Michelins

[Beostar]

I agree.
But
In the F1 Sporting Regulations it says (rule 76)

- if, in the interests of maintaining current levels of circuit safety, the FIA deems it necessary to reduce
tyre grip, it shall introduce such rules as the tyre suppliers may advise or, in the absence of advice which
achieves the FIA's objectives, specify the maximum permissible contact areas for front and rear tyres.

So they are allowed to change the rules halfway tru the season based on whatever ground they deem fit.

[v10motorhead]

If I'm not wrong, the regulations state that, the tyre dimensions will be checked after the race. What happens if Michelin shod teams run the tyres branded by Ferrari & Ross Brawn as 'illelegal' during the 1st half of the race & in the final pit stop put the 'new slimmer' tyres on? Still Legal??

[Steven]

no that would not work here, all used tyres can be a subject to a check.

I think however that they won't be checked. Michelin has shown their new design to the FIA, who found it to be legal.
If a check should occur, following the rules even when finding the tyre illegal I don't think the car can be disqualified, as the rules still say nothing about used tyres.

[Guest]

Plus, having to cope with 2 different types of tires would be counterproductive for the drivers. Not helpful at all when you need to be negotiating 200+mph bends.

[Guest]

with legal michelin,they were outperformed by bridgestone.not only ferrari but several other bridgestone runner beat michelin runner. so, did all this while....

[Guest]

they didn't change the rule michelin just got caught out cheating and they know it why do you think they came out with new tires so fast??? just had a new design floating around. They were cheating and everyone knows it

[Steven]

no they were not, not at all
in fact only the Williams front tyres were too wide at the end of a race, where all others were perfectly within the limit, which is in fact for NEW TYRES, and for sure the Michelins were not too wide when new

of course, Michelin is a wise company, and risking to lose the championship by boycotting the Italian Grand Prix would be far worse than being somehow slower due to the little time there was to make the new tyre.

[SpeedTech]

I don't know what everyone is going on about changing the rules. As far as I was aware was that the contact patch has to be no more than 275 MM and Michelien got cuaght due to their contact patch being greater.

So as far as I see it Tomba they were cuaght cheating, they broke the rule and it was proven as well .

Now let's not forget now Michelien want to have thier own childish whinge, now that just proves how immature Michelien actually are, they wer ecuaght cheating now they want to see if they can get Ferrari. This all seem's like a childish way to think.

Like every rule there is always going to be a different understanding of the rules thats why they still constantly update the rules!

[Beostar]

its 270 mm to be exact.

77) Quantity and type of tyres :
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.

It doesn't say it has to be mesured when the tyres are new. It says when fitted to a car.

12.4.3 Complete wheel width and diameter will be measured
horizontally at axle height when fitted with new tyres
inflated to 1.4 bar.

The width and diameter are checked on new tyres. not the contact path.

So there were still in violation with rule 77c

[akbar21881]

last two weeks it was michelin.now it is bridgestone turn to be under investigation. but isnt the uneven wear rate between front and rear tyres has more to do with weight distribution and aero downforce than different compound? is this just a revenge from michelin?

[Beostar]

they are concentrating on the fact that the tyre blisters. Which was a BIG problem in 1997 with the goodyears. This is because once the temperature of the tyres exceeds a certain value the oil they use in the tyre starts to make bubbles which then explode and can take up to 3 cm diameter out of a tyre surface. According to Michelin the front tyres blister faster than the rear tyre but it is known that the rear tyres are like it says on the main site about 20°C higher in temperature.... Which could result in Ferrari being on a different compound although I doubt they would try that in such an important fase of the championship.

This might be a long shot but maybe that is the reason ferrari had those temperature sensors on the rear tires during the race in Monza to make sure the rear tyres wouldn't blister that fast? or maybe cause they remember what happend in Hockenheim.

Just a theory.

[Conceptual]

There is also this issue about a comparable situation.

Michelins have been really smart creating a tyre perfectly legal for allot of races. Then someone noticed that the tyres changed when on track. Now when Ferrari have complained to FIA, they listened dead hard and rules changed.

Well, what about the flexibility of the aerodynamic parts then? Rules say no movable aerodynamics is allowed. The front, or was it rear-?, wing for example is tested by FIA by putting a 160 kg load hanging from the wing and it have to stand without flexing for a cerain amount.

OK, even the front camera shows the Ferraris front wing flex and also the rear wing in some cases. McLaren complained about a flexible floor Ferrari where using, also the diffusers. McLaren have complained to FIA atleast once with photograps as evidence. FIA claimed the reason why the diffusers changed was oscillations... then McLaren had to give evidence it wasn't oscillations...

Have ever Ferrari done anything that FIA have forbidden, banned or had the rules changing??? I don't think so.

Sorry for the archaeological dig here, but if McLaren were complaining about this in 2003, why did they call it espionage in 2007 when they complained again?

Not saying that they didnt find it in the operation manual, but if they had the complaint filed 4 years before Stepney-Gate, it seems like a stretch for people to say that McLaren ONLY knew about it after reading the docs...

Anyways................

[Jon]

There is also this issue about a comparable situation.

Michelins have been really smart creating a tyre perfectly legal for allot of races. Then someone noticed that the tyres changed when on track. Now when Ferrari have complained to FIA, they listened dead hard and rules changed.

Well, what about the flexibility of the aerodynamic parts then? Rules say no movable aerodynamics is allowed. The front, or was it rear-?, wing for example is tested by FIA by putting a 160 kg load hanging from the wing and it have to stand without flexing for a cerain amount.

OK, even the front camera shows the Ferraris front wing flex and also the rear wing in some cases. McLaren complained about a flexible floor Ferrari where using, also the diffusers. McLaren have complained to FIA atleast once with photograps as evidence. FIA claimed the reason why the diffusers changed was oscillations... then McLaren had to give evidence it wasn't oscillations...

Have ever Ferrari done anything that FIA have forbidden, banned or had the rules changing??? I don't think so.

Sorry for the archaeological dig here, but if McLaren were complaining about this in 2003, why did they call it espionage in 2007 when they complained again?

Not saying that they didnt find it in the operation manual, but if they had the complaint filed 4 years before Stepney-Gate, it seems like a stretch for people to say that McLaren ONLY knew about it after reading the docs...

Anyways................

It was called espionage because McLaren were using a mole inside Ferrari and had stolen documents in their possesion and were using them.

To sum up, in 2003 McLaren complained about Ferrari's floor with photographic evidence that they produced by legal means (I would imagine they photographed Ferrari's car during races and tests) and in 2007 McLaren complained about Ferrari's floor using information given to them by a mole. Really, a world of difference.

[Project Four]

With all of the films, photographs and analysis that goes on between teams, McLaren must have know or had doubts that Ferrari that were using flexible aerodynamics to gain an advantage, but at the time they did not have all of the details and therefore the initial appeal was rejected by the FIA due this lack of detailed information.

It was only in 2007 with a lot more detailed information, (from the Stepney dossier ??), about how the bodywork was flexing that FIA acted.

An interesting debate could be had about the rights and the wrongs of using illegally gained information to prove that someone else is cheating / stretching the limits of the laws.

[Conceptual]

I find it hard to believe that there was advanced photographic technology in 2003 that led to McLaren making these accusations, but that same tech was not available in 2007.

But, whatever. If you cant beat em, cheat em!.. or so F1 goes.