves were introduced...hence allowing Michelin to exploit the loopholes.

The sudden collapse of domination following the re-enforcement of rules shown that Michelins were having a lot of advantage from the "loophole", reaping lots of achievement in the meanwhile.

However, as much as exploiting loopholes, teams bringing up protests about what they feel is unfair about rival team is also part and parcel of competition. Mclaren brought up Ferrari's barge board in 1999, Ferrari bringing up William's 2001 diffuser, etc...even Michelins challenging Bridgestone's legality in early Monaco. It always happen. But why does the "gracious" critics are so tolerant of Williams/Mclaren/Michelin exploiting loopholes, yet any RUMOURS of Ferrari exploiting loopholes trigger a series of conspiracy theories and allegations of cheat? Is it fair? Just see what happens when Ferrari have a better gearchange system and engine mapping... allegations of TC-cheats flew off the shelf like bats..

Ferrari pointing out other's irregularities are branded "sour grapes", but other's accusing of Ferrari is the right thing to do and sets off another Ferrari-bashing spree....a trend that doesn't take a genius to figure how biased their fans can be.

I believe from what i've seen on this forum, for the sake of the "spirit of competition", those 'understanding' critics will have no problem if Ferrari is competing with their back foot tied and had to race with unfair disadvantages...


Ok...Ferrari are cheaters/sore loser/cheat smart arses... whatever...

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Irregardless of whether Ferrari challenge the results. If say JPM wins the WDC, the question mark would be how much he benefitted from the "not very legal" Michelins prior Monza.

Whoever wins the WDC be it Michael, JPM or Kimi theres going to be a question mark.

Michaels will be in as much doubt for the different compounds before Monaco as JPM/Kimi for the Michelins.

[Adam43]

A Ferrari fan can say "if it was Williams you would think differently. Your argument is rubbish."

A Williams fan can say "if it was Ferrari you would think differently. Your argument is rubbish."

What is my point? Well, despite the fact that both of the above could be true there are a lot of people on this forum who do actually post through no bias.

It strikes me that a lot of the posts where the point is that "well if it was a different team" can have the same point reversed and thrown back at them. It occurs to me that it will go no where. Just a thought.

[Kicking-back]

I used to respect Ferrari, but various incidents in recent years have soured my respect for them.

They believe they should win every race - which is fair enough, that's the aim of everyone on the grid.

But as Mika Hakkinen once said - to be a good winner you need to know how to be a good loser.

Something which is alien to Ross Brawn - once again showing he's - without question - the most arrogant man in Formula One.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
It's a pity really. What i'm stating in my previous post is that i feel sorry for Kimi or JPM...IF they win the WDC. Just like what some people say, even IF Ferrari did not protest, the controversy stirred up is going to taint either of the driver's first WDC and making it doubtful, which is a pity for their deserved performance.

I really do agree with this, but, I somehow don't see Michael's first title harming him (unfortunately ). And I'm sure you'll agree that it was, at least, "won with a questin mark over it".

Originally posted by Gt_R

So, Michelin's weren't really correct in the regulations, but for the better of F1, the issue's treated as a "clarification" of rules. Michelin's were forced to use correct and legal tyres and instantly, their "we can lap Michael in a race!" domination is immediately lost in the sand. If Michelin's earlier tyres were THAT legal, it would not have such a difference.

If it was just the case of tyres, how come Michael was only 20sec ahead of Sauber? And we didn't see any more of that kind of domintaion by any Michelin team anywhere else.

Originally posted by Gt_R

It's disappointing that the tyres got in the way, and JPM/Kimi/Michael are just poor victims of that rubber war.

Couldn't agree more.

[Bononi]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
A Ferrari fan can say "if it was Williams you would think differently. Your argument is rubbish."

A Williams fan can say "if it was Ferrari you would think differently. Your argument is rubbish."

What is my point? Well, despite the fact that both of the above could be true there are a lot of people on this forum who do actually post through no bias.

It strikes me that a lot of the posts where the point is that "well if it was a different team" can have the same point reversed and thrown back at them. It occurs to me that it will go no where. Just a thought.

Exactly, mate !

[DriverT]

Yes indeed! Just a thought.

[Gt_R]

Just want to highlight a part of interview between Max and F1R.

==
F1R: Clearly, a pristine new tyre is easier to measure in terms of thread width than a used one. Are you concerned that from now on we will see a spate of post race wrangle as teams and tyres companies dispute stewards measurement from now on? If not, why not?
Max: Yes, but if someone were to make a tyre which apparently had a tread width of 270mm but in fact had a greater tread width when in use, this would be a clear attempt to circumvent a rule and gain an advantage. The stewards would have to act, if only to be fair to those who were not doing such a thing...The fact that a rule may be difficult to enforce can never be a reason for not enforcing it.
==

Kind of sum up what Max knows about the Michelin situation, doesnt it?

The problem is that Bridgestone tyres are rounder top, and with a new contact patch of 255mm, hence, when worn, the contact patch widens but not enough to exceed the 270mm mark. Michelins on the other hand had squarer tyres which is achieved by having a new contact patch of 269mm, hence after a few laps of running, it's contact patch would exceed the 270mm mark, and you would expect a 30mm greater contact patch than Bridgestone would really provide Michelin runners with some really great advantage in traction and grip..clearly disregarding the intentions of the regulation set.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Gt_R


and you would expect a 30mm greater contact patch than Bridgestone would really provide Michelin runners with some really great advantage in traction and grip..clearly disregarding the intentions of the regulation set.

Just how do you manage to come up with 30mm more contact patch?

[ElScOrChO]

With a tire that has the ability to expand with the heat

[GXH]

all this over the 4 black rubber tyres, isn’t technology wonderful...lol

F1 hi-tec

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally posted by Gt_R
..clearly disregarding the intentions of the regulation set.

Says who? If the regulation makers have stipulated that the tyre must not exceed 270mm when new - and that was the Michelin teams interpretation of this - then they clearly recognise that a worn tyre would be hard to measure, they probably don't want to attempt to measure worn tyres, and so stipulate the measurement when the tyre is new. What happens after that is largely irrelevant, and no team should have an advantage, 'cos they're all using the same rule book. If a tyre ends up with a tread of 271 or 272mm, so what? It was 270 when new, that’s what counts, it's the same for everyone, and they're all free to pursue the same end.
Now, Bridgestones front tyres are clearly narrower than the regs allow, but for heavens sake, don't anyone believe this is due to an overeager desire to comply with the regs. They've done this because they (Bridgestone) and presumably Ferrari, have wanted a narrower tyre to suit their car. It may be a way of optimising balance, grip, drag factor, whatever. This was dealt with at the Friday press conference, which you can read at http://www.crash.net/uk/en/news_view...id=1&nid=76295

Ross Brawn says: “You optimise your car, obviously, around the package you have. You optimise it around the tyres and all the other factors. Bridgestone had what they felt was a limit on where they were prepared to go with the wide front tyre from their interpretation of the regulation. And the difference between where they were prepared to go to and what we have is very small, it is not a big difference. So their interpretation of the regulation left not much scope for anything much different to what we have now. So, for us, it was no advantage. We did try some tyres with slightly different shaped shoulders but, as I say, Bridgestone felt there was a limit they wanted to keep to and the difference was very small. “

But Ron Denis replied: “ I think that is somewhat misleading. The simple fact is I am well qualified, having been on Bridgestone tyres for several years, to know that Bridgestone always optimise the performance of their tyres. There is a constant and consistent trend to their belief in front tyre geometry and how it is constructed and what is the optimum width. And, of course, a narrow tyre always gives you a better aerodynamic profile as well. So I think it is misleading of Ross to say it was a regulatory influence that determined the width of the tyre…

Ross Brawn replies: “ I didn't actually say that…” - but if you read what he said – “from their interpretation of the regulation” - he did say that. Denis goes on:
“…it was extremely misleading. It was not regulatory driven, it was performance driven. He knows that very well. “
Brawn actually goes on to say that they’ve tried a wider tyre, but found it made little difference. Clearly, at Monza, the aerodynamic profile of the narrower front tyres contributed to Schumi’s very high speed.

Interestingly, one question asked of Patrick Head was : “…- from your memory, have you ever known the FIA to clarify or interpret a regulation not in favour of Ferrari. And does that lead to a broader problem in the government of the sport?”

And some other quotes, firstly from that press conference. Flavio Briatore had not said much throughout, and then right at the end comes out with: “If it was so important, this interpretation, after two years, why did the FIA never measure the tyre after the race? Everybody knows that, when we finish the race, the FIA measures everything, weight, height, whatever. Everyone knows the tyre is fundamental in the race, so why, in two years, have the FIA only started measuring the tyre when Ferrari talked to them? In two years, not one person from the FIA has measured the tyre. If the interpretation was using 270mm after the race, I think the FIA would measure the tyre after the race. Why in two years have we never had this measure? This is my question, and please can an official guy answer?

And the answer given was : “I think we are going to leave it there. There is no-one to answer to that.”

Also – In this weeks Autosport Mark Webber is quoted saying: “If we went back to Budapest with the new regulations then there would still be three Michelin cars on the podium – and I would put my house on it.”

Niki Lauda: “to say three races from the end of the season they will check the tyres after the races rather than before – to really change the rules that had been established – is over the top.”

Another thing – the only man who seems to me to be changing what he says, to suit the situation, throughout this affair, is Ross Brawn Last week he said “: it was an attempt by Michelin to circumnavigate the regulations. It is now clear that a large number of the Michelin teams have been running illegal tyres for a considerable amount of time.”
This week he says: “ I don't believe for a minute that Michelin were trying to bypass the regulations. They obviously had an interpretation of what they felt was acceptable for the tyre and they are not a company that are going to do something that they knowingly know to be in breach of the regulations and that is down to interpretation. So I do accept that Michelin would not have done that knowingly,”
Quite a swing, that. Also, interestingly, he was asked about Michael’s car being underweight on the Monza Friday. He said it wasn’t, because the stewards did not exclude the car – “We weren't excluded so, by definition, we were not underweight.” Now, its interesting that he doesn’t apply the same logic to the tyre wrangle. By his definitions, as the teams were not excluded from any race, their cars must have been legal.
And you guys who think that Michelin were cheating, need to remember that the established ruling has been changed, and now Michelin have had to make a new tyre to meet that new ruling. The old tyre met the old ruling.

[Speed]

You hit the nail on the head, Heebeegeetee !

[Mr V]

Thats about the mose sensible post i've read regarding this whole affair Heebeegeetee