Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Indy 2005; The REAL reason the tyres failed?
Topic Started: Jan 25 2007, 10:37 PM (842 Views)
The Saint
Unregistered

theghostofnuvolari,Feb 28 2007
05:06 PM
Well I'm going to say that I completely agree with Rob here.

So there.

My logic runs as follows:

Michelins budget for F1 = $50 million ?

Cost of sending team of technicians with testing aparatus to Indy $50,000 ?

Cost of phone call to Indy to ask about any changes to the track since 2004 $5.00 ?

Michelin didn't do the adequate research and actually given the stupidity of NOT calling Indy, they probably did do some research, and just got it completely and utterly wrong.

What Michelin did or did not do wrong is not what is being debated here. What is (or was by me) being debated is the fact that Bridgestone knew that the track was potentially unsafe but held onto that information. Had they released their INdy500 date, then Michelin would have same to the track with a harder compound.
I think you grossly over simplify the decision making into tyre choices. If we could build tyres and cars purely with calculators, why do we have so much testing?
Personally I don’t give a shit about Bridgestone or Michelin, my concern is someone put a competitive edge ahead of safety. Had it been Michelin, I would be saying the same things.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
But by this logic, Boeing should have helped Airbus build really big planes, Texaco should have helped Enron with their accounting, and Renault should have been offering assistance to McLaren to eliminate their unreliability.

Michelin didn't turn up and say, hell we're really scared and don't know what we're doing here. they only started causing a fuss AFTER their product didn't work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

That is a really poor argument and not ‘this logic’ at all, but lets throw that one back at you.
In my analogy Airbus designed the A800 with a flaw in it’s design and Boeing picked up on that flaw and also identified that it was a potentially deadly one. And if Boeing then went on to keep that flaw a secret and there were crashes because of it. Would you then say that it was ok for then to have said nothing in order to gain a competitive edge when selling their 747’s?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
05:36 PM
That is a really poor argument and not ‘this logic’ at all, but lets throw that one back at you.
In my analogy Airbus designed the A800 with a flaw in it’s design and Boeing picked up on that flaw and also identified that it was a potentially deadly one. And if Boeing then went on to keep that flaw a secret and there were crashes because of it. Would you then say that it was ok for then to have said nothing in order to gain a competitive edge when selling their 747’s?

are you telling me that bridgestone knew that the michelins would throw cars into the wall BEFORE first practice ?

and sorry, but crossing the road is potentially unsafe, bridgestone didn't find it unsafe.

i'm guessing michelin were refused testing ?

were bridgestone allowed to drive around the track anticlockwise ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Norbert,Feb 28 2007
05:03 PM
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:01 PM
Norbert,Feb 28 2007
03:26 PM
Competitors are under no legal or moral obligation to share any data whatsoever.  Any idea that Bridgestone should have given their data from running IndyCars on the track to Michelin is merely sour grapes and a massive over-simplification of the situation.  Of course, had Ferrari been running Michelin, and Renault on Bridgestones, then the very same haters would be laughing rather than crying over spilt milk....

roflmao

Ahhh Norbert, worst post of the day, my points are nothing to do with hate.

And your post knocks mine off the top spot due to the usual farmyard smell......

The USUAL farmyard smell?

As a moderator, do you feel justified in calling all my posts a load of shit?

Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
and i think f1 drivers are more like test pilots than passengers. would boeing let airbus crash a plane while testing ?

i'd bet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

theghostofnuvolari,Feb 28 2007
06:27 PM
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
05:36 PM
That is a really poor argument and not ‘this logic’ at all, but lets throw that one back at you.
In my analogy  Airbus designed the A800 with a flaw in it’s design and Boeing picked up on that flaw and also identified that it was a potentially deadly one. And if Boeing then went on to keep that flaw a secret and there were crashes because of it. Would you then say that it was ok for then to have said nothing in order to gain a competitive edge when selling their 747’s?

are you telling me that bridgestone knew that the michelins would throw cars into the wall BEFORE first practice ?

and sorry, but crossing the road is potentially unsafe, bridgestone didn't find it unsafe.

i'm guessing michelin were refused testing ?

were bridgestone allowed to drive around the track anticlockwise ?

Quote:
 
are you telling me that bridgestone knew that the michelins would throw cars into the wall BEFORE first practice ?


No I am telling you that Bridgesonte knew that the track was VERY abrasive and a very hard compound was required.

Quote:
 
and sorry, but crossing the road is potentially unsafe, bridgestone didn't find it unsafe.


I cant answer this because I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Quote:
 
i'm guessing michelin were refused testing ?


No, Michelin do not supply tyres to the IRL series (and thus the Indy500), Bridgestone have that honor.

Quote:
 
were bridgestone allowed to drive around the track anticlockwise ?


Probably not, but what has that got to do with anything? I assume you too are confusing the points made by WW with the ones I made.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

John,Feb 28 2007
05:11 PM
Rob,Feb 28 2007
04:49 PM
This is my last post in this thread....

Coward... <thumbs> .. I too am tired of it now... <huh> it is just repeating itself now so I'm done

If I was you I'd be tired of fighting a lost cause too John.

;-)

edit: WRONG PAGE
Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
06:32 PM
theghostofnuvolari,Feb 28 2007
06:27 PM
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
05:36 PM
That is a really poor argument and not ‘this logic’ at all, but lets throw that one back at you.
In my analogy  Airbus designed the A800 with a flaw in it’s design and Boeing picked up on that flaw and also identified that it was a potentially deadly one. And if Boeing then went on to keep that flaw a secret and there were crashes because of it. Would you then say that it was ok for then to have said nothing in order to gain a competitive edge when selling their 747’s?

are you telling me that bridgestone knew that the michelins would throw cars into the wall BEFORE first practice ?

and sorry, but crossing the road is potentially unsafe, bridgestone didn't find it unsafe.

i'm guessing michelin were refused testing ?

were bridgestone allowed to drive around the track anticlockwise ?

Quote:
 
are you telling me that bridgestone knew that the michelins would throw cars into the wall BEFORE first practice ?


No I am telling you that Bridgesonte knew that the track was VERY abrasive and a very hard compound was required.

OK, so bridgetsone had no reason to forewarn them of a known danger, only a potential danger for the unaware. not their problem.

Quote:
 
and sorry, but crossing the road is potentially unsafe, bridgestone didn't find it unsafe.


I cant answer this because I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point is maybe you know of a dangerous crossing near where you live, you take more precautions sure, but you don't spend your days advising anyone who's thinking of crossing to take extra care. Why should bridgestone ?

Quote:
 
i'm guessing michelin were refused testing ?


No, Michelin do not supply tyres to the IRL series (and thus the Indy500), Bridgestone have that honor.

Ok, doesn't that mean that, if they'd asked, michelin could have organised some reasonably compatible test on the new surface ?

Quote:
 
were bridgestone allowed to drive around the track anticlockwise ?


Probably not, but what has that got to do with anything? I assume you too are confusing the points made by WW with the ones I made.

It is possible that bridgestone thought their data was only relevent to running anti clockwise.

i'm starting to see why people give up on this thread...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
06:45 PM
If I was you I'd be tired of fighting a lost cause too John.


Alan.... 90 mins and that's your best come back....


The Saint,Feb 28 2007
06:45 PM


;-)  wow john deleted his post!



I haven't deleted anything..... check back through the posts.... they should all be there.... if one is missing.... Admin/mods removed it....

but I don't see why they would need to. <thumbs>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

You’re right John, that was on page two, I thought I had clicked on page three, pardon my confusion, that’s stealth forum using for you!

Quote:
 
i'm starting to see why people give up on this thread...


Maybe because you too have been unable to put up a good counter-argument?

So all three of you are ‘giving up’ on this thread. And why? Have I insulted you? Have I cursed your children?
No the simple answer is that what I am saying if hard to argue with.
And John, I am not looking for clever, witty responses or clever come backs. I had in fact missed your declaration of intent on page two until I posted my reply.
I make a valid point, and one based on an identification of corporate crap and not one based on (as others have alleged) any allegiances and hatred.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
01:08 PM
So all three of you are ‘giving up’ on this thread. And why? Have I insulted you? Have I cursed your children?
No the simple answer is that what I am saying if hard to argue with.

Ok, I'm un-giving up on this thread.

You have not been insulting Saint, no one has (good job everyone <clap>).

However you are arguing what you believe to be correct, and being that you believe it is the truth there is little point in continuing. It is what you believe is true. I can no more convince you that your opinion is incorrect than you can convince me that my wife is a total babe (I mean she is REALLY hot, smoking even, so is her sister)

I have seen no evidence to suggest B'stone knew Michelin would bring a tire that was to soft, nor has there been any evidence that they prevented Michelin from bringing a safe back up tire (Michelin only brought one compound). However the fact that the failure was in the sidewall, and not the contact patch I'm not sure Bridgestone's advice would have been accepted/heeded. While I'm no F1 tire expert, I don't believe the construction of the side wall is impacted by the contact patch compound (as the emergency tires Michelin flew in from France were determined to unusable).

I think Michelin are to blame. There never was a truly fair equitable solution offered by anyone, including everyone on every message board I have read. That's my opinion, and to me is correct. Your opinion Saint requires too much knowledge of Michelin tires (specifically construction) on the part of Bridgestone that they probably would have liked to have, to be valid IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Well I dont see much point in saying anything else to you Rob other than I cant understands why you cannot see the numbered facts I pointed out to you earlier and the logical conclusions....

Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
07:08 PM
Maybe because you too have been unable to put up a good counter-argument?

well you've not answered mine yet.

and maybe that's the point. it's boring having a discussion with a stone wall.

you've already accepted that bridgestone didn't think michelin cars would crash.

so answer these:

1. do you accept that michelin weren't banned from testing there beforehand?

2. do you accept that f1 drivers are more like test pilots than passengers and so have to accept more risk than most?

3. and most importantly, do you realise that corporations have no responsibility to help other corporations in areas where they have a competitive advantage, even when to do so might be potentially dangerous ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Quote:
 
well you've not answered mine yet.

and maybe that's the point. it's boring having a discussion with a stone wall.


Its boring for me to have things so easy, I wish someone would put up a tangible counter-argument.

Quote:
 
you've already accepted that bridgestone didn't think michelin cars would crash.


When?

so answer these:

Quote:
 
1. do you accept that michelin weren't banned from testing there beforehand?


Neither Bridgestone nor Michelin had any prior testing on Indianapolis in their F1 guise before the 2005 USGP. Bridgestone got their data from the INDY500 teams who spent they entire month of may on the new surface.
Quote:
 

2. do you accept that f1 drivers are more like test pilots than passengers and so have to accept more risk than most?


They do have to accept more risks of course, that is what all F1 is about, being on the edge. But if someone identifies what could be a serious safety concern, it should be made public knowledge.

Quote:
 
3. and most importantly, do you realise that corporations have no responsibility to help other corporations in areas where they have a competitive advantage, even when to do so might be potentially dangerous ?


I don’t accept your this as anything else other than immoral. And though I have no doubt Boeing would keep a potential design flaw of the A800 to themselves, it is still wrong. And that was my argument from the onset.

Let me throw something back at you lot. If George W. Bush was CEO of Bridgestone, you’d not only be agreeing with me, but you’d also be saying he only did it as an excuse to invade France!

(the last bit was a joke)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply