- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,451
- Location
- The North!
good!
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
good!
It is simultaneously possible both for the tyre failure to be related to the conditions, except for Dovi's tyre failing when it did which was in exactly the conditions for which the tyre should have been suitable as Arrab says, and for the tyre to have failed in an unpredictable and unacceptable manner, which it did in Lorenzo's case. No tyre should go from being completely fine to catastrophic failure in less than a lap, and no rider should have to ride in anticipation of that, particularly when it has never happened before. Conditions while drying were still such that slicks could not be used in any case.
The problem is that this is all on a background of Dorna giving instructions to tyre providers other than to make the best tyres they can. Whether or not their motives are Rossi-centric, it is a matter of record that they engineered the only rider tyre vote in history to impose a tyre which was predictably (ie someone predicted it was) insufficiently durable and remove a tyre of proven durability, hence the PI 2013 tyre fiasco. The other background is that a different soft Michelin tyre has already proven to be defective and prone to delamination this very season.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 6,290
- Location
- NJ
Michelin's quality control is atrocious.
For the performance of the soft front to vary so differently on both of the factory M1's would indicate Michelin doesn't actually know what they are getting with their tires. If they knew, then it should have been a compulsory pit stop at half distance. That no such thing was proposed by Michelin would lead me to believe they are incompetent at best, and if they knew there was a risk with these tires, that is outright negligence.
The only reason the tires haven't gotten more play in the media is because Rossi's front didn't delaminate. If it had, there would be more hot takes than Sepang 2015. So no one gives that much of a .... because it didn't happen to their Golden God. The media is giving a pass on this...Kropo pretty much blamed the teams (VICTIMS) for using the softs while giving Michelin a free pass and making excuses for why their wet weather tires are .....
Kropotkin said:
Pretty good Monday Morning Quarterbacking from Kropo which conveniently ignores the discrepancy in soft wet front tire performance. Look no further than Lorenzo whose tire went up in smoke, while Rossi had what looked like a used but nearly pristine tire at the end of the race. Saying the teams used the material improperly is delusional since everyone went with the strategy and Michelin obviously didn't warn against it. Lorenzo doesn't stress the front the way Rossi does, yet his tire went to .... while Rossi's never did.
It's been nothing but ........ from the media on the subject of the Michelin tires and their garbage quality and how they need time to fix things. If someone gets killed before the season is out, I can't wait to see what whitewashing occurs then from the media. That Kropo and the rest of the hacks are acting as official propagandists for Michelin is ....... disgusting. The tire supplier should have demanded a compulsory switch knowing what the teams were going to do. If there was ABSOLUTELY ANY DOUBT about what condition the tire was for, it should have been hammered home to everyone that the soft would not hold up for the duration of the race.
Here's a list of quotes I want some of you gentlemen to read...
Guess who said all that?
Michelin Motorsport director Pascal Couasnon.
2 years ago Michelin had this video propaganda in which they explicitly state, "We care about safety."
Which is why they designed a front tire that puts every rider at risk.
My problem with making excuses for Michelin is that in doing so, it trivializes the very real reality that delaminations and general subpar front tires can lead to severe or fatal injury. You have to get the tires right from the get-go because this is motorcycle racing, and there is no luxury of ....... around. People cite Bridgestone's woes, but to that I also say ......... Michelin was no doubt paying attention to this when it happened, and should have been moving hell or high water to ensure no such scenario played out for them. They pride themselves on making better tires than any other tire supplier to race series on this planet, and it looks like ....... amateur hour out there.
The 2nd race under their watch was turned into a flag to flag race because they had a .... tire on their hands. They still have a .... tire on their hands, and people are still making excuses for them instead of calling a spade a spade.
Unreal.
As was pointed out to MV, those tyres shredded predictably when both VR and Jorge stayed out in conditions by then suitable for slicks, and the tyres did not fail catastrophically such that lap times deteriorated by 7 seconds or the condition of the tyre required limping back to the pits for either rider.
As you more or less said, the tyre problems were no doubt related to the conditions, but it is unacceptable for the tyres to fail in such a fashion.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 10,518
- Location
- Tennessee
Has anyone seen or heard from Redding on his tires. He was a half second behind with 7-8 laps to go and finished over a minute down. Im assuming his tires chunked since he lost 7-8 seconds per lap the last 7 laps.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 6,290
- Location
- NJ
His front tire was shot on the last lap.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 642
- Location
- Santa Cruz, Cal
Holy Bangers! That's the end of the race? That is unreal. He was supposedly on the soft. What a mess. I am starting to believe in the conspiracy, or Michelin just stinks with quality control. I can sort of understand Iamapony screwing up the front, because he IS the Maniac. But Lorenzo? I don't think so.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 6,290
- Location
- NJ
Rossi was rolling into parc ferme in that picture.
I'm leaning towards Michelin's quality control being .... because the only other option is if you lean conspiracy, it'd mean willful gross negligence on their part.
I can understand the outside edges of the soft wets wearing down from not enough water. It would not be unprecedented to have this happen as that is what would happen to the Bridgestones when they were used for too long in drying conditions. The tires delaminating is not okay.
I think it is a tyre design problem with the tyre intrinsically prone to delamination, probably with also a quality control issue and tyre to tyre variations as you say. Sure it is not impossible some bikes or riding styles may be more prone to stressing the tyre, as MV says, but it is not acceptable for the tyre to fail on this fashion, particularly at the stage of the race and in the conditions prevailing when Dovi's tyre did.
I am sure Michelin are not deliberately giving defective tyres to particular riders selectively.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
- Messages
- 1,916
- Location
- Texas
I just got a chance to scan through the race. The Yam riders (all the riders were on the same front) were using the HARD option wet Bridgestones front and the soft rear. Michelin's soft option wet rear didn't experience any failures and neither did their hard option wet fronts. I still haven't seen any evidence that Bridgestone's SOFT wet fronts are more durable on a drying track compared to the Michelins.
The HARD-wet Bridgestones started chunking on the drying Motegi track last year. The HARD-wet Michelins did not chunk at all on the drying Brno track. So far, the Bridgestones look worse than the Michelins.
Last edited:
Bridgestone's wets never delaminated in any conditions to my knowledge.
The problem with your argument is that you are blaming the riders for not riding with the anticipation that the tyres might suddenly delaminate rather than simply wear out if they pushed too hard or conditions changed (and implying Rossi through pure riding genius avoided an unprecedented problem).
I presume you realise you are also postulating that MM in this race did exactly what he said he did at PI 2015 ie not ride flat out all race to preserve his tyres, and in fact praising him for doing so, despite your boy telling the world media MM's tactics at that race could only be explained by a conspiracy on MM's part to defraud him of a 10th title.
MotoGP Forum > MotoGP Forum > MotoGP
Serious question here MV (albeit it as likely to happen as it is that Jack Miller will win the World Championship in 2016).
If Rossi came out and publically stated that the tyre situation that was experienced by Dovisioso, Ianonne and Lorenzo was bad for the sport as it showed a tyre quality and safety issue ............ would that change your tune or would he also be the wrong person to make such a claim?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 642
- Location
- Santa Cruz, Cal
We really don't have a choice, or the world has gone completely mad, and we are ALL doomed as civilized racing fans. "Rollerball."
VR's wear looks like what I would expect from the harder rain, not from a soft that ran through a dozen riders to come in second. That is extremely different from what most riders were going through. I am curious how MM made it through, too. He did say he hunted for water, so maybe that is all there is to it .... besides not getting a garbage pressing. Not funny, really.
The first Michelin failure was scary enough. I hope someone doesn't get seriously hurt before they get their act better organized.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
- Messages
- 1,916
- Location
- Texas
You cannot just say "Bridgestone wets never delaminated under any conditions" because the so far the HARD wet Michelins haven't either. I just posted an example of the HARD wet Michelins showing more durability than the HARD wet Bridgestones. In order to compare the 3 Michelin failures with SOFT wet tires, you need to find a race on Bridgestones where they used SOFT wets on a drying track. IF that cannot be done, you cannot make a comparison between the two manufacturer's soft-wet front tires.
Don't attempt to entertain yourself by putting words in my mouth to give yourself something to argue against. I said before, the riders anticipated a flag-to-flag race... Marquez even admitted that's what he thought would happen and that was the reasoning behind his tire selection. They were not mislead to believe the SOFT wet was a good tire for full race distance if the circuit was to start drying. Even though the softs were used in conditions and for a length of time that far surpassed their original design specifications, only 3 (that we know of) experienced delamination.
The HARD wet tire was available for every rider to chose. Michelin didn't know that it wouldn't be a flag-to-flag race. If it was flag-to-flag, starting the race faster on the softs to build a lead before switching bikes could have been a race winning strategy, so why would they advise the teams against that? No one could predict the track drying at a much slower rate compared to Germany.
I also never said Rossi was a genius in Brno. Rossi benefited from needing to take 5 laps to get enough heat into his hard-rear tire before he could start to push. He has a lot of experience and it's likely he understood that his soft front tire could overheat and made efforts (like Marquez did) to preserve it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
- Messages
- 1,916
- Location
- Texas
Gaz, for a long as I've been watching racing... whether it be 2 wheels or 4.. I've seen wet tires start throwing rubber all over the place when the track dried out. I remember seeing it happened when I was a teenager watching AMA & WSBK races.
Rossi's front tire failed (or at least severely overheated) at COTA in 2014 and it was a SLICK. That is something for the manufacturer to be embarrassed about (unless as michaelm has stated, Bridgestone was forced to make less durable tires?).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
You cannot say Bridgestone wets, either soft or hard, ever did delaminate either. In fact perhaps they took necessary steps to prevent it.
Kropo:
With riders lives on the line, .... yes they could start.
Again, and unsurprisingly, you miss the point. It doesn't matter what a "soft" wet Bridgestone may have done, but has never done, no tyre of any kind should go suddenly from behaving like an unworn tyre to delamination. Why do you think they went back to the drawing board with the Michelin dry soft tyre after similar occurrences; that tyre episode also involved similar initial debate before the tyre was withdrawn from use btw. If Bridgestone had produced such a wet tyre, hard or soft, then it would also have been unacceptable as a race tyre.
You might have an argument in regard to Iannone, if you keep flogging an obviously underperforming/worn tyre and it then delaminated perhaps that would be less unexpected. So unexpected were the occurrences with Dovi and Lorenzo that they were assumed by everyone to have had a mechanical problem and to have had a brain fade and made a major tactical mistake respectively, including in Jorge's case by the crew chief with whom he has won all those championships, who might know almost as much as you about the expected behaviour of race tyres.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Here is what's more scary, Michelin had no clue the tires would delaminate, certainly not even within half race distance (Dovi lap 10). Had they known or had any inkling delamination might occur they would have called for mandatory pit stop tire exchange or withdraw the soft tire option. Sending riders out on a tire you knowingly predict might flirt with near catastrophic failure would be if not criminal, highly indifferent to the risk of motorcycle racing! It would be indefensible if they predicted tires would delaminate in these conditions. YET, a narrative is be crafted to justify the occurrence of delamination! Why? They didn't think this could happen; yet It did happen, hence the full court press PR messaging and the 'Messaging Dispensers' to limit damage contol. There were 5 tire failures as far as I know:
Dovizioso lap 10
Lorenzo lap 15
Viñalez lap 17
Redding lap 20
Iannone lap ?
Do you think a Grand Prix single tire supplier (everyone has to get their shoes at one store) would allow riders to go out on tires that might possibly delaminate in such catastrophic fashion if they thought it might happen? Those pictures are awful marketing.
"Theory being pushed around..." spot on. I too have notice the circling of the wagons to disavow Michelin of responsibility. Krop's take (with all do respect) is concerning at best. Apparently he got the answers straight from the Michelin execute. Frankly, I would have qualified it by saying, 'according to the Michelin execute I interviewed.... etc. and so forth.'
Krops got the scoop from none other that the Michelin man and concluded the obvious conclusion that Michelin tires are unsafe might actually be safe because...insert what Michelin executive said. Krops began the exploration of tire safety by saying:
"With so many tires losing rubber, are Michelin's wet tires unsafe? That would be an easy conclusion to draw, but like so many easy conclusions, probably incorrect."
(I always thought the obvious conclusion was often the obvious conclusion...not a convoluted one, isn't this what I've been told when I've offered my contention about GP's stacked deck?)
"The main one, which Michelin Motorsports boss NICOLAS GOUBERT pointed out to me, and then reiterated in the press release, is that the soft tires were made for full wet conditions."
Ring...ring..ring
[Hold on a minute Povol, while I take this call from Philip Morris 'executive' regarding the 'safety' of cigarettes....
Ah, uhm, aha, ok, yes, sir, got it.
Well well, turns out cigarette aren't that unsafe after all, the problem is the weather in which you smoke it....]
Here is what is so glaringly odd with the narrative that Michelin's are safe when "used properly", etc. We have had a situation where Michelin have brought a tire to a race which was deemed unsafe for the present conditions of a race distance. Argentina: The tire was only good for half race distance, after that there was a great unknown what might happen. That's why it was taken so seriously, that if a rider missed the pit window, circulating was deemed so UNSAFE that the teams were informed there would be an immediate black flag issued.
Kropo is saying now the above scenario is a rider's responsibility, or as he put it, it's a "gamble" the riders took. That is a paradigm shift! The Brno scenario is exactly the same in effect as the mandatory pit stop scenario given the Michelin recommendation that the soft wet would not by 'optimal' for the race conditions at hand! Except by not 'optimal' also included DELAMINATION!
Michelin did not predict or dream their tires would delaminate! It's why they didn't withdraw the soft wet tires. The recommendation was that the soft wasn't the 'optimal' tire NOT that the soft would disintegrate, chunk, delaminate, and therefore you ride at your risk. I know you understand what I'm saying. The difference between saying we don't recommend soft tire option as optimal but rather hard is a world of difference between saying, look, if you use this tire in this condition your tire will fail. Because if this were the case, they would have withdrawn the option. Just like they didn’t allow "the riders to take the gamble" and use the tire they brought to Argentina for a race distance! Kropo is basically saying Michelin is not responsible for what happened at Brno because of the weather conditions, but rather it's on the riders for taking a gamble on a tire that Michelin warned would be unsafe, whilst arguing Michelin assured him the tires are safe for the race conditions at hand!
For those five riders that experienced severe delamination, it's a miracle none crashed. If we are defending Michelin from providing a tire that will possibly fail in the present race conditions, then why ever have mandatory tire exchange!? Why not do what they did in Brno? Just tell everyone, hey, we think the hard tire will last the race. We don't know about the soft, if you chose it you may die from a crash. Good luck ya'll.
When Kropo says, "the riders took a gamble" with a rain soft, he is saying it's on the riders for choosing a tire that may fail NOT the responsibility of the tire manufacturer nor Race Direction nor Dorna. This argument releasing responsibly for the entities decidedly responsible for rider safety is cause for concern.
If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Last edited:
Arrabbiata1
Blue Smoker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,925
- Location
- Out of Nowhere
^ Ruined
Last edited:
Throwing rubber ............. so have I
But what happened to those three tyres (at least as they are the focus) is not throwing rubber, that is chunking, delaminating and for all intests, failing.
Throwing rubber as you refer to it is the soft flakey rubber that we see fall from tyres (wets and slicks) as they begin to wear (of course, a wet in dry this will occur faster and with larger pieces of rubber due to the wet construction - ie. the lengthy block style tread).
This thrown rubber is what (in car terms) is called marbles and can cause serious problems for any vehicle should they collect onto a useful part of the tread as they are driven over, or worse, should they ball up as they can be like ice in terms of their effect on tyres.
The large chunking of tyres, wets or slicks is not normal tyre wear and is a failure of a component of the tyre.
It is no different to your road tyre that may have the same construction as millions of tyres sold, but for some reason on your car a section of the tread will lift due to a construction inconsistency.
ANY tyre failure needs to be a cause for concern for the manufacturer involved as well as for the organisers of the relevant series, be that a tyre used by god or a tyre used by a D grade club racer. A tyre failure is a tyre failure and there should be no differentiation between slicks or wets as both are built for the sole purpose of completing their assignments and maintaining safety for the user.
You ask any racer, and I mean any racer as to whether a large chunk of the tyre missing is normal wear or a failure of sorts .............. 99% will say a failure.
What Michelin should and I suspect are doing is reviewing those tyres, checking and doing a full investigations as they will not want this to occur again under any circumstances ......... I am sure that they do not consider it normal wear (and on normal wear with no conspiracy, Rossi's front was pristine which shows that the Michelin can work, and shows that Rossi can work it)
