This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Brno 2016

That you compare a tire separating in chunks from its core to be the same as a soft tire wearing out faster than a hard in the conditions it was meant to be used for is crazy. Especially after the facts upon facts that have been put in front of you. Admit you are wrong man.

Your comparisons are getting worse. A sports car off-road over jumps is a little different than a soft RAIN tire compared to the hard. They are both made for rain. Give up yo.

HAHAHAHA! OMFG this is just pure comedy. They're both designed for RAIN so it's all good right? Not even sure why manufacturers even make different compound rain tires.. one rain tire is just as good as the next bro. Rain is rain right?
 
Anytime the rubber separates, that can be defined as the tire failing. Blame the manufacturer if it happens while the tire was used in the conditions it was designed for.

As I pointed out innumerable times the soft wet is designed in such a way that it achieves optimal performance in torrential rain or standing water. However its envelope of performance was perfectly within the expectations of a white flag scenario, otherwise riders would have been discouraged in making that selection. In the event, there was no further rain, but the sudden and premature failure of Dovi's tyre occurred well within its operational margins on a suitably wet surface. Lorenzo's tyre should certainly have blistered and worn at the point that he pitted, but not separated. That Rossi's remained in such good condition and allowed him to remain competitive indicates a huge disparity in performance and such inconsistency cannot be attributed to either rider style or set up - And even if it did have a factor to play, both factors are in Lorenzo's favour when it comes to durability of the front.

Had it been possible for Rossi to run the hard front your argument would carry more gravitas, but he ran exactly the same compound as his team mate with drastically different results. Michelin will not simply dismiss this as either an isolated anomaly or as you are insisting, the result of using a tyre outside of its designation. This is another example of a quality issue and as I suggested in an earlier post, the heat resistant properties appear to be questionable across the range.
 
There were no delaminations at Misano 2015.

You still seem to have trouble grasping that.

Meh, kind of hard to say that JPS. The center strip on the tire didn't separate at Misano 2015, however chunks of rubber did separate from the carcass. That is chunks of the tread being thrown from the tire and not only from the edges. I can call that a tire failure. But once gain, you're comparing HARD tires at Misano to SOFT at Brno... and once again... you still can't seem to grasp the difference between the two. The soft will always be the most likely to experience a catastrophic failure simply due to the nature of the tire. It has a very small operating range.
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out innumerable times the soft wet is designed in such a way that it achieves optimal performance in torrential rain or standing water. However its envelope of performance was perfectly within the expectations of a white flag scenario, otherwise riders would have been discouraged in making that selection. In the event, there was no further rain, but the sudden and premature failure of Dovi's tyre occurred well within its operational margins on a suitably wet surface. Lorenzo's tyre should certainly have blistered and worn at the point that he pitted, but not separated. That Rossi's remained in such good condition and allowed him to remain competitive indicates a huge disparity in performance and such inconsistency cannot be attributed to either rider style or set up - And even if it did have a factor to play, both factors are in Lorenzo's favour when it comes to durability of the front.

Had it been possible for Rossi to run the hard front your argument would carry more gravitas, but he ran exactly the same compound as his team mate with drastically different results. Michelin will not simply dismiss this as either an isolated anomaly or as you are insisting, the result of using a tyre outside of its designation. This is another example of a quality issue and as I suggested in an earlier post, the heat resistant properties appear to be questionable across the range.

I will agree with you that Dovi's case is the strongest argument for the tire failing prematurely, but I need to go back and check what lap he was on.

Why is everyone ignoring that Marc's front also stayed in good condition and he started the race much faster than Rossi? Marc said he made efforts to save his tires, yet no one here thinks Rossi could do the same?
 
Lap times at Motegi 2015, where Rossi passed Lorenzo on lap of 24, to gain what was his finishing position of 2nd, relegating Lorenzo to third.

V. Rossi
Lap 18 1'57.757
Lap 19 1'58.131
Lap 20 1'58.515
Lap 21 1'59.048
Lap 22 2'00.514
Lap 23 2'00.988
Lap 24 2'02.203

J. Lorenzo
Lap 18 1'59.115
Lap 19 1'58.472
Lap 20 2'00.297
Lap 21 2'00.297
Lap 22 1'59.980
Lap 23 2'01.284
Lap 24 2'02.499
 
HAHAHAHA! OMFG this is just pure comedy. They're both designed for RAIN so it's all good right? Not even sure why manufacturers even make different compound rain tires.. one rain tire is just as good as the next bro. Rain is rain right?

Yes rain is rain rainman. Soft rain tire and hard rain tire are both made for..................guess what I am going to say next. RAIN mother ......! Sure the soft should lose rubber faster however it should not delaminate.
 
Lap times at Motegi 2015, where Rossi passed Lorenzo on lap of 24, to gain what was his finishing position of 2nd, relegating Lorenzo to third.

V. Rossi
Lap 18 1'57.757
Lap 19 1'58.131
Lap 20 1'58.515
Lap 21 1'59.048
Lap 22 2'00.514
Lap 23 2'00.988
Lap 24 2'02.203

J. Lorenzo
Lap 18 1'59.115
Lap 19 1'58.472
Lap 20 2'00.297
Lap 21 2'00.297
Lap 22 1'59.980
Lap 23 2'01.284
Lap 24 2'02.499

Rossi got through on Lorenzo after Lorenzo ran so wide he nearly went off track. Lorenzo's was having all sorts of problems riding on a tire that as separating rubber from the carcass. Wow... it was a Bridgestone?!
 
Vudu, here's the problem with you.

Chunking is not the same as a tire delaminating.

Tires with excessive wear tend to chunk. All those marbles you see on the track surface are from the compound breaking down.

Albeit this is not motorcycles, but this is what excessive tire marbling looks like when tires degrade heavily as F1's Pirelli tires do.

3dWtfJN.jpg


There are not strips of compound that have delaminated from the tire.

Here's a picture of the tire surface after excessive degradation.

9029.jpg


Again, there are no delaminated sections to be seen.

This next picture is what a delaminated Pirelli F1 tire looks like.

168700844-delaminated-pirelli-tyre-during-the-spanish-gettyimages.jpg


The internal belt/construction/layer is exposed when the top layer delaminates.

What happened Sunday was a delamination, and is a product of tire failure which should not be occurring at this level. It also was not chunking as chunking occurs in every race, the degree of which varies from circuit to circuit due to the nature of the circuit/temps/loads/etc. You think because "chunks" are missing, it equals "chunking". True chunking is a natural byproduct of how the tire wears down...pieces of rubber come off of the surface. Sunday saw chunks of the top layer gone, which is delamination. The normal thing to happen Sunday if anything was that the tire surfaces on the soft wet front should have showed signs of excessive degradation if the conditions were incorrect for the tire. Unfortunately given the state of Valentino Rossi's tire in comparison to Jorge Lorenzo's tire when both used the same compounds on the same bike, says that the tires were not used incorrectly as Nicolas Goubert and Kropo have tried to say. It means there is a quality control issue at hand that Michelin does not want to openly admit to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
Rossi got through on Lorenzo after Lorenzo ran so wide he nearly went off track. Lorenzo's was having all sorts of problems riding on a tire that as separating rubber from the carcass. Wow... it was a Bridgestone?!

The lap times deteriorated progressively over 20 laps, not one.

Rossi was 1 or 2 seconds a lap faster than Lorenzo at Motegi at the end, even not allowing for Lorenzo settling for position, not 7 seconds a lap.

Your point is?
 
Last edited:
Vudu, here's the problem with you.

Chunking is not the same as a tire delaminating.

Tires with excessive wear tend to chunk. All those marbles you see on the track surface are from the compound breaking down.

Albeit this is not motorcycles, but this is what excessive tire marbling looks like when tires degrade heavily as F1's Pirelli tires do.

3dWtfJN.jpg


There are not strips of compound that have delaminated from the tire.

Here's a picture of the tire surface after excessive degradation.

9029.jpg


Again, there are no delaminated sections to be seen.

This next picture is what a delaminated Pirelli F1 tire looks like.

168700844-delaminated-pirelli-tyre-during-the-spanish-gettyimages.jpg


The internal belt/construction/layer is exposed when the top layer delaminates.

What happened Sunday was a delamination, and is a product of tire failure which should not be occurring at this level. It also was not chunking as chunking occurs in every race, the degree of which varies from circuit to circuit due to the nature of the circuit/temps/loads/etc. You think because "chunks" are missing, it equals "chunking". True chunking is a natural byproduct of how the tire wears down...pieces of rubber come off of the surface. Sunday saw chunks of the top layer gone, which is delamination. The normal thing to happen Sunday if anything was that the tire surfaces on the soft wet front should have showed signs of excessive degradation if the conditions were incorrect for the tire. Unfortunately given the state of Valentino Rossi's tire in comparison to Jorge Lorenzo's tire when both used the same compounds on the same bike, says that the tires were not used incorrectly as Nicolas Goubert and Kropo have tried to say. It means there is a quality control issue at hand that Michelin does not want to openly admit to.

I don't see tire marbles as the same thing as chunking. I will elaborate in a little bit.
 
Compare the tyres to the race in Japan last year then, where Lorenzo went off in torrential conditions to lap at around a second a lap faster than anyone, including the great Italian god.
He'd built a huge lead that looked unassailable, when it started drying fast. The soft Bridgestone wet front that Lorenzo had pushed hard to build his lead started to fail as the track got rapidly drier, no matter what water he ran through to try and cool it down.
Other riders were struggling with the same problem, to varying degrees, Dani being the least as he'd pushed far less at the start, then Valentino as ditto, he hadn't had the early pace to go near Lorenzo (wow, Lorenzo went faster than Rossi in the wet, surely that can't be right, Rossi's the master in the wet!).
Anyway to cut a long story short, the Bridgestone soft wets that day, in very similar conditions, did not break up, they gradually wore down and threw off small chunks of rubber right up to the end of the race.
None of the tyres threw off great swathes of tread that rendered them dangerous, this is the direct comparison.
Yes there were varying degrees of "wear", in this case Lorenzo's was the worst and this was universally put down to his incredible early pace and unbelievably bad luck with the weather. Eventual winner Dani Pedrosa put down his win to the fact that he had no grip early on and was struggling, but the drying track helped him get heat in the tyre, which ultimately lasted longest due to his bad start. Valentino cited a similar story saying he didn't have the feeling to go with Lorenzo early on too, but was able to overhaul him late on as it was clear Lorenzo's tyre was finished and he was unable to stop.
Again, no tyres failed in a dangerous and sudden manner, and nobody destroyed tyres due to unusual riding styles.
Nobody walked on water and saved his tyres due to godliness too.
 
Attempting to facilitate such comparison between the two tyre manufactures/ products is futile - particularly given the myriad of vastly different variables not least the track characteristics, circumstances, prevailing conditions and surface - (although the latter is less pertinent in the wet). Motegi is a completely different prospect to Brno and a fierce unforgiving stop/start, hard braking circuit.

On reflection, my last post and response to Michael was perhaps too sceptical in recollecting the circumstances governing changes to the carcass in 2012. With all this discussion of chunking, it has occurred to me that there post revision to the front, there still remained very real fears for safety. In 2012, the new formula meant that the bikes were heavier, faster, and more importantly, had increased drive lower in the rev range. In view of the huge advances made in electronics during the 800cc era, this exacted much greater loads on the tires than Bridgestone had envisaged. Better mechanical grip from the bikes, and purchase from the added weight and new tire design resulted in the tires to start showing signs of overheating. Despite the changes to the rigidity of the carcass creating an easier to manage front – serious problems still afflicted the rear. Remember at Assen in 2012? - rear tires were hurling chunks of rubber like shrapnel. Ben Spies finished a long way from the podium with rubber shredding off his tire, and Vale was forced to pit for tires. Viddu, tires coming apart in such a way is not an acceptable situation, particularly indiscriminately and randomly as they did on Sunday whatever your contention about the drying track. Blistering on the surface is one thing, but when you’re throwing major chunks of rubber down to the carcass that cannot be attributed to riding style or the fact it stopped raining. Remember, although the soft wets are designed to work best in torrential rain, they should still be in their tolerance on a wet surface and cooler track temperature. Watch the race again, Dovizioso’s failure was sudden and instantaneous occurring well within what should be the performance envelope of the tyre.



You’re serious aren’t you? Sorry, I’m not being unnecessarily vitriolic, but I thought that was a joke! However, it does introduce an interesting point. Remember the contentious heat resistant layer? Realising in 2012 that Bridgestone had a serious issues that I highlighted, they formulated a layer in the tyre intended to prevent the inner carcass from overheating through dissipating the load better. Their introduction was piecemeal initially, Motegi being an example, which as I mentioned is particularly hard on tyres. By 2013 I believe I’m right in saying they were introduced at all circuits in the calendar. The upshot was however, at lower track temperatures with diminished grip on the edges, there were problems with feel. Guys like Marquez, who square off the corner saw little discernible difference but Jorge with his traditional lines and high corner speed was struggling. Hence the edge treatment introduced in 2014 which again was used selectively at those circuits which generate less load on the tyre but lead to the misconceptions amongst Rossi aficionado’s on here that Bridgestone were manufacturing tyres exclusively for Lorenzo. Meanwhile, Jorge was venting spleen whenever they arrived without them.

Low melt temperature adhesive??? I don’t think so, but it does lead me to question if Michelin have followed Bridgestone’s lead in incorporating a similarly designed heat resistant layer on the carcass and if so, whether it is inferior. Entirely my own speculation, but given the growing catalogue of failures this year, particularly the delamination issues, I suspect this may well worthy of further consideration.
Absolutely you should stay above the fray Arrabb where tawdry conspiracy theories are concerned, your prose is too fine to be wasted on such.

I found myelf unable to do so. I am more emotionally involved as a fan than you are, in the moment anyway, and being perhaps overly wedded to Aristotlean logic could not countenance posts complaining about conspiracy theories in relation to Rossi after Rossi's attempt to blacken the reputation of 2 other riders also arguably among the top riders of all time, certainly top 10 imo even in Jorge's case, with the the most excessive conspiracy theory in the history of the sport. Rossi effectively ousting Jorge from Yamaha has hardened my attitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You're right, their laptimes only dropped about 6 seconds. :rolleyes:

2Y2s3Ib.jpg

Mbub9Ac.jpg



Keep it mind, this is still a very bad comparison. You're comparing the drop in lap times on worn (and chunking) HARD tires to a drop in lap times on SOFT tires used outside of what they're designed for.

Its a bad comparison because this is a predicted drop in time over the course of 10 laps, not 1 or 2
 
Compare the tyres to the race in Japan last year then, where Lorenzo went off in torrential conditions to lap at around a second a lap faster than anyone, including the great Italian god.
He'd built a huge lead that looked unassailable, when it started drying fast. The soft Bridgestone wet front that Lorenzo had pushed hard to build his lead started to fail as the track got rapidly drier, no matter what water he ran through to try and cool it down.
Other riders were struggling with the same problem, to varying degrees, Dani being the least as he'd pushed far less at the start, then Valentino as ditto, he hadn't had the early pace to go near Lorenzo (wow, Lorenzo went faster than Rossi in the wet, surely that can't be right, Rossi's the master in the wet!).
Anyway to cut a long story short, the Bridgestone soft wets that day, in very similar conditions, did not break up, they gradually wore down and threw off small chunks of rubber right up to the end of the race.
None of the tyres threw off great swathes of tread that rendered them dangerous, this is the direct comparison.
Yes there were varying degrees of "wear", in this case Lorenzo's was the worst and this was universally put down to his incredible early pace and unbelievably bad luck with the weather. Eventual winner Dani Pedrosa put down his win to the fact that he had no grip early on and was struggling, but the drying track helped him get heat in the tyre, which ultimately lasted longest due to his bad start. Valentino cited a similar story saying he didn't have the feeling to go with Lorenzo early on too, but was able to overhaul him late on as it was clear Lorenzo's tyre was finished and he was unable to stop.
Again, no tyres failed in a dangerous and sudden manner, and nobody destroyed tyres due to unusual riding styles.
Nobody walked on water and saved his tyres due to godliness too.

Please fact check what front compound wet tire was being used. When I watched the race again last night, it was noted they were using the HARD compound front & soft compound rears (with a few exceptions such as Baz & Hayden who also had the hard rear).
 
Last edited:
Please fact check what front compound wet tire was being used. When I watched the race again last night, it was noted they were using the HARD compound front & soft compound rears (with a few exceptions such as Baz & Hayden who also had hard the hard rear).

Still hanging your hat on the assertion that a Bridgestone "soft" wet might have delaminated in an alternative universe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
JPS,

A little tidbit on wet tire construction.

Wet tires, whose tread consists of many unsupported flexible elements, generate heat that requires water-cooling to survive. Intermediates are slicks with limited drainage grooving, so they flex less, generate less heat, and last longer.

It's not hard to understand that the unsupported flexible elements on a wet tire may separate from the carcass if there isn't sufficient water to keep them cool.

I believe tire marbles are a perfectly normal (but undesirable) phenomenon that occurs as the track surface shaves rubber from the surface of the tire. As the race continues, much of that hot rubber starts to build up in the outside of the corners.. some of it clumps together to make bigger "marbles".

Increased tire temperatures are the principal cause of rubber degradation and can lead to fatigue cracking, belt separation, tread block tearing and chunking. It can affect a tire's air permeability, which can cause underinflation. At the same time, it's been discovered that air permeating into a tire's rubber compound can accelerate oxidative degradation.
 
Last edited:
Still hanging your hat on the assertion that a Bridgestone "soft" wet might have delaminated in an alternative universe?

Yet, you can't post a damn thing that shows a soft Bridgestone is more durable and wouldn't have failed at Brno.
 
JPS,

A little tidbit on wet tire construction.



It's not hard to understand that the unsupported flexible elements on a wet tire may separate from the carcass if there isn't sufficient water to keep them cool.
Again, it would help your case for delamination being a "normal" phenomenon if you could provide some examples of previous occurrences.
 

Recent Discussions