Talk:Michelin/Archives/2012

The Hotel and Restaurant guide ("Red Guide")

I looked at ViaMichelin and couldn't see anthing about any "red" or "green" guide. Has this been phased out?--Jerryseinfeld 14:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current 2004 editions are still on sale. I don't see much pre-publication data on the 2005 editions but this claims to be it - http://www.stanfords.co.uk/bookdetails/bookdetails?item_code=128211&loc_id=965 Notinasnaid 19:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name of the company

As seen on their official French web site, and as all Michelin maps I have ever seen, the name of the company is Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin. I don't know what the name previously cited refers to (perhaps a holding group?). David.Monniaux 12:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Bib"?

Sometimes referred as the Michelin Man, Bib's nickname has entered the language...

Not convinced about this. Is the Michelin Man ever referred to as Bibendum in English-speaking contexts, much less "Bib"? Flapdragon 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Bib" is more common among the world, more among employees. "Bibendum" is only used, from what i have seen (through my work experiences at a Michelin plant), rarely; the majority of the time it is on official reports referred to as "Bibendum". As for Michelin Man, that is as about as common as "Bib". Hope this helps. Need anything more let me know! AnthonyWalters (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Curnonsky quote

The name ["Bibendum" for the Michelin Man] is said to have been coined by Curnonsky (q.v.) because "Michelin tires eat everything, even obstables". Another story is that it refers to the slogan nunc est bibendum ("now is the time to drink")

Sorry, but this doesn't seem to make any sense. "Bibendum" refers to drinking, not eating. The significance of the Latin quotation is fully explained in the article. It's not just "another story". What would a tyre "eat" apart from obstacles? What did Curnonsky say exactly and how would it lead to the use of the word bibendum? Why would a gastronome who couldn't drive be commenting on the performance of tyres? What source is there for this idea? Clarification welcome! Flapdragon 17:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This story is straight from Arbellot, Curnonsky's biographer, and is told more fully at Curnonsky, with citation:

According to his biographer Arbellot, he coined the name Bibendum for Michelin in 1907—because "Michelin tires eat everything, even obstables"—, and wrote Michelin's weekly column "Les Lundis de Michelin" in Le Journal starting on November 25, 1907. It was originally signed "Michelin" but starting on March 2, 1908, it was signed "Bibendum".

About "eat" vs. "drink" -- you're probably right; I will re-check the text when I get home tonight. About the connection between a gastronome and tyres: very simple, he was a contract writer for Michelin, encouraging motor touring, which was after all the whole point of the Guide Rouge. I agree it would be nice to have confirmation of this story from other sources. But what are the sources of the "nunc est" story? Do we have accurate dates for the introduction of that slogan? --Macrakis 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to a page at Fortune.com, The Michelin Man first appeared on this April 1898 poster by the artist known as O'Galop. It depicted our hero with glass raised, under the slogan "Nunc est bibendum," or "Now is the time to drink.". But I still don't see what you're getting at -- you seem to be implying that the motto followed the (unexplained) adoption of the name Bibendum rather than the other way round. But why would a tyre eat anything? According to his biographer Arbellot, he coined the name Bibendum for Michelin in 1907 is clearly wrong -- perhaps just some missing text, but Bibendum is the Michelin Man, not Michelin the company or its owner. The Michelin article explains quite clearly the pun on the French idiom (which you presumably know if you are a native speaker as your User page says), to do with "drinking" the obstacle, and the 1898 poster shows him drinking a glassful of broken glass, with the famous slogan: le pneu Michelin boit l'obstacle. I don't see any room for confusion there. It's not just a "story", it's an old and well-known pun! The line "eats everything, even obstables" [sic] appears to be no more than a mangled version of that, and it makes no sense. (Incidentally, the series of posters shown on that website is well worth flicking through: if only their modern imagery had such style, imagination and endearing artistic flair!) Flapdragon 18:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is undisputed that the graphic shape of the Michelin Man dates from 1898. I didn't know the date of the "Nunc est bibendum" line; thanks for the poster reference that nails it. As I said above, "eat" was probably too loose a translation on my part; in English, you can "eat up" obstacles but not "drink them down". The only remaining question is when the Michelin Man started being named 'Bibendum'. Arbellot claims 1907. He may well, of course, be wrong. He also claims that the column "Les Lundis de Michelin" in Le Journal (Paris) starting on November 25, 1907 was originally signed "Michelin" but, starting on March 2, 1908, was signed "Bibendum" -- and written by Curnonsky. Independent confirmation of this story -- or of the claim that the Michelin Man was actually named Bibendum in 1898 (and not just used with a slogan containing that word) -- would be good. --Macrakis 20:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It's a difficult one to explain without literal translations, since the pun just doesn't translate. You can "eat up the miles" but I'm not sure about obstacles. Possibly "laughs at/off obstacles". Also I feel the name "Bibendum" hasn't really caught on in English (let alone "Bib", see above), he's usually just "the Michelin Man", but it seems others disagreed and you can't fight 'em all... Flapdragon 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage from Arebellot:

[p.37] C'est là au bar du Journal que Cur eut ce mot qui allait sinon faire sa fortune, du moins affirmer sa réputation d'homme d'esprit. « Il y a quarante immortels à l'Académie Française, dit-il un jour, mais il n'y a qu'un seul increvable c'est chez Michelin. » M. Michelin à qui le mot fut rapporté le goûta fort. Un dessinateur venait de composer, pour cette firme, ce gros personnage en pneus gonflés; on demanda à Cur de lui trouver un nom. « Bibendum, répondit-il, puisque le pneu Michelin boit tout même l'obstacle. » Succès. On lui demande mantenant [sic] de rédiger chaque lundi un billet de publicité déguisé qu'il signera Bibendum.

Et voilà Cur qui ne conduit pas, n'a pas de voiture, a horreur de la méchanique, redoute la vitesse, devenu le conseiller des usagers de la route et le chantre de l'automobile.

[p.39] La chronique « Les Lundis de Michelin » paraît pour la 1ère fois dans le Journal, le lundi 25 Novembre 1907. Elle est alors signée MICHELIN. Elle sera signée BIBENDUM le 2 mars 1908 mais paraît toujours sous le titre « Les Lundis de Michelin ».

You can see immediately that there are some problems of chronology. An artist "had just" drawn this figure -- that must be in 1898. Is Cur supposed to have come up with "Nunc est bibendum"? Why not say so? Or did he start from that slogan in naming the character? And then, it's 10 years later that he starts writing the column -- seems a long time for "maintenant"! So I think that you're right that the story is suspicious. So what elements of the story can we trust? It seems indisputable that the 1908 column was written by Cur, and was signed Bibendum. So we have a terminus post quem -- Bibendum had some identity as a character, not just as a word in a poster, in 1908. But why was the column first signed Michelin, and not Bibendum? Was it because the character didn't have a name? Because no one thought of using the character's name for the column? I will be on the lookout for more information on this. Let me know if you find anything. --Macrakis 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a sort of feeling that "bibendum" was in any case a general nickname for a portly man, and it's certainly one of Captain Haddock's insults. Of course he post-dates the Michelin Man by a fair way, so could have been referring specifically to their Bibendum. But according to the definitive lexicon of Haddockspeak, LE HADDOCK ILLUSTRÉ: l'intégrale des jurons du Capitaine (Albert Algoud 1991), "bibendum désigne un homme ou une femme de forte corpulence, affecté d'un embonpoint excessif. Par son étymologie, ce mot laisse supposer qu'un bibendum doit sa grosseur à la boisson". So the implication that I dismissed above (whether you meant to imply it or not), that the use of the Latin tag could have followed the nickname rather than giving rise to it, would actually make perfect sense after all! Even more to the point, Algoud has the following to say about the Michelin bibendum:

C'est à tort qu'est attribué au célèbre gastronome Curnonsky (1872-1956) l'invention de ce nom de personnage visuellement associé à une grande marque de pneumatiques. Dans sa thèse soutenue en 1984 et qui est consacrée aux «Guides des champs de bataille 1914-1918», le capitaine Antoine Champeaux rappelle dans quelles circonstances le fameux personnage publicitaire Bibendum fut imaginé. C'est André Michelin, qui avec don frère Édouard présidait aux destinées de la célèbre manufacture de pneumatiques, qui suggéra au dessinateur O'GALOP de dessiner un buveur de bière composé d'un pneu avec la vieille légende latine Nunc est bibendum (à votre santé) traduite librement : le pneu Michelin boit l'obstacle.

So it would seem that the name may not (probably was not, given the problems of chronology you point out?) the invention of Curnonsky. Perhaps we should say that he has been claimed (at least by Arebellot) to have invented the name, though it may well have been the Michelin brothers' idea all along. But his "immortels/increvables" joke still made me laugh. Flapdragon 01:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: To complicate things still further, French Wikipedia's article on Bibendum says that the name did indeed come from the motto, and that other bibendums (bibenda?) are just "par extension" from Michelin's, but that page and the external one it links to contain various errors and misunderstandings and I don't find the theory convincing. Incidentally, I've just found that the whole of Algoud's book can be found on the web -- what a waste of my typing finger! -- thanks to someone who appears to have made a website out of simply pirating a whole pile of books about Tintin. (Well, he implies it's with permission but it looks like a giant copyvio to me.) Flapdragon 02:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen the "C'est à tort" material before (and should have mentioned it), but I haven't seen the Champeaux thesis or his article "Bibendum et les débuts de l'aviation (1908-1914)" to know what evidence he has. The paraphrase above, if you read it closely, says nothing about the name 'Bibendum' for the personnage, only about the shape of the personnage, the use of the slogan (which was very common) involving the word 'bibendum', and the notion of "boire l'obstacle". I noticed that Curnonsky's memoirs (Souvenirs) are available at Widener Library to which I have access. One of these days, I'll get around to reading them.... --Macrakis 15:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at my wording in the Curnonsky article. Just ordered a used copy of his Souvenirs; perhaps that will clarify things. By the way, attributing "Nunc est bibendum" to Horace is correct but misleading: it was a common phrase for "Cheers!" that you find, for example, on medieval drinking cups; not some recherché classical reference unique to Michelin. So it is not at all unlikely that pulling out the word "Bibendum" to represent the Michelin Man was a completely separate event from using the phrase on a poster. I wonder if any of the many French books or Marketing Michelin: Advertising and Cultural Identity in Twentieth-Century France ISBN 0801866510 or The Michelin Men: Driving an Empire ISBN 1860648967 (extremely cheap used on Amazon, if you're interested) have anything useful to say on this subject. --Macrakis 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Expensive restaurants

I've removed this. Cheap resataurant are rated too... Lower most of the time ;-) Ericd 19:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think cheap restaurants get Michelin stars (q.v.)! Flapdragon 20:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Three and two star restaurants are invariably expensive. There are some one star restaurants at relatively reasonable prices, especially in the provinces. The stars are not the only rating: Michelin also has a rating system (red R) for good values at lower prices -- these are often very good. In theory unstarred and unR-ed restaurants are also selected, but it is unclear that gastronomy is the primary criterion. It may be more about cleanliness, etc. --Macrakis 22:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinions will vary as to what counts as "relatively reasonable" (care to quote a price?!) but the article is clearly referring to the famous Michelin star, which certainly does not get awarded to cheap restaurants! According to Wikipedia these "restaurants of special gastronomical quality" amount to less than 2% of those listed in the UK and Ireland guide, and after all there's no point getting Michelin star and not charging top dollar. If you think the fine detail of Michelin classification is worth going into, that would be a matter to treat much lower down the entry, or better still at Michelin Guide. Michelin is known first and foremost for tyres, stars, maps and the Michelin Man. (Incidentally I apologise for the implication in my initial tetchy edit summary on the main page that you hadn't read this Talk page before making your edit, I see now that you had.) Flapdragon 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. The main point here is that the price is not the defining characteristic of starred restaurants. The previous wording made it sound as though Michelin was limiting itself to expensive restaurants. The current wording is better, though (a) it might be even better to leave that discussion to the stars article and (b) "exceptional standing" sounds like they rate for prestige rather than cuisine (and "standing" sounds like a re-importation from French!). --Macrakis 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the term "expensive" would be taken as a defining characteristic; forgive me but I think you're being a little pedantic. No-one would assume that a restaurant would be disqualified for simply not being expensive enough, but naturally any candidate will be expensive, and even more so when it gets its star. I don't hugely like my rewording either as it sounds euphemistic somehow, and I don't agree it sounds like French (hardly, when le standing is a loanword from English!), but would see the implication of "prestigious" as an advantage: just as with "expensive", a restaurant would be highly likely to be prestigious before its star (are there any cases of a completely unknown, humble, place being starred? doesn't the restaurant have to invite the inspectors to visit and pay for the service?) and will be guaranteed prestige when it gets one. From what I've heard they do in a sense rate for prestige: the star is given at least as much for the prestigious feel and experience of dining there as for the food itelf. Flapdragon 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To say that a star is given at least as much for the prestigious feel and experience as much as for the qualtiy of the food is POV. Michelin themselves define three stars as exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey, and two stars excellent cooking, worth a detour. And as far as I know, a restaurant does not pay to be judged. The word standing does sound odd in English. That it is a loanword from English, does not mean it can be used the same way in English as it can in French. Compare for instance le living. Why don't we just call it top end restaurants? - DocendoDiscimus 11:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How on earth can an English word, quite correctly used in an article written in English, "sound odd in English"? What language would it sound less odd in? Flapdragon 13:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"doesn't the restaurant have to invite the inspectors to visit and pay for the service" – no, I don't think so. So far as I know the cost of anonymous inspections is financed by book sales. In the connection of this discussion it may be worth quoting from the book itself (UK & Ireland, 2002): (three stars) "...one will pay accordingly". (one star) "...beware of comparing the star given to an expensive de luxe establishment to that of a simple restaurant where you can appreciate fine cooking at a reasonable price..." This seems to show that the mission of the guide is not only to document expensive restaurants (though 'expensive' is subjective). There is also a category bib gourmand which is described as "Good food at moderate prices" – ≤25 pounds in 2002. Unless there is a separate source, the article should probably either not mention expense, or reflect the guide's stated aims. Notinasnaid 11:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How about we reserve the word "prestigious" for the stars themselves? -- see my edit. Flapdragon 13:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As you say further up in this discussion, detailed characterization of the stars belongs in Michelin Guide, not here. But to clarify the stars a bit: Michelin has two kinds of classification for restaurants: 'comfort/luxury' and 'cuisine'. The 'luxury' rating goes from 1 to 5 forks-and-knives and corresponds fairly directly to price. The 'cuisine' rating goes from 0 to 3 stars. For a given luxury level, in general, more stars unsurprisingly means higher price. By the way, I find that the Michelin stars are pretty reliable in France and Belgium, but not very reliable in Italy. I have travelled less in other countries they cover.

are there any cases of a completely unknown, humble, place being starred?

Yes, but of course after the star arrives, they become better known.

doesn't the restaurant have to invite the inspectors to visit and pay for the service?

Michelin's position on this is very clear[1]: inspectors are salaried employees of Michelin and pay the bill. Restaurants do not pay to be inspected or to be highly rated. --Macrakis 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never claimed that the the restaurant paid to be in the guide or gave the inspector a free meal (which would remove the anonymity for future visits), it's just that I thought I had read somewhere that they had to solicit an inspection and pay some kind of fee for that (which isn't explicitly denied by Michelin as far as I can see). But no doubt I was wrong about that. Presumably Michelin would not waste time and money visiting if the restaurant hadn't previously agreed to be in the guide, which it seems (suprisingly I thought) not everyone does, so they at least know they will be getting a visit, even if they don't have to ask for one or pay anything. If an unknown, unpretentious restaurant can suddenly wake up to the fact it has been given a Michelin star then I have certainly learned something. Flapdragon 19:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Contacts

Did the Michelin Man start wearing contacts recently (compare the two pictures). If so, we should include it in the article. Can anyone provide a link? 68.40.50.73 05:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The article mentions that his vision seemed to have improved with age. The way I interpret his likenesses, the Michelin Man never actually wore glasses. In his early depictions he is wearing a pince-nez, and later he develops Bambi-type goggle eyes, but if you look carefully the line that might seem to be the side-arms of his specs, it's actually just a crease (fold of fat/junction of two tyres) going round the back of his head. So he probably only ever wore specs for reading, which in his more action-packed later poses he never needed anyway. Flapdragon 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Driving goggles? Notinasnaid 17:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Defintely not! Flapdragon 19:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Perhaps this page might warrant some discussion of the pronunciation cf. Nestlé. Jooler 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed. Marnanel (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

TRX

This article needs a section on Michelin's ill-fated TRX metric tire/tyre and wheel system. Several carmakers around the world offered it as optional or standard equipment on various models in the early 1980's, SAAB even used TRX exclusively for a single model year. Consumer resistance to change and the lack of variety in available replacement tire choices doomed TRX. There are still some new TRX tires made, but they are expensive compared to Imperial/US diameter ones.

Vandalism?

I don't know what happened to the article, but it seems to have been replaced by something about Intentional living. We really have to fix that. Problem solved - thanks!

More History Needed

The history section of this article literally skips from the company's founding to the late twentieth century, mentioning nothing of the atrocities it was responsible for in Indochina. I would suggest linking to Phu Rieng Do and at least making an attempt to show Michelin's past is a bit more checkered than they would have you believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.175.146 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? The page details the history of Michelin in its creations, trademarks and what it is known for, including their sources. Of course, another company in direct competition may wish to add in data about the humanitarian implications of the work of its rivals, but would this simply not lead to an escalation of "Michelin was responsible for this...", "but Bridgestone turn the aircon up 2 degrees too high and make their $nationality$ staff sweat" and "Pirelli.... do whatever". Is it really relevant to add this extra in? Or just a bit of smear and propaganda? I do agree however that yes, there is some extra history needed. There's not even any mention of the Michelin research and design that lead to the introduction of the new generation of rolling resistance tyres. V8Maverick (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)V8Maverick

World largest tire maker?

I think Bridgestone win by a head. information source vary from a standard? --Cotatsu (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that. I also think Bridgestone is the biggest. I have my doubts of Michelin being 2nd because in USA everyone goes with mostly Bidgestone and Goodyear and it is the same story in India. But I am not sure how big the European market is for them so it is possible they are 2nd in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.42.150 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as an anecdotal point, I think you'll find that the biggest tyre / tire manufacturer in the world (units wise) is Lego. However as far as I know personally, it's a Bridgestone / Michelin war in the world stakes (excluding Lego) - Goodyear is not popular in the European markets. V8Maverick (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)V8Maverick

Related to F1?

"Noteworthily, Michelin has also been found to be in breach of EC Competition law for offering unethical discounts to their dealers. This has occurred twice."

Any idea why this sentence is in the Formula One section? It seems to refer to retail dealers, not auto racing.phreakydancin (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, it's out of place / context and don't see what relevance it has at all. I'm not even sure it's entirely correct. V8Maverick (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)V8Maverick

Omissions

I note, and will try to change if I have the time to work up text, that the following major items have been omitted:

WRC & IRC Sportscar Racing (e.g. Le Mans) Purchase of BF Goodrich (using same as brand in Rally)

--Amedeofelix (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom picture

....is it really relevant? It's not referred to in the text and is not even international HQ.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprobert88 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)