128 replies to this topic

[wawawa]

Snippet from Bira's excellent interview with Pierre Dupasquier (italics part of the original interview):

If you remember, Charlie [Whiting] wrote to the teams after Hungary last year and said the tread is the part of the tyre which is constantly and permanently in contact with the ground. And obviously no one part of the front tyre is constantly and permanently in contact with the ground. So once this was clarified, we talked some more and really there was no argument anymore.

Actually, Charlie Whiting used quite different words (which I've underlined) [source]

With immediate effect, any part of a front tyre which we consider has been in regular or systematic contact with the track will be deemed tread and will be taken into account when measuring the width of the tyre as defined in the regulations.

Clearly Whiting doesn't mean permanent or constant contact.

So why is Dupasquier making this apparently feeble attempt to disguise Tyregate 2003 as a non-issue?

Its a different matter that the FIA have essentially made it a non-issue, since Dupasquier reveals that they never checked the tread-width of old tyres in 2004 by looking for wear patterns (they only checked the tread-width of new tyres, as they did for pre-Tyregate). But this is just because the FIA cannot or will not come up with a workable way of measuring "regular or systematic contact with the track". Tyregate 2003 was still a real issue, and it seems odd that Dupasquier is trying to cast it as a non-issue.

[riffola]

While I do think FIA not checking the tyres at the end of the race is stupid after the brouhaha from last year, I also do feel it's best not to believe everything Pierre Dupasquier says because after all Michelin does have a positive public image to project. Sure it was Ferrari's excuse for lacklustre performances, but I do feel it was slightly valid.

I think we'll get a better idea once part two of the interview is online. I think the issue is smack dab in the middle of a grey area, neither side's intentions were completely clean and pure.

[black magic]

depends on what you consider "non issue"

insofar as actually creating any changes agree with you. seems major contradiction to widely stated view that ferrari late season rally simply due to drop in michelin performance due to forced changes to tyre design. by implication then it was simply ferrari upping their game and jpm's mooments of madness

destroys conspiracy theories similarly. in same article dispell myth that ferrari performance largely due to tyres, though michelin would say that wouldn't they.

sport is replete however with such controversies also proving major psychological blow. eg nz in an americas cup batttle were up 4:1 in first to 5 final. lost appeal on a design feature of their boat which had been passed previously and whilst an advantage not that big, but psychologically threw their entire campaign and lost the next 4 straight races. ferrari may well have caused similar effectand if so was masterstroke.

[baddog]

Actually thats well spotted wawa. I knew I hadnt seen permananet used in this context before and now I know why.. whiting said 'systematic' which is in NO way the same in meaning as permanent

Shaun

[Raelene]

[sarcasm] - the FIA are keeping it up their sleeve to pull out of the bag when Ferrari are on the backfoot and need help ;);)

btw Bira - congratulations on one of the most interesting interviews I've read in a long time - can't wait for the next instalments

[bira]

I'll offer this much, if I may:

Pierre has been very consistent in his views - you will find he uttered the same views in 2003 as he has now. He believes the tyres should be measured when new, he believes there is an inherent problem in trying to define what a tread is based on wear of a used tyre, he believes their tyre was and is legal. There's absolutely no surprise there and absolutely nothing new.

If he's using the wrong terms - permanent and constant instead of regular and systematic - is really a moot point and touches of semantics (and bear in mind that he probably thinks in French, not English). The issue remains the same - they have always said it would be impossible to objectively define what wear is part of a tread and what is part of a brush against a curb or pick-up. And when you're dealing with just very few milimetres, the question of how this is measured is a very important one.

What is left as, perhaps, a disappointing revelation of the aftermath of that affair is that the FIA had made it clear tread width would thereafter be measured on used tyres. That's what it was all about, after all: there was NEVER a question of the tread width being over 270mm when new, so that's not an issue. And if the 2004 season did not have regular or systematic () scrutineering of the tread width on used tyres from any team or car, then indeed it sheds some questionable light on the drive and purpose of the entire 2003 affair.

Having said that, there are two points that need to be taken into consideration: first, that it's not really a question of merely changing the tyre but rather how the tyre is used. Remember: last year the FIA (Max Mosley) said the tyre was altered under certain conditions. I read that to mean that when it was well worn out, the tread width may have passed 270mm. Perhaps the way the cars have been set up this year, perhaps with the psychological wish not to wake "sleeping bears" (as we say in Hebrew), the teams - not Michelin, but their partners - were careful not to reach a point where their tyre is so worn out that questions could be raised regarding their used tyre's tread width.

The second point has more to do with... actually, no. Wait until next Wednesday for that one

[bira]

Originally posted by Raelene
btw Bira - congratulations on one of the most interesting interviews I've read in a long time - can't wait for the next instalments

Thanks Raelene

[paulogman]

Originally posted by wawawa
Tyregate 2003 was still a real issue, and it seems odd that Dupasquier is trying to cast it as a non-issue.

in so far as michelin not having to make a whole concept of front tyres, tyre gate was a non issue.
the FIA have not attempted to change their scrutineering method. and ferrari have not protested again on the same issue.

so where exactly is the issue?

[HP]

If anything, the interview rises more questions for me than it answers. That is not bad, because only fools think they figured it all.

However, I take Dupasqiuer's interview with a grain of salt, as more or less everyone, except Michelin comes away with a blue eye or two so far.

As to the question of this thread, the first question came to my mind is how to tie the Michelin shod teams statements of that time fit into this? Teams must have known that Michelin didn't change their mould. If Michelin didn't told them, that would not be helpful to them.

Secondly, if that was anyway all about Ferrari covering themselves in case they would lose the championship, then it was a big gamble from them. The Michelin shod teams put in an extra effort in that Monza test. With tyre dimensions not changed, they could focus on their usual program, and doing their usual tyre 'evaluation' (free after Dupasquier's view on tyre testing) program.

In any case if I were to take literal every word Dupasqiuer says, then the teams he supplies did mediocre jobs. The only way to be able to verify his claims would be if Ferrari would switch to Michelin. Just reflect on the races this year. The Michelin shod teams were fast in the opening laps, after SC car and qualifying and then had a drop off. Following Dupasquier's line of thinking it could mean the car/driver is too hard on the tyres, but the same team could say, no the tyres don't last the entire stint and have a significant performance drop. And both could be right.

That's what I mean with taking Dupasquiers word with a grain of salt.

[Thunder]

It was the most blatant and ugly way to cheat. It was ,as stated by Todt, starting with a 3 litres engine and ending with a 4 litre. The fact is the cheater was a tyre manufacterer which supplied half the grid. If they had banned and punished everyone, they would collapse Formula One. But If only one team was using those tyres FIA would crucify that team.
Just the fact that Ron Dennis didnt open his mouth about it is the real proof to how big was the cheat.

[Thunder]

Originally posted by bira
Having said that, there are two points that need to be taken into consideration: first, that it's not really a question of merely changing the tyre but rather how the tyre is used. Remember: last year the FIA (Max Mosley) said the tyre was altered under certain conditions. I read that to mean that when it was well worn out, the tread width may have passed 270mm. Perhaps the way the cars have been set up this year, perhaps with the psychological wish not to wake "sleeping bears" (as we say in Hebrew), the teams - not Michelin, but their partners - were careful not to reach a point where their tyre is so worn out that questions could be raised regarding their used tyre's tread width.

You miss the real point of using those tyres. In 2003 many Michelin users used scrubbed? tyres, that basically were wider than 270 mm. I remember myself questioning why they were doing that especially with the front tyres. At the time i tought it was better for the first laps to heat them but than the tyregate explained the cause.

[ivanalesi]

Bira great tactic with alcohol!

[Al.]

Originally posted by Thunder
It was the most blatant and ugly way to cheat. It was ,as stated by Todt, starting with a 3 litres engine and ending with a 4 litre. The fact is the cheater was a tyre manufacterer which supplied half the grid. If they had banned and punished everyone, they would collapse Formula One. But If only one team was using those tyres FIA would crucify that team.
Just the fact that Ron Dennis didnt open his mouth about it is the real proof to how big was the cheat.

Didn't we do this last year?

If it was akin to ending a race with a 4 litre engine, why didn't Ferrari and Bridgestone formally protest? Could it be that it wasn't that simple and a legal position on the rules as they were written (prior to the post-Hungary clarification) could have sided with Michelin.

I do remeber that post after post on that marathon thread left this BB pretty well split on right and wrong.

Bira, fantastic interview, roll on next Wednesday

[Sir Frank]

Originally posted by Thunder



You miss the real point of using those tyres. In 2003 many Michelin users used scrubbed? tyres, that basically were wider than 270 mm. I remember myself questioning why they were doing that especially with the front tyres. At the time i tought it was better for the first laps to heat them but than the tyregate explained the cause.

No, they scrub tyres to go through the period in which they had graining. By doing this they dont have this period during the race.

[baddog]

That is generally the case. however what was rumoured anyway last year is that the michelin teams, by HARD scrubbing the tyres days before, got the tyres quickly into the state where the useable tread was oversized. Pierre does not SPECIFICALLY say this isnt so, but who the hell knows...

Shaun

[Thunder]

If i was the interviewer i would ask him this.
Why do you always try to outfox the competition insttead of fighting with them in conventional ways? Are you aware you are the reason for the current state of the formula one? You almost collapsed formula one are you thinking of quitting to save the sport?

[black magic]

what we are discussing though is that regardless of right or wrong nothing has changed

point re michelin claiming nothing to do with their tyres their teams not doing better, runs a little contrary to what we saw at times. bridgestones consistanly got faster and faster once warm

[Thunder]

Originally posted by Al.


Didn't we do this last year?

If it was akin to ending a race with a 4 litre engine, why didn't Ferrari and Bridgestone formally protest? Could it be that it wasn't that simple and a legal position on the rules as they were written (prior to the post-Hungary clarification) could have sided with Michelin.

I do remember that post after post on that marathon thread left this BB pretty well split on right and wrong.

Bira, fantastic interview, roll on next Wednesday

Easy. The cheater was a tyre manufacturer not a team. That would collapse the year and ruin it for everybody. Todt said if we had done that they would crucify Ferrari. And the others resonded to that like ?
I am not trying to reargue , i am just stunned how people still didnt understand how they cheated. Even Bira. It was exactly that, they started with a 3 liter engine and ended with a 4 litre.

Think of it. Williams was not winning since 97 , BMW and they needed that badly. They didnt even say one single word. They didnt protest. FIA forced them with immediate effect and they couldnt even argue. Why? Todt accused them of cheating and they ...?

[Al.]

Originally posted by Thunder
.............................Are you aware you are the reason for the current state of the formula one?........

Explain please?

[Thunder]

Originally posted by Al.


Explain please?

Easy. When they entered the sport they tried to outfox the competition by grooves. Didnt work. We had to endure 2002. Then they needed time to close the gap and they closed in 2003 but we found they were cheating by again trying to outfox the opposition, then we had to endure 2004. Loosers.

[Orin]

Originally posted by ivanalesi
Bira great tactic with alcohol!

Seconded - looking forward to the next installment.

It strikes me as a bit of a non-issue, all that fuss and they still don't test tyres post-race.

[Orin]

Originally posted by Thunder
If i was the interviewer i would ask him this.
Why do you always try to outfox the competition insttead of fighting with them in conventional ways? Are you aware you are the reason for the current state of the formula one? You almost collapsed formula one are you thinking of quitting to save the sport?

God you are a drama queen Why didn't Ferrari try to tackle this quietly in the off-season, rather than risk making a mockery of the championship? That was more damaging than kicking up a huge fuss over a debatable and very minor infringement.

[Thunder]

This man try to say that they use the same tyre to that of 2003? Then why he had said "we doesnt have enough time to change they trye on time for Monza" when they were caught?

[Thunder]

Originally posted by Orin


God you are a drama queen Why didn't Ferrari try to tackle this quietly in the off-season, rather than risk making a mockery of the championship? That was more damaging than kicking up a huge fuss over a debatable and very minor infringement.

Because bridgestone showed them the tyres at Hungary. So easy.

[Garagiste]

Interesting stuff indeed.
It seemed accepted as a fact that the Michelin teams had used the "Monza" construction post Hungary 03 in order that they were in no danger of being DQ'd. If this is not the case, as PD says, then what happened to the "massive advantage" that the so - called "cheating" tyres gave them eh?

[JForce]

Originally posted by Thunder
This man try to say that they use the same tyre to that of 2003? Then why he had said "we doesnt have enough time to change they trye on time for Monza" when they were caught?

This is a good point.

As far as scrubbing the tyres go, lets remember that there were several times last year when Michelin teams would do multiple stints on the same set of front tyres, changing only the rears. This suggests to me there was some performance advantage to be gained...put that together with the tyregate information we have and it seems that where there's smoke there's fire.

[HP]

Originally posted by Orin

It strikes me as a bit of a non-issue, all that fuss and they still don't test tyres post-race.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

Look at scruteenering reports at the FIA website. I took China, but other show the same pattern. There are a bunch of tests done after the practice, qualifying and the race.

Regarding tyres. It doesn't say what they've checked, but the sentence is always in the section: After the race , etc.

The tyres used by all drivers during the sessions today have been checked.

So now it would be good time to ask Jo Bauer, what he actually checked, just to be sure we were not misled by PD's comment.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Garagiste
Interesting stuff indeed.
It seemed accepted as a fact that the Michelin teams had used the "Monza" construction post Hungary 03 in order that they were in no danger of being DQ'd. If this is not the case, as PD says, then what happened to the "massive advantage" that the so - called "cheating" tyres gave them eh?

they retained it?

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by baddog


they retained it?

You think? I guess the fronts could have been changed more often / less thoroughly scrubbed, which would account for some of the drop in performance. It does seem a bit odd though that if they are still using the same tyre that was oft given as the reason for the 2003 championship being so close, that they had to wait such a long time after Hungary for another win.

[HP]

Originally posted by Garagiste


You think? I guess the fronts could have been changed more often / less thouruoghly scrubbed, which would account for some of the drop in performance. It does seem a bit odd though that if they are still using the same tyre that was oft given as the reason for the 2003 championship being so close, that they had to wait such a long time after Hungary for another win.

You would have to look to Bridgestone and Ferrari. For Monza, they introduced a wider front tyre, and made it work with the car. For this year, Bridgestone had an interesting way of preparing the tyres for the season. They seperatly tested compound and construction, and only short before the season begin Ferrari tested with an optimized tyre who took both development paths into account. When Dupasqiuer claims the tyre were 0.5 seconds faster this season. They were maybe in Brazil, but overall in the season?

[kenjafield]

Originally posted by Thunder
If i was the interviewer i would ask him this.
Why do you always try to outfox the competition insttead of fighting with them in conventional ways? Are you aware you are the reason for the current state of the formula one? You almost collapsed formula one are you thinking of quitting to save the sport?

First, F1 is a technological sport, not men v men. Technological advantages win races and championships - that is the way of F1. Manufacturesr of tyres, chassis and engines all try to come up with a new solution, a new gadger, that will make them faster. And so, everyone is trying to "out-fox" everyone else.

I do not subscribe to the belief that Michelin are in any way the reason for the current state of F1. F1 has undergone a series of rule changes, ranging from long-lasting engines to qualifying changes. The agenda for F1 is now cost-cutting - for that I'd say that Prost, Arrows and Minardi are the reasons. For example, teams want to cut costs, so reliable engines become a must for the sport. Ferrari build the most reliable engines and walk away with all the championships, whilst Mercedes and Honda engines smoke away. Is that Michelin's fault? No.

Michelin never once almost "collapsed" F1. If they want to leave they can. If they want to stay they can. If teams want to work with them, they can. If they leave, then so be it - either back to a single supplier or a new supplier enters. It's not the end of the world.

[CARVER]

Originally posted by HP
I'm not so sure about that anymore.

Look at scruteenering reports at the FIA website....Regarding tyres. It doesn't say what they've checked, but the sentence is always in the section: After the race , etc: The tyres used by all drivers during the sessions today have been checked.

I believe they check if the tyres haven't turned into slicks, so they check if all the grooves are still (visually) there.

Originally posted by JForce

As far as scrubbing the tyres go, lets remember that there were several times last year when Michelin teams would do multiple stints on the same set of front tyres, changing only the rears. This suggests to me there was some performance advantage to be gained...put that together with the tyregate information we have and it seems that where there's smoke there's fire.

This year I have seen Sauber (Bridgestone) doing this as well, but they did it because they had a graining problem. So I agree there was some performance advantage to be gained, but it doesn't say that it is caused by tyres which (once scrubbed) were wider than 270 mm (but it is one of the possibilities, maybe the most likely one).

[xype]

Originally posted by Thunder


Easy. The cheater was a tyre manufacturer not a team. {snip}
Think of it. Williams was not winning since 97 , BMW and they needed that badly. They didnt even say one single word. They didnt protest. FIA forced them with immediate effect and they couldnt even argue. Why? Todt accused them of cheating and they ...?

Are you talking about the tyres now or what? I mean, first you say it was a tyre manufacturer that cheated and then complain why a team didn't protest? Am I understanding you right? And if I am, is there a chance that you are mildly confused?

[xype]

Originally posted by Thunder
Loosers.

Are you implying the Michelin people are loose?

[Buttoneer]

There is still the small question of Michelin Runner v's Bridgestone runner performance differences post Hungary.

It might be explained by the small but real phychological advantage that Ferrari gained with their complaint. Put the other teams on the back foot. Make them take the eye off the ball.

I've no doubt that Ferrari expected to gain something from this, but I firmly believe they complained because they felt they had irrefutable evidence of percieved 'cheating' and were expecting to lose a disadvantage rather than gain the psychological one.

[TIC]

I suspect that PD was a little disingeneous in many of his comments. Let us take them one-by-one:

1. There was no problem with Hungary tires last year. Well, then why did he say that they do not have enough time to make new tyres for Monza last year? Also, as Thunder points out, Ron Denis has a history of taking pot-shots at Ferrari. So why did he never say at the end of last year that Ferrari's victory is hollow? He would not have missed such an opportunity if he thought that Michelin was legal (recall his recent comment that Ferrari's victories next year would be hollow if they do not agree to testing cuts).

2. Ferrari complained because they wanted an excuse in case they lose the championships. It is possible but hard to believe that Ferrari would go to such an extent. Because they had been winning everything for three years, I doubt it would have rankled them so much.

3. Their tyres provide 0.5 sec advantage over Bridgestone. I can be persuaded to believe this for Spa and Brazil and maybe a couple of other races (although I will remain skeptical since this would mean that despite stopping all developments Ferrari's chassis was still 0.5 sec faster in Brazil than Williams and McLaren who were developing full steam). But throughout the season? Or even most of it? Do Ferrari know some black magic to have their chassis so much better than the rest? Somehow I remain unconvinced.


- TIC

[bira]

Why do people keep mentioning Ron Dennis as being silent after the Hungarian GP last year? Did none of you read the Friday press conference at the 2003 Italian Grand Prix? He says exactly what you're suggesting he never said

[kenjafield]

Originally posted by bira
Why do people keep mentioning Ron Dennis as being silent after the Hungarian GP last year? Did none of you read the Friday press conference at the 2003 Italian Grand Prix? He says exactly what you're suggesting he never said

Come on Bira, you know the rules.

We need a video, quotes, witnesses and a statement from Ron Dennis, signed in blood. Then, maybe, we'll believe that he spoke

[Garagiste]

I don't get that people are bringing up the point about not being able to make new tyres in time for Monza either. The fact that they are still using the same ones surely emphasises this point rather than making it invalid?
Of course this is muddied somewhat by the earlier announcement that they already had different tyres for Monza, that they were working on before Hungary blew up.

None the wiser really.

[xype]

Originally posted by bira
Why do people keep mentioning Ron Dennis as being silent after the Hungarian GP last year? Did none of you read the Friday press conference at the 2003 Italian Grand Prix? He says exactly what you're suggesting he never said

Uh?! BorderReiver -> signature.;)

[GadgetMan]

People can moan as much as they want, if Pierre Dupasquier says that the FIA still measures tires when new and not after races, that Michelin did not even change the molds of their tires from last year, that's all I need to know.

Permanent or systematic my butt...

These are nothing but futile attemps to save face by those who were claiming Michellin shod teams were "cheating" last year.

GadgetMan

[wawawa]

Originally posted by bira
If he's using the wrong terms - permanent and constant instead of regular and systematic - is really a moot point and touches of semantics (and bear in mind that he probably thinks in French, not English).

I think its more than just a case of semantics and translation. He is essentially saying: "It would be a problem if the tyres did X. But the tyres never do X. So there is no problem." If the argument was so simple, they would have used it last year. In fact, Whiting said something like: "It would be a problem if the tyres did Y (Y very different from X)." Dupasquier conceded that Michelin tyres may do Y, and probably a lot of the Monza test was devoted to setup changes to make sure that they didn't do Y. Perhaps Michelin teams still use "cautious" setups to make sure their tyres don't do Y and wake those bears.

The issue remains the same - they have always said it would be impossible to objectively define what wear is part of a tread and what is part of a brush against a curb or pick-up. And when you're dealing with just very few milimetres, the question of how this is measured is a very important one.

Yes - the FIA comes out looking pretty shabby for having made such a fuss and then done nothing about biting the bullet and defining wear, or conceding that it couldn't be done.

[Thunder]

Brawn explains how they cheated, and why they lost a huge advantage after being caught by Bridgestone. Michelin didnt win a single race after being caught until monaco, which is not a real win anyway.


Explaining how Michelin's tread becomes wider, Brawn said: "Everything starts from the particular design of the shoulder of the Michelin: on the top of it there is a small step separating the proper tread from the outmost part of the tyre. A minimum amount of running is enough to round off the step, thus obtaining a wider tread, even by 10-15% according to our calculations.
(this is the part that explain why they started with a 3 litre engine and ended up with a 4 litre)

"At this point the tyre is outside the regulations. This explains many things - for example the reason why, during a race, Williams almost never changed the front tyres, or why the French weren't able to supply them with wider tyres in Monaco. We just couldn't understand that."

Brawn said such a tyre would provide a significant advantage. "For example, with the weight distribution, a better balance with braking at the front, a more efficient turn-in of the car in corners, and being able to use softer compounds, giving better traction," he said.

[Thunder]

This is sam michael proving DuPasquier lying again,



Michael added that Williams and Michelin have been working on new tyre casing and compound development, stating the team will be ready for the Italian Grand Prix next week.

"At the Monza test, we have made good progress on casings and compounds as part of our normal long term development programme," he said. "As a result of the progress we have made together with Michelin this week, we will be bringing good improvements to the tyres for the Italian Grand Prix."

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Thunder
Brawn explains how they cheated, and why they lost a huge advantage after being caught by Bridgestone. Michelin didnt win a single race after being caught until monaco, which is not a real win anyway.


Explaining how Michelin's tread becomes wider, Brawn said: "Everything starts from the particular design of the shoulder of the Michelin: on the top of it there is a small step separating the proper tread from the outmost part of the tyre. A minimum amount of running is enough to round off the step, thus obtaining a wider tread, even by 10-15% according to our calculations.
(this is the part that explain why they started with a 3 litre engine and ended up with a 4 litre)

"At this point the tyre is outside the regulations. This explains many things - for example the reason why, during a race, Williams almost never changed the front tyres, or why the French weren't able to supply them with wider tyres in Monaco. We just couldn't understand that."

Brawn said such a tyre would provide a significant advantage. "For example, with the weight distribution, a better balance with braking at the front, a more efficient turn-in of the car in corners, and being able to use softer compounds, giving better traction," he said.

funnily, prawn stopped accusing Michelin of cheating as soon as Michelin men threatend to sue him for libel.

[baddog]

Originally posted by GadgetMan
People can moan as much as they want, if Pierre Dupasquier says that the FIA still measures tires when new and not after races, that Michelin did not even change the molds of their tires from last year, that's all I need to know.

Permanent or systematic my butt...

These are nothing but futile attemps to save face by those who were claiming Michellin shod teams were "cheating" last year.

GadgetMan

can one assume you will be treating everything ELSE in the interview as gospel?

Shaun

[bira]

Originally posted by Thunder
This is sam michael proving DuPasquier lying again,



Michael added that Williams and Michelin have been working on new tyre casing and compound development, stating the team will be ready for the Italian Grand Prix next week.

"At the Monza test, we have made good progress on casings and compounds as part of our normal long term development programme," he said. "As a result of the progress we have made together with Michelin this week, we will be bringing good improvements to the tyres for the Italian Grand Prix."

Errr, compounds and casings constantly get improved and changed. That has nothing to do with the mould, so what are you on about

[Thunder]

Originally posted by Heathcliff


funnily, prawn stopped accusing Michelin of cheating as soon as Michelin men threatend to sue him for libel.

Uh yes. Why didnt they threatened to sue Ferrari instead of a poor man.




this is what Ron Dennis said at monza

Bira this is what Ron said after at the friday

RD: Well I think this is one of the very rare occasions in motor sport where all the facts and the timing of what took place and when are well known to everybody. I think there is every opportunity for the media to effect its own judgement and I think they're effecting it on factual information. I think the media response was appropriate. I feel that the position ultimately adopted by the FIA following the various discussions that took place between them and some of the teams and Michelin was the appropriate action but I do find it uncomfortable to come into this environment, which is effectively a forum that is supported by the governing body, to enter back into what has obviously been a pretty controversial issue. Being the somewhat openly spoken individual I am, there's inevitably a desire to retaliate to the insinuations and accusations but I'm going to say nothing. I hope that where we have arrived is really genuinely the end of it, because I think we've got a great world championship that is most definitely going to stay so until the end of the season if there is no more controversy brought to bear. I think we all get up in the morning and most of us look in the mirror and we know how we feel ourselves - you feel whether you have integrity and whether you run either your company or your team or your own life in a manner that you're comfortable with and I never have a problem with what's looking back at me. Perhaps other people do, but I don't.

What does he say? Nothing.
................in this instance a company that does not take financial gain from being involved in Grand Prix racing. It is seen as a technical challenge to be in Formula One for a tyre company and it goes without saying I don't think there is a person in this room, not a team - and I think that includes all the teams - that could possibly put forward the view that Michelin, who have had such an outstanding involvement in motorsport through a whole range of disciplines, could even remotely consider producing a tyre that was not compliant to a regulation.

What does he say? Nothing.

We didnt cheat , it is impossible Michelin cheat.


Way after this , the man responsible for what is legal or not ,Whiting, accused them of cheating. (i try to find it. It was on Atlas i am sure) What i ask is why not one said we didnt cheat?

[Thunder]

Originally posted by bira


Errr, compounds and casings constantly get improved and changed. That has nothing to do with the mould, so what are you on about

???

They made the tyre legal just by changing the casing. So easy. This is admitting the cheat. Ross said basically that the casing was changing so the tyre becoming larger than allowed. (It seems you still dont understand how they cheated because Dupasquier mislead you, read what Ross say it has nothing to do with a way a car is setup. Their explanation has nothing to do with the way they cheated. And the picture then posted by Rene all mislead people).

[bira]

This is so back to the future. Or to the past, as the case may be :yawn:

Sorry, Thunder, I ain't going back to the argument of what exactly Michelin did and why it is or isn't legal.

The ONLY point I think is new and worth discussing is why the FIA does not check tread width on used tyres. That was the whole point of Whiting's letter last year, that's what the FIA said it will do. And yet it was not done in 2004.

If you believe Michelin tyres were and are legal, if you believe it should be measured on new tyres only, then you must ask yourself why did the letter get sent last year.

Alternatively, if you believe Michelin tyres were illegal (or maybe even potentially illegal now as well), if you believe it should be measured on used tyres as well, then you must ask yourself why did the FIA not do what it said it would.

THAT is all there is to it, imo. Going back to the argument of 2003 is simply a bore. There's a thread with a gazillion posts on it from last year and there is no point repeating everything that was already said there.

But that's just me