Max's rule-book

[rpolinski]

Can someone tell me which exact rule it is that Max keeps talking about which states that the two supplied tyres must be of a completely different construction. It's hardly going to save money if the tyre companies have to have develop two completely different designed tyres. And what about the Bridgestones? Are they two completely different constructions and if not shouldn't they be facing the same penalties as Michelin, after all theyr're breaking Max's same anally-retracted rule.

[Glen]

They can bring two choices for each team. Nothing says that the construction should be different, in fact it is usually the compound that varies. However, the tyre companies had been warned only weeks previously that they should ensure at an absolute minimum that tyres should be durable and safe - I think it is reasonable to assume that they would then take advantage of the the luxury of two choices to bring one super-safe and one very racey. Bridgestone claim to have left racier tyre choices at home because they recognised the vital importance of durability and safety.

[rpolinski]

But from what I have read it would seem that it wouldn't have mattered how hard a compound was wrapped around the carcass, only a completely different construction would have solved the problem. So by coming out with this backup tyre crap, Max is basically saying that they do need to be different constructions.

[Glen]

How can it be crap? Had they brought tyres of a sufficiently durable design, they could have completed the race distance safely. It isn't up to the FIA to specify how a tyre is made - exotic and borderline tyre constructions are used for one reason only - to gain performance. Michelin went too far in sacrificing the safety margin in search of competitve speed, and not only that, they did it with both tyres. End of story.

So - please explain why what Max is saying is "crap" - it makes perfect sense to me, and should do to anyone else who would prefer to see a race first and Michelin winning second.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Glen

How can it be crap? Had they brought tyres of a sufficiently durable design, they could have completed the race distance safely. It isn't up to the FIA to specify how a tyre is made - exotic and borderline tyre constructions are used for one reason only - to gain performance. Michelin went too far in sacrificing the safety margin in search of competitve speed, and not only that, they did it with both tyres. End of story.

Though surely this was only because the track had been resurfaced?

[Don K]

Originally Posted by rpolinski

Can someone tell me which exact rule it is that Max keeps talking about which states that the two supplied tyres must be of a completely different construction.

That's not what he is saying.
They have to bring two different specifications.
They have to make sure that at leat one of them is good enough.
The tyre supplier can get away with having one of the specifications just about safe enough - The teams will use the friday to decide whether or not it is safe enough, and if not: they can switch to the other tyre specification - which has to be safe beyond doubt.

===========================

From the 2005 F1 Sporting Regulations:

Rule 7: "Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race."

Rule 73b: "No tyre may be used in the Championship unless the company supplying such tyre accepts and adheres to the following conditions :
...
each tyre supplier must undertake to provide no more than two specifications of dry-weather tyre to each team at each Event, each of which must be of one homogenous compound.
..."

Rule 74a: "...
From the four sets of dry-weather tyres each driver will be allocated two sets of differing specification for use on the first day of practice.
..."


In other words:
- The team can only get tyres from the official tyre suppliers. (73b)
- The official tyre suppliers must (amongst others) supply at most two specs of dry-weather tyres. (73b)
- The official tyre suppliers must (amongst others) supply at least two specs of dry-weather tyres. (74a)
- The teams must have a tyre which is safe enough. (7)

Which of course means that at least one of the two tyre specifications must be safe beyond doubt.

[Glen]

No, don't think so. Indy car tyres were the same spec as 2004.

Plus, in any case, the whole idea of having one less agressive tyre is to build in a margin for error in something like estimating surface grip. The key to a quick lap at Indy is a bit more downforce than you'd normally choose for straight line speed, so that you can maximise the infield performance - if any team decided to go a little further down that line Michelin's estimates for corner speed in turn 13 would be wrong. Any fool would realise that you might then need a bigger window of safety on at least one of your two choices.

Plus Michelin have had dramatic tyre failures at other circuits, such as Barcelona, in testing recently. The bald fact is that they must take off a bit of performance in the interests of safety - the tyre war is tending to make them not want to do that, but this is the same for both tyre companies. They have two tyre specs for this very reason.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Glen

No, don't think so. Indy car tyres were the same spec as 2004.

Yes I agree with your sentiments, its better to have a larger window for error, however the above comment I don't believe is entirely accurate.

When Firestone and the IRL were testing for the 2005 Indy 500 eariler this year, they had to stop the test early as they found they had massive tyre problems relating to the new surface.

The teams then setup a new test with different construction tyres, which proved to be a better tyre.

Bridgestone knew this, from their affiliation with Firestone.

[Dani Filth]

there was a link on pitpass.com . that i put in the indy thread ,,that said Firestone used same spec as in 2004 .. don't know if it's construction or compound or both .

[Glen]

Possibly Firestone/Bridgestone have finessed this issue by saying that the tyres were the same, when they meant that the compounds were the same, or the other way round - I guess we can't know.

The principle of having a larger window for safety still stands though - no common sense thinking would lead you to bring two very similar tyres.