It maybe the way you recollect it - but memory can play tricks. The resurfacing at Canada 2010 did play havoc with the tyres and produce an unpredictable event - but I don't believe that was universally acclaimed as the way forward by most for all future events.
I think the majority of the purist enthusiasts have wanted the aero efficiency greatly reduced with the emphasis being changed back to mechanical grip and chassis design. Similarly we don't care much for DRS but want the cars to be able to slip stream properly. I continue to believe that this stupidity came from the same addled old brain that is toying with the idea of water sprinklers again to 'spice up' the show. [...]
Well, you're free to believe whatever you want, but i think you're massively overestimating Bernie's influence here. He's a great scapegoat, i'll give you that - but changes to the Technical Regulations can only be done through the Technical Working Group as long as they're not safety-related, in which case the FIA can decide on their own. The TWG consists of technical staff from the teams plus FIA and FOM representatives. They decided against the massive aero rules overhaul that was suggested (by FIA, i believe) and instead agreed on DRS as a cheap alternative to enable more overtaking. The one group that was staunchly against any larger aero changes were the teams, who feared a move to more ground-effect-based aero could shake up the field too much. And whatever the fans care for, the teams seem to be pretty happy with DRS as it is and we're likely not going to lose it anytime soon.
It's not Darth Bernie on his dark throne ruling with an iron fist everytime. Bernie doesn't control FIA and can't just order them to do anything. That didn't even work with Mosley at the helm and they had a pretty close relationship. Think the engine row, or example, or the stalled Concorde Agreement negotiations at the moment. Tyres that would give us races like Canada 2010 were wished for by many people and i'm pretty sure my memory is accurate here. That's why Pirelli was asked to provide tyres that degrade instead of giving us new Bridgestone bricks you could run for the whole race. And most people were pretty happy with the Pirellis in the beginning and with the exciting races they produced.
Anyway, back to topic. I can't see why people would be excited by the idea of Michelin returning. Pirelli has already said they were going for more conservative tyres for 2014 to make it easier for the teams, so we won't get the same "tyre lottery" anyway and they would likely perform quite similiar to what Michelin would bring. Citing the "safety issues" with Pirelli seems weird considering it was Michelin who once brought a completely unsuitable tyre that resulted in the probably most embarassing and farcical race in F1 history. And that was in the days of pretty much unlimited testing, now they'll probably have to deal with the same testing restrictions that gives Pirelli headaches.
So what would Michelin actually bring over Pirelli? Better performance we couldn't judge anyway because of the lack of competition? More durability like what Pirelli is currently planning as well for next year? A different representative in the pit lane for people to hate when something goes wrong? Will they be cheaper than the Pirellis, helping teams in dire times? Give us monsoon tyres? Or at least a giant inflatable Bibendum in the paddock to remind us of those horrible Briatore pictures? Is that really worth it?
