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

Gran Premio Motul de la República Argentina 2017

Ducati loading the front more with the winglets possibly. Braking style. It could be a combination of the two.

So that alone makes the tyre defective, if it can't be trusted on a Ducati even in the conditions for which it was supposedly designed, given your argument otherwise is inappropriate use for the prevailing conditions; this was the reason a Michelin dry tyre was withdrawn last year, a further occurrence you are now ignoring.

I am fine with what happened in the wet 2015 Japanese GP with Rossi deservedly finishing second in that race by preserving his tyres better or riding worn tyres better to pass Lorenzo late race, a particular skill of Rossi's over his career, and a frequent story in racing wet or dry where tyre wear is a problem for most of the many decades I have followed both car and bike racing, which riding or driving to avoid catastrophic tyre failure is not; tyres prone to catastrophic failure are withdrawn or (perhaps ill advisedly imo) on one occasion used subject to a mandatory tyre change.

It is telling that you refer to Kropotkin's article which I was well aware was what MV was mainly "parroting". If you think a Michelin spokesman/apologist is going to say anything damaging to Michelin in these circumstances such as admit a safety concern, however obvious such a concern may be, as I have offered on this forum there is a rather nice Harbour Bridge a couple of kilometres away from where I currently sit I can sell you cheap.
 
The additional front tire will not be available after all. The tires were held up at customs due to a strike, so Race Direction felt it wouldn't be fair to allow them to be used, as not everyone would have enough time to evaluate them. Riders in the Safety Commission agreed.
 
So that alone makes the tyre defective, if it can't be trusted on a Ducati even in the conditions for which it was supposedly designed, given your argument otherwise is inappropriate use for the prevailing conditions; this was the reason a Michelin dry tyre was withdrawn last year, a further occurrence you are now ignoring.

I am fine with what happened in the wet 2015 Japanese GP with Rossi deservedly finishing second in that race by preserving his tyres better or riding worn tyres better to pass Lorenzo late race, a particular skill of Rossi's over his career, and a frequent story in racing wet or dry where tyre wear is a problem for most of the many decades I have followed both car and bike racing, which riding or driving to avoid catastrophic tyre failure is not; tyres prone to catastrophic failure are withdrawn or (perhaps ill advisedly imo) on one occasion used subject to a mandatory tyre change.

It is telling that you refer to Kropotkin's article which I was well aware was what MV was mainly "parroting". If you think a Michelin spokesman/apologist is going to say anything damaging to Michelin in these circumstances such as admit a safety concern, however obvious such a concern may be, as I have offered on this forum there is a rather nice Harbour Bridge a couple of kilometres away from where I currently sit I can sell you cheap.

If you think you know more about Michelin tires than the Michelin Racing Technical Director, you should just keep that bridge you're selling. Your racing tire knowledge is woefully ignorant in comparison to Goubert. You can believe he's lying to protect Michelin all you want, doesn't change the fact that Goubert has forgotten more about tires than you'll ever learn.
 
If you think you know more about Michelin tires than the Michelin Racing Technical Director, you should just keep that bridge you're selling. Your racing tire knowledge is woefully ignorant in comparison to Goubert. You can believe he's lying to protect Michelin all you want, doesn't change the fact that Goubert has forgotten more about tires than you'll ever learn.

Yet another straw man post from the poster boy for cognitive dissonance. The degree of his knowledge has no bearing on his capacity to dissemble. His knowledge isn't up for debate - it's his credibility as a spokesman, as evidenced by his capacity to promote face saving spin.
 
Last edited:
Yet another straw man post from the poster boy for cognitive dissonance. The degree of his knowledge has no bearing on his capacity to dissemble. His knowledge isn't up for debate - it's his credibility as a spokesman, as evidenced by his capacity to promote face saving spin.

It's an assumption that Goubert isn't telling the truth. An assumption that's being made by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the tires. If you don't know anything about racing tires (wet racing tires in particular), how can you discern when someone who has intimate knowledge of the tires isn't telling the truth? It's your lack of knowledge that's making it all seem wrong or suspect.
 
Last edited:
Yet another straw man post from the poster boy for cognitive dissonance. The degree of his knowledge has no bearing on his capacity to dissemble. His knowledge isn't up for debate - it's his credibility as a spokesman, as evidenced by his capacity to promote face saving spin.

Standard Kesh pet theory for an argument that he cannot win. A pretty dumb attempt at an insult in reality.
 
If you think you know more about Michelin tires than the Michelin Racing Technical Director, you should just keep that bridge you're selling. Your racing tire knowledge is woefully ignorant in comparison to Goubert. You can believe he's lying to protect Michelin all you want, doesn't change the fact that Goubert has forgotten more about tires than you'll ever learn.

I now very little about the technology of tyres in comparison to him, obviously, and made no claim otherwise, merely observing that he was a Michelin spokesman speaking after multiple catastrophic failures of a Michelin tyre, a form of failiure which they obviously didn't predict or they would not have allowed the the tyre to be used, for which I have given you ample precedent including an F1 race when they were an F1 tyre supplier. I do know enough to consider tyre delamination to be a both a tyre failure and a catastrophic form of same, as such delamination was considered to be when the dry tyre voted for at Dorna's instigation in preference to a more durable tyre failed in a race for Valentino, a failure which in the case of that tyre was predicted ahead of time rather than yours and DB's wonderful retrospective detection of flaws in Lorenzo's riding after that Michelin wet delaminated.

Whatever Goubert or Michelin know about tyres wasn't enough in any case, or they wouldn't have designed a tyre which failed in this way, or allowed riders to continue to ride them on a drying track if they knew they were going to delaminate rather than just wear out. Michelin also don't exactly have a history of supplying tyres without fear or favour in GP bike racing, but despite this and the new for last season gag rule on rider comments race riders have spoken about about some of Michelin's tyres last year being substandard, including Scott Redding, who while perhaps deficient in knowledge of the physics and chemistry of tyre design and construction in comparison with Goubert perhaps has enough of a practical grasp of physics to appreciate the consequences physics-wise of a tyre blowing out at 300 kph.

Rather defensive for a man who invariably wins any argument on here , perhaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Standard Kesh pet theory for an argument that he cannot win. A pretty dumb attempt at an insult in reality.

I do know about standards of evidence, btw. Expert opinion rates very low even in the absence of any vested interest.

Tell you what. Let's see if they supply this tyre again in similar conditions with instructions to the riders that it is the rider's problem if the tyre delaminates, and if so whether Rossi will run a similar race strategy in full confidence that he knows how to stay beneath the delamination threshold.
 
Last edited:
It's an assumption that Goubert isn't telling the truth. An assumption that's being made by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the tires. If you don't know anything about racing tires (wet racing tires in particular), how can you discern when someone who has intimate knowledge of the tires isn't telling the truth? It's your lack of knowledge that's making it all seem wrong or suspect.

It's your assumption that you know more than I about tires that makes you look foolish. I raced for years in AMA Camel Pro CCS as well as WERA and AAMARR and managed a competitive endurance racing team. I'm talking from the viewpoint of actual practical experience - whereas you get all your info from the internet. There are a number of folks here who you regularly assert to be ignorant - who in point of fact, have much deeper racing experience and engineering knowledge than I do. Your hubris is so typical of arm chair experts as to have become a running joke around here.


Now - go ahead and double down, make the predictably inane joke, divert or all of the above as you always do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
It's raining and everyone is in the pits, q1 is going to be interesting. VR has decent race pace but could well start from row 4 or 5, only a fully wet qualifying session could shake the grid up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
It's your assumption that you know more than I about tires that makes you look foolish. I raced for years in AMA Camel Pro CCS as well as WERA and AAMARR and managed a competitive endurance racing team. I'm talking from the viewpoint of actual practical experience - whereas you get all your info from the internet. There are a number of folks here who you regularly assert to be ignorant - who in point of fact, have much deeper racing experience than I do. Your hubris is so typical of arm chair experts as to have become a running joke around here.


Now - go ahead and double down, make the predictably inane joke, divert or all of the above as you always do.

I of course have no such experience, but am well aware that you and several other posters on here have deep knowledge and experience of actual bike racing, as competitors, as race mechanics as I think Roger was, as a race official as Gaz has been, etc, etc.

A valid argument is a valid argument nonetheless, not that MV is in the habit of making same.
 
Last edited:
I of course have no such experience, but am well aware that you and several other posters on here have deep knowledge and experience of actual bike racing, as competitors, as race mechanics as I think Roger was, as a race official as Gaz has been, etc, etc.

A valid argument is a valid argument nonetheless, not that MV is in the habit of making same.

Doubtless. Given that there are a few here whose knowledge far outstrips mine - I'm, as a rule, hesitant to point to my "CV", as it were. It's just that sometimes the arrogance of some folks with no real world experience who use internet gleaned info to shore up unsupportable arguments is so absurd as to boggle the mind.

In the event it doesn't take a pedigree in MotoGP to comprehend that knowledge of tire engineering doesn't preclude dishonesty at press briefings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I now very little about the technology of tyres in comparison to him, obviously, and made no claim otherwise, merely observing that he was a Michelin spokesman speaking after multiple catastrophic failures of a Michelin tyre, a form of failiure which they obviously didn't predict or they would not have allowed the the tyre to be used, for which I have given you ample precedent including an F1 race when they were an F1 tyre supplier. I do know enough to consider tyre delamination to be a both a tyre failure and a catastrophic form of same, as such delamination was considered to be when the dry tyre voted for at Dorna's instigation in preference to a more durable tyre failed in a race for Valentino, a failure which in the case of that tyre was predicted ahead of time rather than yours and DB's wonderful retrospective detection of flaws in Lorenzo's riding after that Michelin wet delaminated.

Whatever Goubert or Michelin know about tyres wasn't enough in any case, or they wouldn't have designed a tyre which failed in this way, or allowed riders to continue to ride them on a drying track if they knew they were going to delaminate rather than just wear out. Michelin also don't exactly have a history of supplying tyres without fear or favour in GP bike racing, but despite this and the new for last season gag rule on rider comments race riders have spoken about about some of Michelin's tyres last year being substandard, including Scott Redding, who while perhaps deficient in knowledge of the physics and chemistry of tyre design and construction in comparison with Goubert perhaps has enough of a practical grasp of physics to appreciate the consequences physics-wise of a tyre blowing out at 300 kph.

Rather defensive for a man who invariably wins any argument on here , perhaps.

It's been my experience in following motor racing for many years that tire manufacturers who are supplying race series, when the tires fail in unknown circumstances, they are more often than not to blame a number of other factors. Among those factors are the competitors themselves, or the engineers on the team for perhaps running PSI amounts that are under or greater than what their recommended range is. Either way, the running theme has always been to blame those using the tires.

The only deviation from this is in instances such as the one you cited earlier as Formula 1's Indy 2005 grand prix, or Phillip Island 2013 when the manufacturer knows there is a defect with the tire. I suspect that has everything to do with liability issues that they would be on the hook for if they knowingly let the racers go out on the track at racing speeds only to see them suffer severe or fatal injury due to a tire failure.

As stated, when the manufacturers get caught with structural tire failures, the blame is always shifted to the teams. I can't recall off the top of my head any instance in which a structural tire failure occurred, and the manufacturer took full responsibility for it. The Brno tire failures fell into that category as did the other Michelin tire failures we saw in 2016. The teams and riders were blamed for every single one of them as Michelin closed ranks on the entire subject. This is why I said that you have two options for what happened at the Brno.

1) Michelin knowingly let the riders out onto the circuit for the grand prix on structurally deficient tires.

or

2) They expected the structural integrity of the tire to hold up, and were not expecting to watch multiple tires across multiple machines delaminate.

Given Michelin's predictable response of blaming the riders/teams, option 2 is what happened as I can't see Michelin being that negligent. Lazy perhaps, but outright negligent?

Michelin is well aware before the red lights ever go out what the teams are planning to do, and they have to prepare for every contingency that may occur. While they along with everyone else may not have expected the track to dry out as fast as it did, this does not absolve them of any responsibility for fielding a structurally deficient tire not up to the requirements of the grand prix. We've seen riders stay out on track in rapidly drying conditions on rain tires in years past and have not seen their tires delaminate due to staying out longer than the ideal strategy would have called for.

I don't think anyone here is questioning what Nicolas Goubert knows about tires as he knows quite a bit. What is being questioned is his truthfulness on the subject of the tire delaminations due to having a vested interest in not seeing his company held responsible for subpar construct tires. The likelihood is that we will never again see a delamination of the sort that occurred at the Brno as in spite of public appearances being what they are, Michelin would have fully determined the cause and how to prevent it from happening again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
FP3 results and Q2 participants.

FP3:

1. Cal Crutchlow GBR LCR Honda (RC213V) 1m 39.772s [Lap 7/11]
2. Maverick Viñales ESP Movistar Yamaha MotoGP (YZR-M1) 1m 39.867s +0.095s [9/11]
3. Dani Pedrosa ESP Repsol Honda Team (RC213V) 1m 40.292s +0.520s [6/8]
4. Scott Redding GBR Octo Pramac Racing (Desmosedici GP16) 1m 40.321s +0.549s [4/10]
5. Marc Marquez ESP Repsol Honda Team (RC213V) 1m 40.394s +0.622s [6/10]
6. Loris Baz FRA Reale Avintia Racing (Desmosedici GP15) 1m 40.397s +0.625s [5/10]
7. Jack Miller AUS Estrella Galicia 0,0 Marc VDS (RC213V) 1m 40.514s +0.742s [5/11]
8. Andrea Dovizioso ITA Ducati Team (Desmosedici GP17) 1m 40.551s +0.779s [5/9]
9. Andrea Iannone ITA Team Suzuki Ecstar (GSX-RR) 1m 40.590s +0.818s [6/10]
10. Aleix Espargaro ESP Factory Aprilia Gresini (RS-GP) 1m 40.624s +0.852s [7/9]
11. Alvaro Bautista ESP Aspar MotoGP Team (Desmosedici GP16) 1m 40.638s +0.866s [6/8]
12. Valentino Rossi ITA Movistar Yamaha MotoGP (YZR-M1) 1m 40.690s +0.918s [6/12]
13. Danilo Petrucci ITA Octo Pramac Racing (Desmosedici GP17) 1m 40.700s +0.928s [7/11]
14. Jorge Lorenzo ESP Ducati Team (Desmosedici GP17) 1m 40.718s +0.946s [8/10]
15. Jonas Folger GER Monster Yamaha Tech 3 (YZR-M1)* 1m 40.734s +0.962s [4/7]
16. Karel Abraham CZE Aspar MotoGP Team (Desmosedici GP15) 1m 40.742s +0.970s [6/9]
17. Johann Zarco FRA Monster Yamaha Tech 3 (YZR-M1)* 1m 40.943s +1.171s [4/10]
18. Alex Rins ESP Team Suzuki Ecstar (GSX-RR)* 1m 41.019s +1.247s [6/10]
19. Tito Rabat ESP Estrella Galicia 0,0 Marc VDS (RC213V) 1m 41.082s +1.310s [7/10]
20. Pol Espargaro ESP Red Bull KTM Factory Racing (RC16) 1m 41.350s +1.578s [8/11]
21. Sam Lowes GBR Factory Aprilia Gresini (RS-GP)* 1m 41.616s +1.844s [7/9]
22. Hector Barbera ESP Reale Avintia Racing (Desmosedici GP16) 1m 41.669s +1.897s [6/10]
23. Bradley Smith GBR Red Bull KTM Factory Racing (RC16) 1m 42.008s +2.236s [9/11]

Riders going directly to Qualifying 2 - Top 10 Combined Practice Times:
1. Maverick Vinales ESP Movistar Yamaha MotoGP (YZR-M1)
2. Cal Crutchlow GBR LCR Honda (RC213V)
3. Marc Marquez ESP Repsol Honda Team (RC213V)
4. Karel Abraham CZE Aspar MotoGP Team (Desmosedici GP15)
5. Alvaro Bautista ESP Aspar MotoGP Team (Desmosedici GP16)
6. Danilo Petrucci ITA Octo Pramac Racing (Desmosedici GP17)
7. Loris Baz FRA Reale Avintia Racing (Desmosedici GP15)
8. Jonas Folger GER Monster Yamaha Tech 3 (YZR-M1)*
9. Aleix Espargaro ESP Factory Aprilia Gresini (RS-GP)
10. Andrea Iannone ITA Team Suzuki Ecstar (GSX-RR)
 

There's an interesting comment in there by 'Tack'

how tyres are made

tack replied on Tue, 2016-08-23 09:08 Site Supporter

Perhaps David it would be a good time, if you have the time and resources to do an article, or get someone to do an article, on how race tyres are made.

Many years ago, I used to work for a Japanese race tyre company and back then the carcass was made first. Carcasses are important for a few reasons, first and most important is the carcass supports the tread which mostly is a slick tread but in this case is a wet patterned tread.

The carcass determines the tread shape, footprint size and controls distortion (, in conjunction with air pressure) and gives the rider feel. The other very important aspect which is either not openly revealed or understood is the carcass controls or supports heat lose or retention through the side walls and into the wheel. The compound works in conjunction with the carcass.

It used to be that once a carcass is made the tread was applied, either as a separate piece or applied like to toothpaste to the carcass to give dual compounds and then moulded to the carcass in a rather hot round press. The tread (slick or wet) is a complex mix of chemicals which all tyre companies spend time money and expertise to develop. Theylook for new materials e.g. silica to give them that compound edge and they protect compound information as proprietary information. The blend is what I would consider to be the black art of tyres and is the domain of the individual tyre manufactueres science and chemical engineers.

Anyway without going on, the thing is that the under belt (carcass), which the wet compound is moulded to, is quite often thicker (depending on the manufacturer) than ordinary slicks carcasses to help with heat retention. So for example, the exact same compound blend can be used on two different carcasses, one that retains more heat and the other that loses heat and each one could be called either a soft full wet and the other a hard full wet. This works because one tyre retains the heat and the other dissipates the heat. Thus in the race on the weekend, the bikes generating heat through load exceeded the tyres heat limits and delaminated that section of tyre from the carcass while the riders or bikes that didn’t load the tyre as much or cooled the tyres did not. Conversely, the “hard” tyres carcass disappates the heat more easily to the track and ambient and also take longer to heat and needed a drier track to maintain the heat to make the compound blend to work. (heat range)

Anyway, I don’t know what carcass construction the wet Michelins were and how they related to each other (hard to soft) nor do I know the compounding characteristics of each blend. For all I know, the same carcass design was used but a different compound blend was used on each hard or soft. I do know that from experience that Michelin have traditionally had quite soft sidewall construction but extremely good under belt footprint control and shape. This gives very good grip but takes getting used to from a “different” feel perspective as compared to the Bridgestones. Anyway, from an old bloke’s point of view the delamination of the centre tread is not a quality issue but a heat and load issue, either from the excess heat build up in the carcass or the compound blend exceeding its limits. It's not quality control but heat control and blend characteristics.

Better to ask whether the “wings” increased front end load? Or weight distribution? Or braking load? one of these factors was the cause.

I don't expect that the tyre manufacturers will tell everyone exactly what carcass design they used on the weekend and what the compound blends used were but at some stage an over view of how carcass and compound s work together and how load, ambient and track temps work in relation to each other. This might help reduce questions of quality and lead to a better understanding of the complexities that tyre negineers and technicains face with heat, load and grip on modern MotoGP bikes at different circuits with quite varying ambiant and track temps, ashalt mix pebble sizes and load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The best-laid plans of micelin and men often go awry...

but not for trying. Still time to pull a Michelin out of a hat.
 
That has already been posted here Kant.

He doesn't see it as a quality issue, but I disagree. We see it time and time again in motor racing where drivers/riders try to stay out longer on a rapidly drying track than they probably should have without seeing their tires delaminate. Sure the soft retains heat longer than the hard does, but it doesn't mean the tire delaminating is a foregone conclusion, or even an acceptable outcome.

He also talks about Michelin tires giving good grip, when the only good grip the Michelin's have been noted for in GP is the rear tire. Their front tire was never close to what Bridgestone was supplying. Even in their previous stint, the same characteristics of great rear grip and lesser grip on the front were noted. Casey Stoner who knows more about how tires perform on grand prix motorcycles already stated that the Michelin front and rear profiles were mismatched with the amount of grip the rear provided relative to the front tire last year. I would like to see what his thoughts are on the 2017 tires to see if there is any difference from last year or if the Michelin philosophy still remains the same.
 
It's your assumption that you know more than I about tires that makes you look foolish. I raced for years in AMA Camel Pro CCS as well as WERA and AAMARR and managed a competitive endurance racing team. I'm talking from the viewpoint of actual practical experience - whereas you get all your info from the internet. There are a number of folks here who you regularly assert to be ignorant - who in point of fact, have much deeper racing experience and engineering knowledge than I do. Your hubris is so typical of arm chair experts as to have become a running joke around here.


Now - go ahead and double down, make the predictably inane joke, divert or all of the above as you always do.

I don't know who you are and you don't know who I am so you're making yet another assumption about how much experience I have. There are plenty of CCS and WERA racers that don't know ..... None of your CCS or WERA experience taught you a damn thing about MotoGP tires. You're not talking from a viewpoint of experience, you're pulling assumptions out of your .... You would've been better off claiming you know what you're talking about because you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
Last edited:
Found some rare footage of Kesh on track...

176578.gif
 

Recent Discussions