| cooleyjb | 06-19-2005 11:51 PM |
[QUOTE=Dussander]
It is not reasonable to fly to a different Continent to test for one track.[/QUOTE]
This is F1 they have huge budgets. tracks are on 5 of the 7 continents. (Antarctica, Africa) Only one in South America and Australia. There happen to be 2 on hte North American Continent don't forget the Canadians.
It is very reasonable to fly to a different continent to test for one track. That is why teams have test drivers and test cars.
It is not reasonable to fly to a different Continent to test for one track.[/QUOTE]
This is F1 they have huge budgets. tracks are on 5 of the 7 continents. (Antarctica, Africa) Only one in South America and Australia. There happen to be 2 on hte North American Continent don't forget the Canadians.
It is very reasonable to fly to a different continent to test for one track. That is why teams have test drivers and test cars.
| REXLR8 | 06-19-2005 11:56 PM |
i just dont understand how people think the FIA is responsable for this. YOU DONT CHANGE A TRACK LAYOUT AN HOUR BEFORE THE RACE. michelin is entirely to blame for this and its a shame they could not produce a worthy tire for this race. i was happy ferrari finished 1-2 though :D
| jlyttle | 06-20-2005 12:04 AM |
I already made my opinion clear earlier in this post regarding Michelin versus FIA, but to come down on Ferarri for any of this is just dumb. :rolleyes:
Michelin caused the problem, FIA made it worse by not allowing a solution that would have been acceptable to all. (teams, F1, fans)
Michelin caused the problem, FIA made it worse by not allowing a solution that would have been acceptable to all. (teams, F1, fans)
| Illusion-Lighting | 06-20-2005 12:05 AM |
Bye bye F1, Hello NASCAR!
I don't think I would blame the FIA or michelin. If you read through the emails between Michelin and the FIA, you clearly can see that the FIA was allowing the teams running Michelin tires to pit during the race.
I don't think I would blame the FIA or michelin. If you read through the emails between Michelin and the FIA, you clearly can see that the FIA was allowing the teams running Michelin tires to pit during the race.
| HiVoltg12 | 06-20-2005 12:28 AM |
I dont blame anyone but Michelin on this one....They have been to this track for six years...they know the conditions and the banking.
There was a resurface this year...Indy cars tested bad, they re-planed the track, indy tested bad again, they re-planed the track....NASCAR canceled testing, indy tested with good results, and Indy went off without a major tire issue. NASCAR has been having major wear issues (but they can change tires as required, and there is no compettion between tire mfrs.).
My question is whether Firestone passed any info (based on Indy) on to the parent comany Bridgestone about track conditions and wear that caused Bridgestone to bring a harder, longer wearing tire to Indy? (Info that Michelin had no knowledge of?)
There was a resurface this year...Indy cars tested bad, they re-planed the track, indy tested bad again, they re-planed the track....NASCAR canceled testing, indy tested with good results, and Indy went off without a major tire issue. NASCAR has been having major wear issues (but they can change tires as required, and there is no compettion between tire mfrs.).
My question is whether Firestone passed any info (based on Indy) on to the parent comany Bridgestone about track conditions and wear that caused Bridgestone to bring a harder, longer wearing tire to Indy? (Info that Michelin had no knowledge of?)
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 12:36 AM |
Horrible race for the spectators however you look at it, I have been to quite a few races and this was definitely the crappiest form of motor racing I have ever seen. I hope the FIA and Ferrari suffer bad PR for a long time for this inability to compromise for the sake of safety and the fans. I think Jordan and Ferrari acted shamefully but that is just my opinion. This is probably the most hollow victory in the Scuderia's history. Oh well, not like they will win anymore this year. Now the Michelin runners have to claw back their spots in the points, which sucks, but as much as the Ferrari sucks I don't see it being a huge problem.
Jon
EDIT: Cooley, when the sport is trying to cut costs it makes no sense whatsoever to fly a whole test contingent out to one track across the Atlantic. F1 cars aren't made to run on Rovals and as such the USGP should be moved to a more suitable location, the Indy track blows chunks anyways.
Jon
EDIT: Cooley, when the sport is trying to cut costs it makes no sense whatsoever to fly a whole test contingent out to one track across the Atlantic. F1 cars aren't made to run on Rovals and as such the USGP should be moved to a more suitable location, the Indy track blows chunks anyways.
| HiVoltg12 | 06-20-2005 12:39 AM |
[QUOTE]3 days to prepare for a race how much homework can they do? Bridgestone had this figured out the day after the Indy 500, Michelin didnt stand a chance. When you come off one race in Canada, have 3 days to ship everything to a different country (i know its not far but still a hassle) and get up to par, its hard to test that much. Theres not much you can do to test the surface other than run a car, and all their drivers were just coming off of a race weekend and were still in transit and got their tests in on the free practice, which was all the homewok michelin could do, and gave the teams their data and it didnt turn out the way it was thought to[/QUOTE]
They had way more than 3 days to preppare for the new surface....they could have been testing for a long time ( during the week between races like NASCAR drivers do) amd worked out any / all the problems they had. It seems like Bridgestone had some time since INDY to change compounds!?
They had way more than 3 days to preppare for the new surface....they could have been testing for a long time ( during the week between races like NASCAR drivers do) amd worked out any / all the problems they had. It seems like Bridgestone had some time since INDY to change compounds!?
| racerjon1 | 06-20-2005 12:39 AM |
I went to the race today, heard about the issues a while before the start, at one point there wasn't going to be a race at all they thought (heard it on the SPEED channel on the scanner)
Am I upset.. Nope.
I saw a race in which the best prepared teams finished up front. Same thing that happens every race.
Seeing the Michelin teams wuss out and park and the energy from the crowd (other than the object throwing) made it all that more fun.
Gas to drive to Indy: $60
Tickets to the GP: $85
Program $10
Witnessing 7 teams with sponsorship budgets totaling over 2 BILLION dollars not being prepared and one of the most memorable races in F1 history: Priceless.
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
Am I upset.. Nope.
I saw a race in which the best prepared teams finished up front. Same thing that happens every race.
Seeing the Michelin teams wuss out and park and the energy from the crowd (other than the object throwing) made it all that more fun.
Gas to drive to Indy: $60
Tickets to the GP: $85
Program $10
Witnessing 7 teams with sponsorship budgets totaling over 2 BILLION dollars not being prepared and one of the most memorable races in F1 history: Priceless.
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 12:49 AM |
Jon,
Would you have honestly driven a Michelin shod car in the race? It is easy to be an armchair quarteback and make misinformed and ignorant comments about it, but in the end the teams had to make a decision and they made the one they felt was right. Calling parking the cars due to safety concerns "wussing out" is also incredibly ignorant and undue. There is obviously some undercurrent behind your comments that makes them seem childish at best and retarded at worst. Here's to a tire blowing out on you sometime at 170+ mph and you having to make the decision whether to go out or not afterwords.......I wonder how different you would feel then when it is your life on the line??? I would expect more from someone who tracks their car and understands the inherent risks and how to avoid them.
Jon H. (Who travelled to and witnessed a horribly boring race weekend and is upset that no compromise could be made)
Would you have honestly driven a Michelin shod car in the race? It is easy to be an armchair quarteback and make misinformed and ignorant comments about it, but in the end the teams had to make a decision and they made the one they felt was right. Calling parking the cars due to safety concerns "wussing out" is also incredibly ignorant and undue. There is obviously some undercurrent behind your comments that makes them seem childish at best and retarded at worst. Here's to a tire blowing out on you sometime at 170+ mph and you having to make the decision whether to go out or not afterwords.......I wonder how different you would feel then when it is your life on the line??? I would expect more from someone who tracks their car and understands the inherent risks and how to avoid them.
Jon H. (Who travelled to and witnessed a horribly boring race weekend and is upset that no compromise could be made)
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 12:56 AM |
[QUOTE=Zornorph]Further confirming the F1 prima donna image...
real racers run what they brung. Who said racing was safe?[/QUOTE]
Here's one cheer for you hitting the wall at 170+mph and still "running what you brung". :rolleyes:
Jon
real racers run what they brung. Who said racing was safe?[/QUOTE]
Here's one cheer for you hitting the wall at 170+mph and still "running what you brung". :rolleyes:
Jon
| slickvic | 06-20-2005 12:59 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]Michelin is not at all to blame, they cant test on this surface and it was announced on Speed that the new surface was bad for tires, Michelin did not know this when Bridgestone did because of Firestones running the Indy 500. Michelin is 0% to blame as they did all they could do get their teams to race and showed great respect for the teams and drivers by stating all of this when they know it will look bad for them.
Going slow on that that turn is just as dangerous as going fast and their tires exploding. Michelin was doing this all on the thought of safety and refused this as an acceptable alternative as it proved to be just as dangerous. And whose to say a black flag would come out for them all anyway? It would happen any other day and the FIA seems to be a stickler for staying on the rules with no give whatsoever.
maybe tickets will be cheaper next year? Time to go see another race[/QUOTE]
No the surface was bad before the indy car testing, thats why they had to regrind it to fix the problem. The fact is that no surface should ever make a tire come apart and saying it was the banking is rediculous because the banking puts less stress on the tire not more. The tires were defective.
Going slow on that that turn is just as dangerous as going fast and their tires exploding. Michelin was doing this all on the thought of safety and refused this as an acceptable alternative as it proved to be just as dangerous. And whose to say a black flag would come out for them all anyway? It would happen any other day and the FIA seems to be a stickler for staying on the rules with no give whatsoever.
maybe tickets will be cheaper next year? Time to go see another race[/QUOTE]
No the surface was bad before the indy car testing, thats why they had to regrind it to fix the problem. The fact is that no surface should ever make a tire come apart and saying it was the banking is rediculous because the banking puts less stress on the tire not more. The tires were defective.
| racerjon1 | 06-20-2005 12:59 AM |
Honestly? Yes.
There are all kinds of concerns in a racecar. Tire concerns are one of them. They wouldn't try to go flat through turn 1 or 8 because the cars cant handle it, so if thats the case in turn 13.. its called backing off.
For the record, I have had a tire come apart on me at 175 mph.. (SRP 1 (LMP 900) at Daytona, Rolex 24 hours, 2002) I was lucky enough that i got the car under control, pulled into the pits, got a new tire.. and 3 minutes later was back at 175+mph.
My "underlying current" is that i saw childish behavior from so called pro drivers and the "best" teams in the world when they saw they wouldn't be able to win, and people want to blame the rules, the track and the sanctioning body, which should be the things that don't change.
When a team, or teams, come in and are prepared, or not prepared, that is a good race because its part of racing.. and not a reason to cry. When Minardi got points last year because others had misfortune no one was upset.. this year isn't much different other than the fact the teams didn't even try.
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
There are all kinds of concerns in a racecar. Tire concerns are one of them. They wouldn't try to go flat through turn 1 or 8 because the cars cant handle it, so if thats the case in turn 13.. its called backing off.
For the record, I have had a tire come apart on me at 175 mph.. (SRP 1 (LMP 900) at Daytona, Rolex 24 hours, 2002) I was lucky enough that i got the car under control, pulled into the pits, got a new tire.. and 3 minutes later was back at 175+mph.
My "underlying current" is that i saw childish behavior from so called pro drivers and the "best" teams in the world when they saw they wouldn't be able to win, and people want to blame the rules, the track and the sanctioning body, which should be the things that don't change.
When a team, or teams, come in and are prepared, or not prepared, that is a good race because its part of racing.. and not a reason to cry. When Minardi got points last year because others had misfortune no one was upset.. this year isn't much different other than the fact the teams didn't even try.
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
| Wheels | 06-20-2005 01:08 AM |
[QUOTE=HiVoltg12]My question is whether Firestone passed any info (based on Indy) on to the parent comany Bridgestone about track conditions and wear that caused Bridgestone to bring a harder, longer wearing tire to Indy? (Info that Michelin had no knowledge of?)[/QUOTE]
Well I bet you all the failed tires went to bridgestone after Firestone. And I am 100% sure that bridgestone wouldnt share info like that to Michellin not when they know it gives them the one advantage. And michellin would have known the track was abrasive but they had noway to see how bad it was. There hardest compond this year couldnt stand up to the tracks surface.
Well I bet you all the failed tires went to bridgestone after Firestone. And I am 100% sure that bridgestone wouldnt share info like that to Michellin not when they know it gives them the one advantage. And michellin would have known the track was abrasive but they had noway to see how bad it was. There hardest compond this year couldnt stand up to the tracks surface.
| Wheels | 06-20-2005 01:13 AM |
[QUOTE=slickvic] saying it was the banking is rediculous because the banking puts less stress on the tire not more. The tires were defective.[/QUOTE]
What sport do you watch??
Ever seen days of thunder? or any form of banked racing? The entire weight of the car is put on the leading edge on the outside powered wheel when on a banked track. When the track surface is as course as the new oval surface then the tire tends not to give (wont slide up towards the wall) it just cuts into the leading edge as the wheel skips up the banked curb not slide.
What sport do you watch??
Ever seen days of thunder? or any form of banked racing? The entire weight of the car is put on the leading edge on the outside powered wheel when on a banked track. When the track surface is as course as the new oval surface then the tire tends not to give (wont slide up towards the wall) it just cuts into the leading edge as the wheel skips up the banked curb not slide.
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 01:17 AM |
Good on you for having the cajones to do that at Daytona, but then again, your failure probably was probably a freak occurence with less chance of a repeat. I am disappointed that Michelin didn't prepare as well as they could've, but at the same time am fine with the fact that the teams chose safety over machismo. While this was an incredible black eye for F1 in the US I don't think it would outweigh the black eye the sport would get if someone died after going out when it was obvious there were big problems with the tires. These people are in the big time while I am piddling around on HDPEs and club racing for a reason, and I trust their decision making.
Jon
PS: I am glad you werent injured in your incident just as I am glad no one was injured by choosing to run today.
Jon
PS: I am glad you werent injured in your incident just as I am glad no one was injured by choosing to run today.
| majmun | 06-20-2005 01:22 AM |
Michelin is solely responsible for this buffoonery. The rest of what happened was what should have happened. It sucks for drivers, owners, and fans, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.
Michelin got caught with it's pants down but at least the company had the balls to say it made a mistake before somebody died.
Michelin got caught with it's pants down but at least the company had the balls to say it made a mistake before somebody died.
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 01:24 AM |
^^^ Well put!!
Jon (The Wuss who puts life before sport)
Jon (The Wuss who puts life before sport)
| racerjon1 | 06-20-2005 01:27 AM |
I did know that day that it probably wouldn't happen again. (driver before me had rear ended a Porsche, and the bodywork decided to finish breaking and cut my tire) when I came in, I also got new bodywork. But we still make decisions about going out with all kinds of factors.
Its not that I fault anyone for chosing safety, we all do to some degree. (braking for other corners, maybe not making a banzai pass, I certainly reccomend it for HPDE situations)
I just dont put "fault" here, it was simply a matter of teams not being prepared, so the teams that were came in and did well. As a "race" i got to see something that in 5-10-20 years will be a piece of history, not a farce.
I hope that you continue to do HPDEs and club racing, and continue to have fun behind the wheel of a car, thats what counts, and I honestly think that the difference between me driving Daytona and you doing HPDE/club racing is opportunity/budget more than anything. I hope we get to hang out at the track or race each other some day. (so you know that there are no hard feelings, and discussion is fun)
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
Its not that I fault anyone for chosing safety, we all do to some degree. (braking for other corners, maybe not making a banzai pass, I certainly reccomend it for HPDE situations)
I just dont put "fault" here, it was simply a matter of teams not being prepared, so the teams that were came in and did well. As a "race" i got to see something that in 5-10-20 years will be a piece of history, not a farce.
I hope that you continue to do HPDEs and club racing, and continue to have fun behind the wheel of a car, thats what counts, and I honestly think that the difference between me driving Daytona and you doing HPDE/club racing is opportunity/budget more than anything. I hope we get to hang out at the track or race each other some day. (so you know that there are no hard feelings, and discussion is fun)
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url]
| Wheels | 06-20-2005 01:28 AM |
all these people seem to not realise. In F1 you hurl yourself down to the next corner and you jam on your brakes at the very last possible moment. No traction control. Just look at Kimmi 2 races ago 200+ mph and because he flatspotted his tire the car breaks apart and hes then in it for the ride lucky for him he has gravel and a tire wall to stop him. Look at indy. What do you have once the tires either flat spotted or deflated? A huge concrete wall less than 100ft from you. How can you lose 190mph in 100ft with no brakes. You cant. One out of them 14 drivers are going to hospital for along time if not the ground.
There was no math involved no percentages of a likely tire faliure. They would fail. No question about that the only question or gamble would be would someone die? Would someone die doing 190mph into a concrete wall.
There was no math involved no percentages of a likely tire faliure. They would fail. No question about that the only question or gamble would be would someone die? Would someone die doing 190mph into a concrete wall.
| SolbergWRCfan | 06-20-2005 01:35 AM |
No hard feelings here, I like arguing because I am a stubborn dutchman. I karted for awhile but never found the backing to go anywhere big. My original home state of South Dakota is not a sponsor's dream and my dad only had so much $$$ to fund his project of trying to making me into a racecar driver. Now I am just an armchair quarterback who works in a boring job at a boring business looking enviously at all you people that can find a way to race for a profession.
Jon
PS: I bought a used slightly damaged Pro Mazda chassis to play around with up here so when I get it fixed up I will probably go run it around Gingerman a few times for giggles.
Jon
PS: I bought a used slightly damaged Pro Mazda chassis to play around with up here so when I get it fixed up I will probably go run it around Gingerman a few times for giggles.
| zumnwrx | 06-20-2005 02:11 AM |
for all of you that say Michelin is not to blame, your wrong... they had the chance to test at indianapolis and knew it had a new surface but didnt. as a result they came to the track with last years tires. and if your excuse is to say there in france and the us is far, well tough **** if thats the case there is plently of track in europe that have a bank to simulate indianapolis... give it up Michelin droped the ball 100%
and again its not FIAs fault but more the teams fault for not puting on the show. be it to pit more or simly had more practice time at the track, the teams should have been prepared beter.
FIA is only there to make and enforce rules. the teams can then do what they want... and today they had a obligation to put on a show with what they had.
edgar, :)
i talk crap and hate NASCAR but you know what? at least they understand that racing is for THE FANS and will always do whatever it takes to let the show go on...
and again its not FIAs fault but more the teams fault for not puting on the show. be it to pit more or simly had more practice time at the track, the teams should have been prepared beter.
FIA is only there to make and enforce rules. the teams can then do what they want... and today they had a obligation to put on a show with what they had.
edgar, :)
i talk crap and hate NASCAR but you know what? at least they understand that racing is for THE FANS and will always do whatever it takes to let the show go on...
| meebs | 06-20-2005 02:43 AM |
What do the people who run the FiA other than Max Mosley look like? What was their job before doing what they do...
| Rapid_Roo | 06-20-2005 02:47 AM |
The FIA's response to this was a matter of business and application of the rules.
It is clearly stated here in the FIA response to the situation: [url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/477694380__19_06_2005_FIA_letter_reply.pdf[/url]
The teams using Michelins were given plenty of opportunity to run in this race. They chose not to.
The blame for this falls directly on the teams that chose not to run and on Michelin for not bringing the apporpiate equipment.
ignorance is no excuse, they should have done their homework.
It is clearly stated here in the FIA response to the situation: [url]http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/477694380__19_06_2005_FIA_letter_reply.pdf[/url]
The teams using Michelins were given plenty of opportunity to run in this race. They chose not to.
The blame for this falls directly on the teams that chose not to run and on Michelin for not bringing the apporpiate equipment.
ignorance is no excuse, they should have done their homework.
| Wheels | 06-20-2005 02:48 AM |
Well tell me how michellin can test an F1 car on Indy? Its not a FIA test track. Plus they own no F1 cars.
F1 teams are only permited to test a certain number of days each year. Its not like they can just uproot an F1 team for one day of testing. Cant happen wouldnt happen.
F1 teams are only permited to test a certain number of days each year. Its not like they can just uproot an F1 team for one day of testing. Cant happen wouldnt happen.
| meebs | 06-20-2005 02:52 AM |
Sorry, I just have to point out the obvious. :lol: Your tire problems were circumstantual failures. Michelin did not HAVE a tire, not one, that was [b]acceptable[/b] to race on, as in it's going to fail due to load... and you're saying that you would go out on it knowing that it may fly apart and send you into the wall at a high rate of speed? Arguing can be fun... but uhh..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
[QUOTE=racerjon1]I did know that day that it probably wouldn't happen again. (driver before me had rear ended a Porsche, and the bodywork decided to finish breaking and cut my tire) when I came in, I also got new bodywork. But we still make decisions about going out with all kinds of factors.
Its not that I fault anyone for chosing safety, we all do to some degree. (braking for other corners, maybe not making a banzai pass, I certainly reccomend it for HPDE situations)
I just dont put "fault" here, it was simply a matter of teams not being prepared, so the teams that were came in and did well. As a "race" i got to see something that in 5-10-20 years will be a piece of history, not a farce.
I hope that you continue to do HPDEs and club racing, and continue to have fun behind the wheel of a car, thats what counts, and I honestly think that the difference between me driving Daytona and you doing HPDE/club racing is opportunity/budget more than anything. I hope we get to hang out at the track or race each other some day. (so you know that there are no hard feelings, and discussion is fun)
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=racerjon1]I did know that day that it probably wouldn't happen again. (driver before me had rear ended a Porsche, and the bodywork decided to finish breaking and cut my tire) when I came in, I also got new bodywork. But we still make decisions about going out with all kinds of factors.
Its not that I fault anyone for chosing safety, we all do to some degree. (braking for other corners, maybe not making a banzai pass, I certainly reccomend it for HPDE situations)
I just dont put "fault" here, it was simply a matter of teams not being prepared, so the teams that were came in and did well. As a "race" i got to see something that in 5-10-20 years will be a piece of history, not a farce.
I hope that you continue to do HPDEs and club racing, and continue to have fun behind the wheel of a car, thats what counts, and I honestly think that the difference between me driving Daytona and you doing HPDE/club racing is opportunity/budget more than anything. I hope we get to hang out at the track or race each other some day. (so you know that there are no hard feelings, and discussion is fun)
Jon K
[url]www.seat-time.com[/url][/QUOTE]
| i_c_the_light | 06-20-2005 02:54 AM |
Partial responsibility falls on the FIA and Michelin. 1/2 and 1/2. The FIA shouldn't have introduced the 'one set for the whole weekend' regulation. That in itself is asking for trouble. 1 set for both qualifying and 1 set for the race itself is a far better option.
Michelin are also at fault. Bottom line is they ****ed up. They had last seasons data to look at and realise that hey, the sidewall on the left rear can fail on turn 13 because of the loading and angle of that corner.
It also doesn't help that Most of the teams in Formula One run Michelin tyres, which put the FIA in a more difficult situation.
Now had the teams pulled out before Sunday itself, the race would've been cancelled, because there has to be a minimum of 8 cars starting.
Now to honest, all they had to do is drop the wing angles a tad and increase the pressures and that would've reduced the chance of a tyre failure.
Michelin are also at fault. Bottom line is they ****ed up. They had last seasons data to look at and realise that hey, the sidewall on the left rear can fail on turn 13 because of the loading and angle of that corner.
It also doesn't help that Most of the teams in Formula One run Michelin tyres, which put the FIA in a more difficult situation.
Now had the teams pulled out before Sunday itself, the race would've been cancelled, because there has to be a minimum of 8 cars starting.
Now to honest, all they had to do is drop the wing angles a tad and increase the pressures and that would've reduced the chance of a tyre failure.
| i_c_the_light | 06-20-2005 03:29 AM |
The other issue at hand is that now the Michelin runners who pulled out, will they get to use fresh engines for Magny-Cours? Unless Indy was race 2/2 on the same engine, those teams will have a fresh engine advantage.
Tyre issue for France, Magny is a low grip curcuit, so who has the upper hand?
Tyre issue for France, Magny is a low grip curcuit, so who has the upper hand?
| Tomado | 06-20-2005 03:30 AM |
Anyways, as far as I know, none of the teams use Indy as a test track. Each team (that can afford it - *ahem* Minardi cannot) has their own test track, usually close by their team HQ. When they arrive for free practice at any circuit, they use the free practice sessions on Friday and Saturday to determine race setups (includes tire selection as well). This is why some teams have a 3rd driver for Free Practice (Zonta was a 3rd driver for Toyota) now. They use the 3rd driver to keep pounding consistent lap times and get data on various setups.
Michelin doesn't do the testing themselves. They have the teams test. If the teams don't test at Indy, Michelin will never know what could go wrong with their tires. This is why Bridgestone lacks testing - they don't have enough teams to test with (Ferrari being the only one who can really afford to test often - Minardi and Jordan ...).
You could blame the teams for not testing at Indy but these teams have technical staff and engineers who have seen hundreds of races throughout their lifetimes. They were probably confident in their testing at their own track that whatever sets of tires they chose to bring to Indy (one of which will be selected as a qualify + race set), anyone of those sets would last the entire race.
They have raced at Indy the last 5 years and never had any problem like this before - that has to build a lot of confidence in your technology. If you always doubted whether something would work, you would take forever to progress.
AFAIK, the problem with the Michelin tires was that they were collapsing under the high G load induced by the downforce created by the car AND the banking at Turn 13. Add in lower than normal ride heights + lower than normal tire PSI and you have a lot more load than usual being placed on the tires (after some has been absorbed by the suspension). Even if you upped the PSI to make the tires a little more stiff, you are still placing greater than normal amounts of G on the tires. The failure is delayed but it is inevitable.
Saying that Michelin brought an unsafe tire is, for a lack of a better word, stupid. Michelin had confidence in their tires. The teams have successful used tires in the last 8 races. Michelin has seen successful (as in they finish, win, etc) use of the tires every since they came back to F1. The teams had confidence in Michelin. Michelin had confidence in itself (obviously). They never knew about the problem or the potential for a problem until 2 cars crashed due to similar tire failures.
If only 1 car had crashed due to a tire failure, it would be overlooked as a puncture or driver abusing the tire (ala Kimi at the Nur race) or freak accident. But the fact that 2 cars crashed due to similar tire failures raised heads.
The "rules are rules" argument is meh as well. Rules can be broken. In light of peculiar circumstances, rules maybe broken. Why they weren't today is puzzling. Too much bureaucracy now in F1. Someone in Europe is making decisions that affect hundreds of thousands of people in the USA. Hmm ...
IMO, I think the decision making process was entirely screwed up today. They face an unknown problem, solutions are in place, yet they manage to reject one solution (chicane - which probably wouldn't have helped anyway), leave the problem unsolved, and piss off one of your largest markets (who still probably isn't convinced that F1 is better than what American racing has to offer).
Truly a black day for Formula 1 (though not the first time driver walkouts have happened). 50/50 on the probability of F1 returning to the US.
And I wrote too much. Dunno if it made any sense at all. Just writing what came to mind. :lol:
PS. Anyone think that a single yellow from: "Entrance into Turn 13" to
"Before Turn 1" would've helped? It would've prevented the Bridgestones from passing the slower Michelins in that section yet kept the race competitive during the other sections of the track. Let them pass at the entrance into Turn 1 and every other turn (if possible). Of course, also let everyone run on new tires, flown in from France.
PS2. Hell, simply waving the "1 Set of Tires" rule for this one race would've helped. Let the people there know about the waiver of a rule. At least there would've been a FULL grid from start to finish. Let them change tires! God damnit.
Michelin doesn't do the testing themselves. They have the teams test. If the teams don't test at Indy, Michelin will never know what could go wrong with their tires. This is why Bridgestone lacks testing - they don't have enough teams to test with (Ferrari being the only one who can really afford to test often - Minardi and Jordan ...).
You could blame the teams for not testing at Indy but these teams have technical staff and engineers who have seen hundreds of races throughout their lifetimes. They were probably confident in their testing at their own track that whatever sets of tires they chose to bring to Indy (one of which will be selected as a qualify + race set), anyone of those sets would last the entire race.
They have raced at Indy the last 5 years and never had any problem like this before - that has to build a lot of confidence in your technology. If you always doubted whether something would work, you would take forever to progress.
AFAIK, the problem with the Michelin tires was that they were collapsing under the high G load induced by the downforce created by the car AND the banking at Turn 13. Add in lower than normal ride heights + lower than normal tire PSI and you have a lot more load than usual being placed on the tires (after some has been absorbed by the suspension). Even if you upped the PSI to make the tires a little more stiff, you are still placing greater than normal amounts of G on the tires. The failure is delayed but it is inevitable.
Saying that Michelin brought an unsafe tire is, for a lack of a better word, stupid. Michelin had confidence in their tires. The teams have successful used tires in the last 8 races. Michelin has seen successful (as in they finish, win, etc) use of the tires every since they came back to F1. The teams had confidence in Michelin. Michelin had confidence in itself (obviously). They never knew about the problem or the potential for a problem until 2 cars crashed due to similar tire failures.
If only 1 car had crashed due to a tire failure, it would be overlooked as a puncture or driver abusing the tire (ala Kimi at the Nur race) or freak accident. But the fact that 2 cars crashed due to similar tire failures raised heads.
The "rules are rules" argument is meh as well. Rules can be broken. In light of peculiar circumstances, rules maybe broken. Why they weren't today is puzzling. Too much bureaucracy now in F1. Someone in Europe is making decisions that affect hundreds of thousands of people in the USA. Hmm ...
IMO, I think the decision making process was entirely screwed up today. They face an unknown problem, solutions are in place, yet they manage to reject one solution (chicane - which probably wouldn't have helped anyway), leave the problem unsolved, and piss off one of your largest markets (who still probably isn't convinced that F1 is better than what American racing has to offer).
Truly a black day for Formula 1 (though not the first time driver walkouts have happened). 50/50 on the probability of F1 returning to the US.
And I wrote too much. Dunno if it made any sense at all. Just writing what came to mind. :lol:
PS. Anyone think that a single yellow from: "Entrance into Turn 13" to
"Before Turn 1" would've helped? It would've prevented the Bridgestones from passing the slower Michelins in that section yet kept the race competitive during the other sections of the track. Let them pass at the entrance into Turn 1 and every other turn (if possible). Of course, also let everyone run on new tires, flown in from France.
PS2. Hell, simply waving the "1 Set of Tires" rule for this one race would've helped. Let the people there know about the waiver of a rule. At least there would've been a FULL grid from start to finish. Let them change tires! God damnit.
| shrieden | 06-20-2005 04:21 AM |
Regardless of Michelins part in this, the FIA has a responsibility to the people who pay their bills.....us! To deny a change that would allow almost 3/4 of the competing field to compete is just silly. Do the people who have spent the money to see a 20-car race get it back? No. Does that money still sit in the banks of the circuit, FOM and the FIA? Yes, apart from the HUGE black mark against the FIA the only real losers are us.
| Dark | 06-20-2005 06:40 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]i agree you have a point, but like you just said, everyone has opinions and what you just quoted was Peters opinion. Nothing against him or you, but feasability has alot to do with this. With 3 days to prepare for a race how much homework can they do? Bridgestone had this figured out the day after the Indy 500, Michelin didnt stand a chance. When you come off one race in Canada, have 3 days to ship everything to a different country (i know its not far but still a hassle) and get up to par, its hard to test that much. Theres not much you can do to test the surface other than run a car, and all their drivers were just coming off of a race weekend and were still in transit and got their tests in on the free practice, which was all the homewok michelin could do, and gave the teams their data and it didnt turn out the way it was thought to. Michelin did everything they could.[/QUOTE]
If you know about the tires didnt hold up in Indy 500, what make you think the Michelin didnt notice it. Michelin was trying to sent new tires before the race day, that means they do have the tires to compete in those type of high speed corner. If any Michelin people had pay more attention, perhaps they would bring another types of types.
If you know about the tires didnt hold up in Indy 500, what make you think the Michelin didnt notice it. Michelin was trying to sent new tires before the race day, that means they do have the tires to compete in those type of high speed corner. If any Michelin people had pay more attention, perhaps they would bring another types of types.
| LIRex | 06-20-2005 07:17 AM |
[QUOTE=i_c_the_light]Now to honest, all they had to do is drop the wing angles a tad and increase the pressures and that would've reduced the chance of a tyre failure.[/QUOTE]
So let's see, change 2 variables that can impact the handling of the car, especially at high speed, just so they can run a tire that was proven to show a tendency, and a large one at that, towards failure just so they could race. :confused:
Not 1 of those teams running Michelins were smart enough to think of your suggestion? They would rather lose the driver and constructor points than perform such a simple suggestion?
Please excuse my sarcasm but your suggestion is WAY off the mark.
Bottom line is, Michelin failed miserably. They failed the teams, the FIA AND most importantly, the fans.
The FIA also needs to take a step down off it's alter/throne. Rules are rules and I am not arguing that BUT, when your the one making the rules, your the one that can change/bend them if need be for the benefit of the PAYING fans, the safety of the teams/drivers and the promotion of the sport.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to NOT see a GP of America in 2006. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if lawsuits didn't start flying in the coming weeks if they haven't already.
So let's see, change 2 variables that can impact the handling of the car, especially at high speed, just so they can run a tire that was proven to show a tendency, and a large one at that, towards failure just so they could race. :confused:
Not 1 of those teams running Michelins were smart enough to think of your suggestion? They would rather lose the driver and constructor points than perform such a simple suggestion?
Please excuse my sarcasm but your suggestion is WAY off the mark.
Bottom line is, Michelin failed miserably. They failed the teams, the FIA AND most importantly, the fans.
The FIA also needs to take a step down off it's alter/throne. Rules are rules and I am not arguing that BUT, when your the one making the rules, your the one that can change/bend them if need be for the benefit of the PAYING fans, the safety of the teams/drivers and the promotion of the sport.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to NOT see a GP of America in 2006. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if lawsuits didn't start flying in the coming weeks if they haven't already.
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 07:58 AM |
[QUOTE=Scoobie Doogie]They have resources to get info and test on tracks anywhere in the world, shame on them. [/QUOTE]
As others have mentioned, the USGP road course at indy exists only a few days before the event, and is torn down immediately afterward at huge expense. It's impossible to test there.
As others have mentioned, the USGP road course at indy exists only a few days before the event, and is torn down immediately afterward at huge expense. It's impossible to test there.
| lark6 | 06-20-2005 08:07 AM |
Michelin's perfunctory corporate apology
�
�
[url="http://www.michelinsport.com/?&lang=EN"]http://www.michelinsport.com/?&lang=EN[/url]
[QUOTE][color=#666666][b]Sunday June 19, 2005
Michelin puts the accent on the safety at the United States Grand Prix
[/b]Michelin is very disappointed about the way the United States Grand Prix turned out at Indianapolis, Ind., today for the public, the drivers and the teams.
Michelin is sorry that the tires it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions this weekend, but driver safety is always a priority. Michelin will never change its stance on this principle, whether we are talking about tires for competition or any other purpose.
It is regrettable that our pre-race suggestions, agreed in conjunction with our partner teams, were not adopted. Had our ideas been followed, we could have guaranteed driver safety, the participation of our teams and added interest for the public.
Michelin would like to thank its seven partner teams for their close collaboration, for having made propositions to the FIA and for having respected our advice on safety issues.
Michelin will continue to investigate the technical reasons for the tire-related incidents that affected Toyota during Friday�s free practice. [/color]
[color=#666666][/color]
[color=#666666][b]Dimanche 19 juin 2005
Grand Prix F1 d�Indianapolis
Michelin met l�accent sur la s�curit� au Grand Prix des Etats-Unis.
[/b]Michelin est tout � fait d�sol� de la mani�re dont s�est d�roul� le Grand Prix de F1 d�Indianapolis, notamment pour le public, les pilotes et les �curies.
Nous regrettons de ne pas avoir fourni les pneus appropri�s, mais pour [b]Michelin [/b]la s�curit� des pilotes est prioritaire. [b]Michelin [/b]ne transige pas sur ce principe, que ce soit pour les pneus de comp�tition ou pour les autres types de pneus.
Il est regrettable que les solutions propos�es en accord avec les partenaires n�aient pas �t� suivies d�effet, ce qui aurait permis d�assurer � la fois la s�curit� des pilotes, la comp�tition entre les �curies et l�int�r�t du public.
[b]Michelin [/b]remercie ses �curies partenaires d�avoir collabor� �troitement avec eux pour proposer des solutions � la FIA et d�avoir totalement respect� les consignes de s�curit�.
[b]Michelin [/b]continuera ses investigations pour trouver les raisons techniques qui ont affect� les pneumatiques des [b]Toyota[/b], au cours des essais du vendredi.[/QUOTE] [/color]
[QUOTE][color=#666666][b]Sunday June 19, 2005
Michelin puts the accent on the safety at the United States Grand Prix
[/b]Michelin is very disappointed about the way the United States Grand Prix turned out at Indianapolis, Ind., today for the public, the drivers and the teams.
Michelin is sorry that the tires it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions this weekend, but driver safety is always a priority. Michelin will never change its stance on this principle, whether we are talking about tires for competition or any other purpose.
It is regrettable that our pre-race suggestions, agreed in conjunction with our partner teams, were not adopted. Had our ideas been followed, we could have guaranteed driver safety, the participation of our teams and added interest for the public.
Michelin would like to thank its seven partner teams for their close collaboration, for having made propositions to the FIA and for having respected our advice on safety issues.
Michelin will continue to investigate the technical reasons for the tire-related incidents that affected Toyota during Friday�s free practice. [/color]
[color=#666666][/color]
[color=#666666][b]Dimanche 19 juin 2005
Grand Prix F1 d�Indianapolis
Michelin met l�accent sur la s�curit� au Grand Prix des Etats-Unis.
[/b]Michelin est tout � fait d�sol� de la mani�re dont s�est d�roul� le Grand Prix de F1 d�Indianapolis, notamment pour le public, les pilotes et les �curies.
Nous regrettons de ne pas avoir fourni les pneus appropri�s, mais pour [b]Michelin [/b]la s�curit� des pilotes est prioritaire. [b]Michelin [/b]ne transige pas sur ce principe, que ce soit pour les pneus de comp�tition ou pour les autres types de pneus.
Il est regrettable que les solutions propos�es en accord avec les partenaires n�aient pas �t� suivies d�effet, ce qui aurait permis d�assurer � la fois la s�curit� des pilotes, la comp�tition entre les �curies et l�int�r�t du public.
[b]Michelin [/b]remercie ses �curies partenaires d�avoir collabor� �troitement avec eux pour proposer des solutions � la FIA et d�avoir totalement respect� les consignes de s�curit�.
[b]Michelin [/b]continuera ses investigations pour trouver les raisons techniques qui ont affect� les pneumatiques des [b]Toyota[/b], au cours des essais du vendredi.[/QUOTE] [/color]
| TOMMY B | 06-20-2005 08:21 AM |
"Michelin is sorry that the tires it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions"
Well here you have it Michelin was to blame..................
TOMMY B
RALLY ON //////////////////////////
Well here you have it Michelin was to blame..................
TOMMY B
RALLY ON //////////////////////////
| Clegg | 06-20-2005 08:26 AM |
incorrect, they do have F1 testing days earlier in the season. right around the time of the nascar and IRL tests.
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 08:31 AM |
[QUOTE=Clegg]incorrect, they do have F1 testing days earlier in the season. right around the time of the nascar and IRL tests.[/QUOTE]
I have never, ever heard of an F1 test at Indy. Got a link?
I have never, ever heard of an F1 test at Indy. Got a link?
| C Stoyer | 06-20-2005 08:45 AM |
[QUOTE=REX8]Under performing? If I'm not mistaken, the fastest guys were on Michelins...QUOTE]
Qualifying has always gone well for Michelin while Bridgestone has struggled this year getting a tire to come up to performance in a one lap flyer. Schumacher was able to run Alonso down at the closing stages of an earlier race this season with supposedly slower tires. Michelin being the fastest in qualifying maybe, but over a race distance I 'm not sure.
Bridgestone learned a lesson and makes a tire that can go the distance.
BTW IMS had the entire Indy surface ground after testing proved it to be to abrasive and rough and the 500 race went off without a hitch.
Qualifying has always gone well for Michelin while Bridgestone has struggled this year getting a tire to come up to performance in a one lap flyer. Schumacher was able to run Alonso down at the closing stages of an earlier race this season with supposedly slower tires. Michelin being the fastest in qualifying maybe, but over a race distance I 'm not sure.
Bridgestone learned a lesson and makes a tire that can go the distance.
BTW IMS had the entire Indy surface ground after testing proved it to be to abrasive and rough and the 500 race went off without a hitch.
| M. Hurst | 06-20-2005 10:05 AM |
[QUOTE=TimStevens]As others have mentioned, the USGP road course at indy exists only a few days before the event, and is torn down immediately afterward at huge expense. It's impossible to test there.[/QUOTE]
Bull,
The track was run as an oval in april for IRL tires , changed to road course for an infinity pro-series test, and back to an oval a week later for a re-scheduled Nascar test.
Bull,
The track was run as an oval in april for IRL tires , changed to road course for an infinity pro-series test, and back to an oval a week later for a re-scheduled Nascar test.
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 10:16 AM |
[QUOTE=M. Hurst]Bull,
The track was run as an oval in april for IRL tires , changed to road course for an infinity pro-series test, and back to an oval a week later for a re-scheduled Nascar test.[/QUOTE]
Ok... I stand corrected. This is, however, the first year they've run (and so tested) there, and I've still never heard of an F1 test at the Indy road course. But, I'd be happy to stand corrected again if someone can post some info.
The track was run as an oval in april for IRL tires , changed to road course for an infinity pro-series test, and back to an oval a week later for a re-scheduled Nascar test.[/QUOTE]
Ok... I stand corrected. This is, however, the first year they've run (and so tested) there, and I've still never heard of an F1 test at the Indy road course. But, I'd be happy to stand corrected again if someone can post some info.
| CirrusWRX | 06-20-2005 10:17 AM |
[QUOTE]It is regrettable that our pre-race suggestions, agreed in conjunction with our partner teams, were not adopted.[/QUOTE]
Can somebody clarify this for me? What were THEIR pre-race suggestions- the chicane? Using the new tires? I thought they weren't even confident in the new tires flown in?
Can somebody clarify this for me? What were THEIR pre-race suggestions- the chicane? Using the new tires? I thought they weren't even confident in the new tires flown in?
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 10:18 AM |
[QUOTE=CirrusWRX]Can somebody clarify this for me? What were THEIR pre-race suggestions- the chicane? Using the new tires? I thought they weren't even confident in the new tires flown in?[/QUOTE]
The chicane was, as far as I know, their only suggestion.
The chicane was, as far as I know, their only suggestion.
| SCOOBY400 | 06-20-2005 10:25 AM |
I knew "Freedom Fries" were going to bite us in the a$$ someday... :lol:
Every side in this appears to have very valid points, FIA, Ferarri and Michelin. In the end the fans really lost in all this, what a waste. I still enjoy and will continue to watch Formula 1 every week since I'm still a fan. Just wish they would go to a single tire manufacturer not only because of this issue but because it seems to have so much of a effect from race to race on the competitiveness of the sport. Whoever has the best tires wins. I think I will think twice about putting Michelin's on my cars... even if they acted admirably about the issue, the issue shouldn't have existed. This is Formula 1 not an SCCA sponsored event they weren't prepaired for. It wasn't the track surface they weren't prepaired for just the loads on the tires that they should have been prepaired for from prior years races here.
Every side in this appears to have very valid points, FIA, Ferarri and Michelin. In the end the fans really lost in all this, what a waste. I still enjoy and will continue to watch Formula 1 every week since I'm still a fan. Just wish they would go to a single tire manufacturer not only because of this issue but because it seems to have so much of a effect from race to race on the competitiveness of the sport. Whoever has the best tires wins. I think I will think twice about putting Michelin's on my cars... even if they acted admirably about the issue, the issue shouldn't have existed. This is Formula 1 not an SCCA sponsored event they weren't prepaired for. It wasn't the track surface they weren't prepaired for just the loads on the tires that they should have been prepaired for from prior years races here.
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 10:25 AM |
Dave on Windtunnel also mentioned something about the FIA allowing tires stops which Michelin did not agree to.
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 10:27 AM |
[QUOTE=Bonzo]Dave on Windtunnel also mentioned something about the FIA allowing tires stops which Michelin did not agree to.[/QUOTE]
I think I heard one of the guys say that even after 6 laps the tires were showing signs of "the problem", which I presume means separation of the sidewall from the tread. And, I don't think that either Ralf's or Jarno's tires had more than a few laps on them when they failed. So, I can see why that wouldn't fly with Michelin.
I think I heard one of the guys say that even after 6 laps the tires were showing signs of "the problem", which I presume means separation of the sidewall from the tread. And, I don't think that either Ralf's or Jarno's tires had more than a few laps on them when they failed. So, I can see why that wouldn't fly with Michelin.
| kfoote | 06-20-2005 10:28 AM |
Something I never thought would happen occurred this weekend.
Bernie Ecclestone, Tony George, and Ferrari were on the same side of an argument...and I agree with them.
IMO, blame falls on Michelin and the teams, but more Michelin. They showed up with one tire option. They should have showed up with 2, one of which should have been more conservatively engineered to deal with the banking than the tire they showed up with. As far as Ferrari's veto of the chicaine, I don't understand why Jordan and Minardi weren't opposed to it as well. With one of them assured of getting on the podium if Michelin didn't run, I certainly would have voted against the chicaine if I was team manager of one of them.
Bernie Ecclestone, Tony George, and Ferrari were on the same side of an argument...and I agree with them.
IMO, blame falls on Michelin and the teams, but more Michelin. They showed up with one tire option. They should have showed up with 2, one of which should have been more conservatively engineered to deal with the banking than the tire they showed up with. As far as Ferrari's veto of the chicaine, I don't understand why Jordan and Minardi weren't opposed to it as well. With one of them assured of getting on the podium if Michelin didn't run, I certainly would have voted against the chicaine if I was team manager of one of them.
| ShockWave | 06-20-2005 10:28 AM |
I haven't seen anyone make the point that the Michelin teams were ready to go out. The Speed Channel coverage showed the teams in the garages with drivers ready and tire warmers on. Alonso is heard on the radio asking if everyone is in. At first I thought he meant his crew but I watched the race a second time (couldn't believe it the first) and I realize he meant the other Michelin teams.
Mark my words, had Williams, McLaren or Renault taken off the entire field would have given chase. This was not a safety issue, this was Michelin trying to find a way out of their error.
Teams comprised of 400-600 people spending around $2 BILLION a year and they blame a 6 degree banked turn. Pathetic.
I keep wondering what a driver like Stirling Moss or Jack Brabham would say. They went out every weekend knowing their equipment was suspect. That was the appeal, risk and glory.
WAS the appeal.
Mark my words, had Williams, McLaren or Renault taken off the entire field would have given chase. This was not a safety issue, this was Michelin trying to find a way out of their error.
Teams comprised of 400-600 people spending around $2 BILLION a year and they blame a 6 degree banked turn. Pathetic.
I keep wondering what a driver like Stirling Moss or Jack Brabham would say. They went out every weekend knowing their equipment was suspect. That was the appeal, risk and glory.
WAS the appeal.
| BillT | 06-20-2005 10:32 AM |
I think that given the choice, the drivers would have competed regardless of their tires.
| RB5 Clone | 06-20-2005 10:33 AM |
the equation for pathetic racing
�
�
F1+ mega-business / worldwide TV contracts / tire wars x bad tire design + blockage of a good compromise by Ferrari (chicane) = pathetic racing
poopy on them
can highly skilled drivers really NOT deal with a minor course change?
Dave G
[url]www.lastditchracing.net[/url] :furious:
poopy on them
can highly skilled drivers really NOT deal with a minor course change?
Dave G
[url]www.lastditchracing.net[/url] :furious:
| Rapid_Roo | 06-20-2005 10:34 AM |
[QUOTE=TimStevens]As others have mentioned, the USGP road course at indy exists only a few days before the event, and is torn down immediately afterward at huge expense. It's impossible to test there.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned on [i]SpeedNews Sunday[i] on SPEEDTV last night, there was an official F! test date arranged for the teams. Only Button and Massa attended at the time, the rest of the teams were testing at a concurrent test venue at the time (Silverstone).
Apprentely they thought they would learn more at Silverstone than at Indy.
As mentioned on [i]SpeedNews Sunday[i] on SPEEDTV last night, there was an official F! test date arranged for the teams. Only Button and Massa attended at the time, the rest of the teams were testing at a concurrent test venue at the time (Silverstone).
Apprentely they thought they would learn more at Silverstone than at Indy.
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 10:35 AM |
After all of this dust settles I think this was one of the more exciting F1 events of the season.
As for IMS and Tony George it could'nt have happened in a better venue. /sarcasm.
Rovals suck!
Tony Goerge sucks but I do give him some credit for bringing F1 back to the US.
F1 belongs on real race tracks.
Please no Vegas parking lot race either. That'd be worse than IMS. I am not a fan of Laguna, they already have motoGP.
I nominate Road America for 2006. :D
As for IMS and Tony George it could'nt have happened in a better venue. /sarcasm.
Rovals suck!
Tony Goerge sucks but I do give him some credit for bringing F1 back to the US.
F1 belongs on real race tracks.
Please no Vegas parking lot race either. That'd be worse than IMS. I am not a fan of Laguna, they already have motoGP.
I nominate Road America for 2006. :D
| TimStevens | 06-20-2005 10:35 AM |
[QUOTE=ShockWave]
Mark my words, had Williams, McLaren or Renault taken off the entire field would have given chase. This was not a safety issue, this was Michelin trying to find a way out of their error.[/QUOTE]
You're probably correct about how one team would have run if the others had, but as Matchett said many times, there was no way for the teams to compete. If you've followed the legal wranglings after Senna's death you know that a team can and will be held liable in the death of one of their drivers. If a team send their driver out onto the track KNOWING that there was a problem with the tires, they could and [i]would[/i] have been held liable for anything that would have happened.
If you're a team owner and are looking at the possiblity of facing a manslaughter charge if a tire goes out and kills a driver on top of a lifetime's worth of guilt, you're not going to let your cars run.
Anyway, this WAS a safety issue, and but was also a political one.
Mark my words, had Williams, McLaren or Renault taken off the entire field would have given chase. This was not a safety issue, this was Michelin trying to find a way out of their error.[/QUOTE]
You're probably correct about how one team would have run if the others had, but as Matchett said many times, there was no way for the teams to compete. If you've followed the legal wranglings after Senna's death you know that a team can and will be held liable in the death of one of their drivers. If a team send their driver out onto the track KNOWING that there was a problem with the tires, they could and [i]would[/i] have been held liable for anything that would have happened.
If you're a team owner and are looking at the possiblity of facing a manslaughter charge if a tire goes out and kills a driver on top of a lifetime's worth of guilt, you're not going to let your cars run.
Anyway, this WAS a safety issue, and but was also a political one.
| meebs | 06-20-2005 10:47 AM |
The bottom line really is that it was Michilen's fault. Not the FIA for sticking to the rules, which was essentially a spanking on the bottom of the tire man for not being ready.
The track was resurfaced. We all heard Bob go on and how how IRL AND nascar both cancelled tests due to tire problems.
Quite honestly this is all very cut and dry. Michilen were ill prepared and Bridgestone were ready. Could Michilen have done anything about their tires in a weekend? It's probably not realistic considering the time frame and distance. But shame on them for not at least listening to what was going on with the track resurfacing... What ever happened to corporate espionage? :lol:
The track was resurfaced. We all heard Bob go on and how how IRL AND nascar both cancelled tests due to tire problems.
Quite honestly this is all very cut and dry. Michilen were ill prepared and Bridgestone were ready. Could Michilen have done anything about their tires in a weekend? It's probably not realistic considering the time frame and distance. But shame on them for not at least listening to what was going on with the track resurfacing... What ever happened to corporate espionage? :lol:
| ForceFed4 | 06-20-2005 10:52 AM |
This weekend's race WAS a big disappointment, but I'm not sure how it could've been run fairly given the circumstances & current rules.
Michelin did the only thing they could given that the tire flaw was real, and unquestionably dangerous to any driver who raced on them. They had no choice but to recommend that their drivers not participate.
Those making macho comments about "wussing out" and the drivers needing to "adapt" and "drive around" the problem; I'd really love to know where you learn to "adapt" to sudden, catastrophic tire failure. This is not the same as, "Oh, I've lost 4th gear" or "Gee, I'm losing front downforce"; it's not a matter of driver finese or skill, it's a complete crap-shoot. And the odds as given by Michelin were bad. Demanding 14 people to entertain you in equipment proven to be faulty; well, it's just not reasonable.
The FIA didn't help the situation, true. But as has been pointed out; what's the point of the rules if they're bent to favor the unprepared, even if the unprepared is a majority of the competitors?
IMO it seems we're simply hitting a point where rules designed to cut costs are interfering with the spectacle or the racing. As both tire manufacturers have had issues this season, I think it's reasonable to suggest that tire technology simply isn't up to the level yet where competitive tires can be designed that will reliably last an entire race weekend.
Maybe it's "fun" and interesting for the tire engineers to overcome this challenge; but it's not making for very riveting motor racing, that's for sure.
All those yelling for a spec tire; how would that have helped this weekend? If F1 had a spec tire and we had seen the same failures this weekend, there would have been NO race at all. Everyone seems to be making the assumption that a Spec tire couldn't have failed/be flawed; I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.
Michelin did the only thing they could given that the tire flaw was real, and unquestionably dangerous to any driver who raced on them. They had no choice but to recommend that their drivers not participate.
Those making macho comments about "wussing out" and the drivers needing to "adapt" and "drive around" the problem; I'd really love to know where you learn to "adapt" to sudden, catastrophic tire failure. This is not the same as, "Oh, I've lost 4th gear" or "Gee, I'm losing front downforce"; it's not a matter of driver finese or skill, it's a complete crap-shoot. And the odds as given by Michelin were bad. Demanding 14 people to entertain you in equipment proven to be faulty; well, it's just not reasonable.
The FIA didn't help the situation, true. But as has been pointed out; what's the point of the rules if they're bent to favor the unprepared, even if the unprepared is a majority of the competitors?
IMO it seems we're simply hitting a point where rules designed to cut costs are interfering with the spectacle or the racing. As both tire manufacturers have had issues this season, I think it's reasonable to suggest that tire technology simply isn't up to the level yet where competitive tires can be designed that will reliably last an entire race weekend.
Maybe it's "fun" and interesting for the tire engineers to overcome this challenge; but it's not making for very riveting motor racing, that's for sure.
All those yelling for a spec tire; how would that have helped this weekend? If F1 had a spec tire and we had seen the same failures this weekend, there would have been NO race at all. Everyone seems to be making the assumption that a Spec tire couldn't have failed/be flawed; I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.
| duncangrant | 06-20-2005 10:55 AM |
I may have missed it but I havn't seen anyone discuss the effects of the diamond-cut surface. That (I believe) was done recently to provide extra grip for the Indy racers.
Lets face it F1 politics is far more interesting than the racing anyway so it turned out better than usual in my jaundiced opinion.
Lets face it F1 politics is far more interesting than the racing anyway so it turned out better than usual in my jaundiced opinion.
| BillT | 06-20-2005 11:05 AM |
The FIA proposed 3 solutions to Michelin's problems - all of which would have rendered the Michelin teams uncompetitive - and Michelin decided not to accept any of them. They their solution which would have left them competitive and would have penalized Bridgestone for doing their job and supplying a competive, safe tire for their teams.
| asquaredrex | 06-20-2005 11:06 AM |
Michelin screwed up, but you don't send drivers out on equipment you know to be unusable. They are a company run by humans, and humans make mistakes.
As indicated on WindTunnel last night, NASCRAP would never have let this happen because fans are priority one.
So I think the blame lies equally upon everyone who could have made this work: FIA, F1, Teams and Michelin.
As indicated on WindTunnel last night, NASCRAP would never have let this happen because fans are priority one.
So I think the blame lies equally upon everyone who could have made this work: FIA, F1, Teams and Michelin.
| AndyRoo | 06-20-2005 11:12 AM |
[QUOTE=ShockWave]I keep wondering what a driver like Stirling Moss or Jack Brabham would say. They went out every weekend knowing their equipment was suspect. That was the appeal, risk and glory.
WAS the appeal.[/QUOTE]
What would Moss say? He'd probably say you'd be bloody bonkers to go out and race when your tire manufacterer is telling you that your tires WILL fail.
But he'd probably use more "colourful" british language. ;)
At least the eningeers for the cars he drove THOUGHT the cars would work correctly. Michelin, on the other hand, KNEW there was a danger and told their teams not to race.
I don't like speaking for other people, especially Moss, my all time favorite driver, but I can't imagine he would see the appeal, risk, and glory of racing on a doomed car.
As others have pointed out, FIA could have saved the show and came out looking like heros, had they allowed a race with chicane, giving all points to Bridgestone runners.
- andrew...who had no idea what was going on when he flipped on Speed during the 2nd lap and saw the 2 ferraris in front, with the Minardi's and the Jordan's following closely behind :lol:
WAS the appeal.[/QUOTE]
What would Moss say? He'd probably say you'd be bloody bonkers to go out and race when your tire manufacterer is telling you that your tires WILL fail.
But he'd probably use more "colourful" british language. ;)
At least the eningeers for the cars he drove THOUGHT the cars would work correctly. Michelin, on the other hand, KNEW there was a danger and told their teams not to race.
I don't like speaking for other people, especially Moss, my all time favorite driver, but I can't imagine he would see the appeal, risk, and glory of racing on a doomed car.
As others have pointed out, FIA could have saved the show and came out looking like heros, had they allowed a race with chicane, giving all points to Bridgestone runners.
- andrew...who had no idea what was going on when he flipped on Speed during the 2nd lap and saw the 2 ferraris in front, with the Minardi's and the Jordan's following closely behind :lol:
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 11:14 AM |
I thought the surface was cut to smooth not to increase traction.
A spec tire would most likely eliminate "pushing the envelope" in tire design to get the edge on your competitor.
One tire could be designed for safe and close racing.
A spec tire would most likely eliminate "pushing the envelope" in tire design to get the edge on your competitor.
One tire could be designed for safe and close racing.
| AndyRoo | 06-20-2005 11:18 AM |
[QUOTE=BillT]The FIA proposed 3 solutions to Michelin's problems - all of which would have rendered the Michelin teams uncompetitive - and Michelin decided not to accept any of them. They their solution which would have left them competitive and would have penalized Bridgestone for doing their job and supplying a competive, safe tire for their teams.[/QUOTE]
really? most people have been saying that Michelin had many (reasonable) proposals that were rejected by the FIA?
really? most people have been saying that Michelin had many (reasonable) proposals that were rejected by the FIA?
| CirrusWRX | 06-20-2005 11:18 AM |
I don't want to throw this conversation in the wrong direction, but is there ANY chance this could actually be a positive outcome for the US? The way I see it, F1 fans are obviously talking about this and they (most of them) will continue to watch F1 regardless of this past weekends events.
However, after speaking about it to a few coworkers (because I thought it was an interesting story) THEY have an interest in watching next time because they're excited about "the potential controversy." :shrug: They probably wouldn't have cared less if I told them who won this weekend had it been a normal race.
So I dunno - if there is ANY positive light that can be shed on this is that PERHAPS it will garner a GREATER interest in people who had never heard of or knew what F1 was/is... If this race had gone as expected, the normal media outlets would not have had any unique coverage, but due to the issues which can be explored from all sides (sports, politics, economics, marketing) this little fiasco might cause more people to get into the sport. What American citizen doesn't love a good controversy!?
I'm just blabbering through my keyboard...
However, after speaking about it to a few coworkers (because I thought it was an interesting story) THEY have an interest in watching next time because they're excited about "the potential controversy." :shrug: They probably wouldn't have cared less if I told them who won this weekend had it been a normal race.
So I dunno - if there is ANY positive light that can be shed on this is that PERHAPS it will garner a GREATER interest in people who had never heard of or knew what F1 was/is... If this race had gone as expected, the normal media outlets would not have had any unique coverage, but due to the issues which can be explored from all sides (sports, politics, economics, marketing) this little fiasco might cause more people to get into the sport. What American citizen doesn't love a good controversy!?
I'm just blabbering through my keyboard...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét