I have to say that I don't care for the reg that got us here...namely the single set of tires rule (agreeing with others). While it has generated some interesting situations, it has made pit stops way more boring, taken an element of strategy out of the equation, and led in part to the USGP fiasco (if they were allowed to run multiple sets of tires, the Michelin teams could have run, they just would have had to pit a bunch of times...not great but I'll bet they would have gone out).

In the grand scheme of things the cost savings isn't that great compared to what is lost.

I agree... the tire rule is a giant fiasco, F1 needs to own up the mistake and drop the tire limitation ASAP.
IMHO

This was not a win-win solution the organizers (FIA) should have aimed for.

I agree, they should have let everyone change tires during the race, then penalize Michelin and/or their teams for not having a minimally safe tire to use ($ + points). I'm pretty sure each team had enough tires for a least one change. This is based on the reported fact that few Michelin-shod teams did any substantive tire testing when they could have.

Big egos and politics will do in the fat cats. Hopefully, some good will come out of this.

Sherwood

Did anyone else hear the rumor that Toyota may have been running lower than recommended pressure in their tires?

/ J

Toyota was certainly dragging their plank durring the first few practice/instilation laps. Steve Matchet (of SpeedTV) later surmised that "possibly" they were running lower than normal pressures and that's why their cars were so low initially, maybe hoping that rising pressures would lift their plank off the deck?

Seems odd that no other teams had a failure, although several said they had "the beginnings" of them.

Michelin wouldn't have issued such a grave warning if it was just Toyota playing with pressures. I seem to recall hearing/seeing reports that all of the Michelins were self-destructing...and that Toyota failed either becuase of the pressure or because they ran more laps.

Michelin screwed the pooch. I think it was David Hobbs that said something like, "that turn has been here for 100 years...it isn't like it should have taken Michelin by surprise."

Yes the turn has been there for years and just think, those technologically inferior IRL cars just raced 500 miles around all 4 corners three weeks ago, and countless practice miles, and they didn't experience tire failure. Michelin needs to step up and take responsibility and say they goofed up. And I agree with you guys, the FIA should let them change tires.

If Michelin couldn't attribute the failures to a known root cause with 99% confidence, I think they did the right thing to issue a blanket statement. I'll be interested to see if they follow up with a more detailed report within the next week.

/ J

ps I have Bridgestones on my 911: no Michelin affiliation

Comparing IRL or even CART to F1 is apples to oranges. When IRL and CART run an oval their cars and tires are setup to run them, I don't believe you'll see CART or IRL running a combination road/oval (roval). That being said Michelin had the opportunity to test at that track, and either they didn't test enough or they just got it dead wrong.

But this gets back to this new 1 tire rule. In seasons past we would have never seen this type of thing. If in practice they found a tire was not working, next day everyone who wanted them would have had new compounds available, not possible today.

In my opinion this is what happens when you get someone as out of touch as the FIA (Mad-Max) making rules changes in an offhanded way. He did not seem to see the possible ripple effects of all of his stupid new rules for this season.

Have we already forgotten the 2-day qualifying baloney? What about the 1 engine for 2 races? Did he forsee the teams like Renault running as few as 3 laps on Thursday/Friday practice days to preserve their lumps? Did he consider what those days would be like for the fans?

The FIA seems bent on destroying all they touch, can't ever seem to leave well enough alone, its no wonder so many of the teams are looking to start their own series.

A proposed FIA rule for next year is to reduce aero downforce by X %. As I see it, aerodynamics is an evolving science - nothing concrete about it as it applies to vehicle dynamics. The rules will mandate reducing wing dimensions or position or some such, then the manufacturers will spend hundreds of man hours recooping the lost downforce, then add some as they tend to do. If they want to cut speeds, why not just restrict intake or exhaust size (choke the air pump)? Obviously I'm missing something. What is it?

Sherwood

This is what NASCAR does (restrictor plates), it hampers the engine's ability to accelerate as well as overall power reduction. The end result is packs/parades which everybody hates.

Well they already did that going into this year along with the 1 set of tires rule. The other item also in the works is the rule to go away from V10's down to V8's...something none of the teams are happy about because as usual the technical regulations from the FIA are not clear and concise which has been a major gripe with almost all the teams in recent years.

Anyway the V8's currently in test by many of the engine manufacturer's are reported to redline North of 20,000 rpm...:eek:

You have to keep in mind with all this that its "Formula One" which is a name that has always implied it is the pinnacle of motorsport, which technologically it is. Its isn't as simple as sending out everyone on a spec tire with all the same the chassis and engines. That of course would be Nascar... take the engine and operating budget alone for any 1 of these F1 teams for a season (sans maybe Minardi or Jordan) and its probably more than all of Hendrick or Roush is worth as a business alone.

SLOWER? Why would we want them to go SLOWER?

What we need is EXTREME FATALITY FORMULA ONE.

I'm talking minefields, gladiators, alligator pits, the works. And chicks in leather bikinis and spiked collars.

You mean like the old XFL? Madd Max gone F1...

Have you guys looked at the new rules proposals for 2008? Wow. FIA supplied ECM's, brakes, and trannies; trannies will have one shift lever and a real clutch pedal; no telemetry; back to slicks but on spec tires (one manufacturer); downforce reduced to 10% of that of today; no driver's aids of any kind (anti-lock, traction control, etc.); teams no longer have to build their own chassis; etc. They will soon be just like NASCAR - frozen in time with the very best '60's technology. Yee-haw...

BG is correct about the new V8's being tested. Already at this early stage of development they are spinning at 22K RPM. Can you imagine the materials they will have to use to make these engines spin that high reliably?

However, I do wonder if cutting the aero downforce to 10% of todays levels and increasing the mechanical grip might make for closer racing in F1. Part of the problem of todays cars is that they are so dependant on aero for grip that they can't run close to eachother when at speed without suffering a huge loss of grip. That's why the only overtaking going on is in certain tight corners where you can out brake your opponent and aero is not a factor (due to reduced speeds). However on the high speed sweepers you can't do this because of the amount of unstable air left in the wake of the car in front of you.

So, I'm not sure that reducing the aero dependancy on the cars is a bad idea. Think back to the early days of aerodynamics in F1, cars had huge slicks, smallish wings, and more tight racing was seen.

But please FIA, bring back the old qualifying format. It was so mouch more exciting to see all the cars on the track at the same time, with light fuel loads, sticky tires, and lets see who has the fastest F1 car!

Why not just limit the engine displacement, make them all run N/A, and let technology run wild? Isn't that what F1 is (was) all about anyway?

They do limit displacement (currently 3L) and they are normally aspirated. Still, they make upwards of 900bhp from that 3L V10, spinning at 19000 RPM.

But I do agree, they should not take the technology out of F1.

"..So, I'm not sure that reducing the aero dependancy on the cars is a bad idea."

My point is that they're trying to make a reduction in something that isn't finite. Aero improvement is on a constant up-curve. How do they propose to reduce aero by 10% if the reference point constantly changes? Note: All F1 cars are not aero-equal. It will never be as long as someone has a big wind tunnel, some innovative engineers and a commensurate budget.

If they're trying to contain costs, they should stick with one engine and chassis spec. whatever it is, and stick with that. Standardizing certain components might help without the effect of turning it into a spec series. The change to V8 engines will only save the cost of replacing 4 extra con rods, pistons and a few valves - surely outweighed by the R&D cost of starting with a new engine spec. - again. If less is more, how about 6 cylinders?

Here's another idea. If you want to "slow" them down, limit the caliper and rotor size and material (M brakes and non-vented rotors?). While top speeds may increase, the amount of time at that speed will decrease as braking zones become longer and perhaps encourage more dicing in this area. That is, until they pour massive amounts of R&D funds into anti-acceleration forces, then we're back to square one. But then maybe our little pcars will benefit from brakes that look more like ours and less like a Boeing 747.

Sherwood

I comepletely agree Sherwood. However, the aero reduction the FIA is talking about is aero equal to 10% of todays aero (not a 10% reduction) That will be tough to make up for with all the limits to wing size and height, along with no more barge-boards or little flip-up all over the chassis. So it will take the teams some time to gain back what the FIA is proposing to take away.

"Evolution will always find a way" and few things are evolving as fast as F1 cars.

Oh and for brakes, those will be FIA provided as well :eek:

Okay so we limit displacement to 2L...
Imagine engines spinning at 45000!