Michelin - the fallout?

[Super Tourer]

Michelin messed up, they admit and tried to rectify it but couldn't - by that time the matter was out of their hands. The who's and why's of that are debated on another thread -the question here is what will the after effects be for Michelin?

Undoubtedly there will be calls for financial compensation, both from the IMS, the promoter of the race and the fans that attended the race - in the end those calls will end up on Michelins desk, compensating fans and the promoter could cost $40M. Even arguing potentially thousands of law suits could be very costly.

Probably, US lawyers wil be advising TV companies and the like on whether they can claim they have paid for an event that wasn't delivered in it's entirety.

There will also be the question of what constitutes an entry - if those cars had pulled out on Friday, BE would have faced a breach on contract with the US GP promoter over the number of cars on the grid. Some fine print will be poured over but lawyers will claim that 14 of the cars lined up on the dummy grid in the full knowledge that they had no intention of making the start or racing - contractually this will be interesting.

Sponsors may seek compensation for their cars not appearing - it will be a test of their 'partners' loyalty whether they get passed to Michelin - however we didn't hear any of the usual 'we win together and lose together' type talk over the weekend, the teams leaving no doubt that this was Michelin's instruction and problem. This could run into millions of dollars if pursued.

Brand damage - how many F1 fans needing to buy new tyres for their car this week, will not buy Michelin's in protest? Or more starkly Bridgestone delivered a product that Michelin couldn't.

Ultimately their exit from F1?
The FIA have made it clear that they want a control tyre formulae - the debacle this weekend has effectively handed that to the FIA. BE described Michelin's future in F1 as 'not good'. Despite bullish comments about continued commitment to F1, etc, etc I think this will be Michelin's last year in F1 for a while.

[Kicking-back]

Michelin will be back with a strong tyre at the French GP - they'll win that and the world championship.

But I suspect we'll have a control tyre in 2006 - and it won't be from Clermont Ferrand.

[Peter Mallett]

Nope I can't see the connection with this and buying new road tyres.

Remember there's no such thing as bad publicity and many F1 fans (if it does have any impact) may view Michelin as being the hero of the hour by giving the FIA and Bernie the finger. So I see no brand damage.

I agree though that the FIA is vindictive and it will now do all it can to pressurize Michelin into leaving. If I were a fortune teller I might look at tyre section questions in August, and finally, wear rates and relative speed come October.

As to a control tyre. How can you have that when one manufacturer will always make a tyre to suit the highest bidder?

[Kicking-back]

You can have a control tyre with a standard spec, randomly allocated to the teams and keep the spec the same for the whole season - that way everyone can get used to it, and it doesn't change during the year to suit one car or other.

[indycool]

If I owned a Michelin tire store in Indy today, I'm not sure I'd open the doors for business.

[alfasud]

Michelin have helped the GPWC aligned teams make FIA (and Ferrari) look bad in the crucial US market.... they will probably be rewarded with a tyre contract for the GPWC run championship.

All going well, people will forget Michelin's role... and just remember evil FIA and evil Ferrari ruined the race.

[N I Tram]

Not one of the fans intereviewed post-race blamed Ferrari - their brand mystique is stronger than the reality of their behaviour for most people. Only a select group of intelligent people see them for what they are - a business, and a shameless one at that.

[Glen]

Give. It. A. Rest. Or call the nurse.

If any exception could have been made to let the Michelin guys run the poitns would have been EXACTLY the same - so what is the problem?

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by Glen

Give. It. A. Rest. Or call the nurse.

If any exception could have been made to let the Michelin guys run the poitns would have been EXACTLY the same - so what is the problem?

Correct.

Unless we'd had the ludicrous situation of a point-less Michelin car colliding with a Bridgestone car - which would have been pathetic.

[chillibowl]

im sure someone at michelin will lose there job here as this is a huge fiasco, and if they loose out of F1(someone else gets the control tire) thats a huge market they can no longer advertise in. surely that will affect sales. and as for bad press, this is really taking away from what could have been a great weekend for them, a victory at indy and le mans.

considering how much money is spent on F1, not being prepared is not a valid exscuse. perhaps the michelin teams could be given extentions provided they have notes from their doctors'.

[Suze]

It was Michelins mistake, end of. However, do the regulations need to be looked at incase this ever happens again? (ie why Michelin couldn't fly out new regulations). I'm not sure tbh. Although it was Michelin's mistake, I think it's a shame for the fans that were there obviously. And re chillibowl's comment - I'm sure more than one of the Michelin staff will lose their job, or will walk.

[fazzaz]

Originally Posted by N I Tram

Not one of the fans intereviewed post-race blamed Ferrari - their brand mystique is stronger than the reality of their behaviour for most people. Only a select group of intelligent people see them for what they are - a business, and a shameless one at that.

"...only a select group of intelligent people...."

Gosh, Tram, that wouldn't happen to include you, would it?

This is my nomination for the most arrogant post of the past 48 hours...and that's saying something.

Oh well. Back to trying to learn the alphabet and to count to ten.

[Gt_R]

Sometimes i cannot believe how blinded some people are.

Those who showed half an ability to think would have placed the fault squarely on Michelin, and maybe some would portion some of the blame to FIA for not being able to recover from the sh*thole which Michelin dug.

Emotions aside, people would soon wise up to the facts of the event. But as usual, there would have been a portion who live in conspiracy land and blame Ferrari for everything.

On hindsight, although having 6 cars race at Indy is bad for F1... if Michelin did manage to get on the grid, nobody in the grandstand would be any wiser that Michelin had problems. Michelin would have in a way got away "scott free". On the otherhand, The absence of 14 cars would cause anger among thousands of fans, and as fans don't know what happened, would attempt to find out and realise what a screw up Michelin caused.

Ironically, this incident alone would probably be enough to erase all the good work done by Michelin this season.

[BootsOntheSide]

At least Michelin spent the entire weekend trying to rectify the problem, and very publcially accepting some responsibility for the problem. Also, my udnerstnading is that if Bridgestone had raced, their cars would've taken the finishing positions but not the points - this is what Michelin suggested, and what the other 2 Bridegstone teams origianlly agreed to. Eitehr way, it would have at elast meant a 20-car race for the fans.

[Kicking-back]

Michelin have been summoned to the FIA on Wednesday 29 June.

[Suze]

as have the teams I believe.

[chillibowl]

i truly hope the FIA make a transcript or the events of this summoning public. they talk about more transparacy in the sport, this will be a good chance for them to prove it.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Suze

It was Michelins mistake, end of. However, do the regulations need to be looked at incase this ever happens again? (ie why Michelin couldn't fly out new tyres).

The rules already *do* allow for it.

Michelin were late, on saturday they said that there wasn't enough time left to get those times in Indianapolis in time.

And it looks as if Michelin misinterpreted the rules; in their Saturday letter they claimed that the current rules did not permit the use of an alternative tyre solution.

In their answer, FIA explained that the rules *did* allow it, but that there would be a penalty. And they suggested that the penalty would be more or less similar to being send to the rear end of the grid.
Obviously they could not predict the exact penalty, as the penalty would be given by the Stewards of the Meeting rather than by FIA.

[Suze]

Sorry, that wasn't what I picked up - I had picked up that they wanted to fly over the tyres on Friday night, and Charlie Whiting said it broke five regulations and couldn't be done.

However, if it did just mean the cars could / would go to the back of the grid, why wasn't it done? Some of the Michelin teams supposedly said that in the Principal's meeting they had said as long as the chicane was in place, they would go to the back of the grid or race for no points. That iwas said by can't-remember-name of BAR.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Also, my udnerstnading is that if Bridgestone had raced, their cars would've taken the finishing positions but not the points - this is what Michelin suggested, and what the other 2 Bridegstone teams origianlly agreed to. Eitehr way, it would have at elast meant a 20-car race for the fans.

No.

The original suggestion by Michelin was that "the vehicle speed in turn 13
can be reduced."

The second "suggestion" by Michelin was "that we will not compete with these tyres in the current configuration of the circuit."

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Suze

Sorry, that wasn't what I picked up - I had picked up that they wanted to fly over the tyres on Friday night, and Charlie Whiting said it broke five regulations and couldn't be done.

Ah, I didn't hear that one.


Five regulations...
Let's see.

First one would be 75 b, which states that the tyres must be presented for initial scrutineering on thursday. (That article does contain a way of escape)

Second one would be the first alinea of 74 a, which states that a driver cannot use more than 4 sets of dry-weather tyres during the weekend. And they already used 3 pairs.

Third one would be the 5th alinea of 74 a, which (in effect) states that the drivers can only use tyres of the specification they nominated on 07:00 hours on Saturday morning.

Fourth one would be the 6th alinea of 74 f, which means that tyres can only be changed "for clear and genuine safety reasons" - which is clearly the case here.

Fivth (sp?) one might be the 4th part of rule 73 b, which states that tyre suppliers can bring no more than two specifications of dry-weather tyres to each team.



Hm...

Neither of these seem to be important enough to block those tyres.

But if they thought they were capable to fly them in during friday night,
why did they later say that they would not be capable of flying them in on saturday night?

[Menelaos]

Originally Posted by Don K

In their answer, FIA explained that the rules *did* allow it, but that there would be a penalty.

Hahahahaha, so the current laws allow murder?! When the rules say there's a punishment for something, then the rules DO NOT ALLOW IT.

Not to mention that it breaks several rules, as stated above...

[Suze]

Originally Posted by Don K

Hm...

Neither of these seem to be important enough to block those tyres.

But if they thought they were capable to fly them in during friday night,
why did they later say that they would not be capable of flying them in on saturday night?

They might've been capable, but maybe it was so that they could've flown them in on Friday night and the teams could have run with them on Saturday, and they didn't just want to present these tyres on Sunday for raceday?

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Menelaos

Hahahahaha, so the current laws allow murder?! When the rules say there's a punishment for something, then the rules DO NOT ALLOW IT.

Not to mention that it breaks several rules, as stated above...

No. nothing like that.

Michelin told FIA that the rules prevented them from bringing tyres to the race.

FIA explained to them, that the rules did not *exclude* that, but that there were certain penalties.
And they explained that the normal penalties would be reduced because of the special circumstances.

So FIA came up with the famous 3 options, each of which would have made it possible for the Michelin teams to enter the race, and fight safely for either p7/p8, or for p3/p4/p5/p6/p7/p8 (depending on which option they would choose).



And Michelin reacted by vetoing any option, except for the (unspoken) option of building a chicane.

----------

If Michelin really wanted to race with a chicane, than why didn't they propose that option in their first letter?

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Suze

They might've been capable, but maybe it was so that they could've flown them in on Friday night and the teams could have run with them on Saturday, and they didn't just want to present these tyres on Sunday for raceday?

Maybe they didn't *want* to.

But that's not what they said.

They said that "the timescale prevented if".