# Indy F1: Michelin teams ask for chicane or they won't race



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

Nobody here's picked up on this yet?

Source



> The seven Michelin teams have agreed that they will only race in the USGP if a chicane is fitted before the banked Turn 13 overnight.
> 
> The teams have written a letter to the FIA explaining their position and requesting the construction of a chicane.
> 
> ...


This is... wow...


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Saw this... we'll have to see. I highly doubt this will get be approved.

I haven't heard of any other issues with the tires apart from Toyota. Were there any others? Because apart from those two, there were other "Friday test" teams that put lots of miles on (RBR, McLaren) seemingly without tire incident.

It would seem awfully odd to be a tire design defect, as this is not Michelin's first look at the track. 

And -- as much as I dislike Ferrari -- Bridgestone and Ferrari (and Jordan and Minardi -- not that they matter  ) have every right to tell the Michelin teams to take a hike. If Michelin took a gamble somehow or didn't do their homework... too bad.


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

Yes, Toyota's the only team that has had actual tire failures, but Michelin is recommending that teams not race on the tire, period. I've read that McLaren feel that they can still run the race distance by upping the tire pressures.

This entire thing is a pretty sticky situation, and i can't really find a good solution for it...


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

:bustingup

Can you say circus?

I watched it in the news too. They ask for a chicane, because they build crappy tires? Hello ????

OK, what if Bridgestone asks for watering the course? They are better than the Michelins in the wet. 

Mom, look, what they did to F1 :tsk:


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> Mom, look, what they did to F1 :tsk:


 :stupid:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

racerdave said:


> :stupid:


Dave, just came in the news that the track got new asphalt this year and the last turn before the start/finish line (Turn 13) is structured. Apparently, according to the latest news, Michelin didn't know about the new surface structure. On the other hand, Bridgestone suppose to have more experience, due to Firestone's Indy 500 participation.

Was the asphalt on Turn 13 have the structured surface last year? I can't imagine a company like Michelin didn't know this.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

I've been watching this too. Don't the rules state that a tire can be replaced if it's felt to be unsafe? So, can the Michelin teams replace their rear tires after a number of safe laps and still be within the rules? It may come down to this new tire not being one of the choices at the start of the weekend. Does the FIA really want a race between three teams?

These rules are far to restrictive for the most technically advanced race series in the world and the FIA's regulation changes for 2008 are just more lunacy. I think this reflects the dictatorship of Max Mosley.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

SteveT said:


> I've been watching this too. Don't the rules state that a tire can be replaced if it's felt to be unsafe? So, can the Michelin teams replace their rear tires after a number of safe laps and still be within the rules? It may come down to this new tire not being one of the choices at the start of the weekend. Does the FIA really want a race between three teams?
> 
> These rules are far to restrictive for the most technically advanced race series in the world and the FIA's regulation changes for 2008 are just more lunacy. I think this reflects the dictatorship of Max Mosley.


Steve, yes they can be replaced during the race. But Michelin said that the tires are, under normal circumstances, only good for 10 laps. That would mean at least 7 pit stops.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Alex, if they replace the existing tires with the new tire can they go the rest of the way? Of course, without any testing this is somewhat of a guess and maybe just as dangerous. 

The new surface has been discussed here quite a bit here. Firestone/Bridgestone has done quite a lot of testing there since they provide all of the tires for the IRL. The Speed guys yesterday talked about some of the testing that hasn't gone so well. Maybe someone can add more of the details. There was a comment about the NASCAR guys stopping a test. I think the surface was too bumpy after resurfacing, so it was ground in the corners, then that was unsatisfactory and they grooved the entire surface of the oval. I don't know all of the implications of this.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Steve, AFAIK, new tires have already been flown from Europe, but according to the rules they can not be used, since the tire sets needs to be declared and acknowledged by FIA before the race weekend (at least on Friday). All the problems appeared during the Friday session. Now FIA is holding to the rules and refusing the use of the new tires.

A meeting between the teams and the FIA is going on as we speak (watching the live news at the moment)

As for the track surface, it's being speculated that the grooves on the surface are somewhat sharper (wider?) than last year and it's simply eating the rubber mixture that Michelin brought along.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/190605-03.html

Dear Mr Dupasquier,
Dear Mr Shorrock,

Thank you for your letter of today's date.

As explained in our earlier letter, your teams have a choice of running more slowly in Turn 12/13, running a tyre not used in qualifying (which would attract a penalty) or repeatedly changing a tyre (subject to valid safety reasons).

It is for them to decide. We have nothing to add.

Yours sincerely,

Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Race Director

cc: Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)
Jean Todt (Scuderia Ferrari)
Colin Kolles (Jordan Grand Prix)
Paul Stoddart (Minardi F1 Team)


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> Steve, AFAIK, new tires have already been flown from Europe, but according to the rules they can not be used, since the tire sets needs to be declared and acknowledged by FIA before the race weekend (at least on Friday). All the problems appeared during the Friday session. Now FIA is holding to the rules and refusing the use of the new tires.
> 
> A meeting between the teams and the FIA is going on as we speak (watching the live news at the moment)
> 
> As for the track surface, it's being speculated that the grooves on the surface are somewhat sharper (wider?) than last year and it's simply eating the rubber mixture that Michelin brought along.


Looks like Bernie is orchestrating something now. This is from Atlas-Autosport:



> Ecclestone Looks for Indy Solution
> 
> By Will Gray	Sunday, 19 June 2005 15:54
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

The funny thing is if Michelin teams decides not to start, the race will be abandoned, becasue at least 10 cars are neccessary for a race, according to the rules.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> The funny thing is if Michelin teams decides not to start, the race will be abandoned, becasue at least 10 cars are neccessary for a race, according to the rules.


Actually, it is not that funny!

What is funny, however, is that Bernie has to run his "solution" past FIAT for it to work out.

Who has the power now? Not Bernie, or that turd, Max. Michelin-shod teams have the power to stop this race! Granted, if they fail to start the race, there will be big problems for them and the series.

Michelin is already going to be spanked for this fiasco. How hard and how much will be known soon.

But lets see, Michelin flew a plane load of tires from France to Indy last night.

.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

Crazy shiit!


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

LOL, came in the news, Williams said they are not racing if there's no chicane. FIA said, if they build a chicane, then the race might take place, but it won't be counted. :rofl:

Patrick, do you think it would be different if Bridgestone was in the same situation? If I were the head of FIA, I'd have kicked the sh-it out of Michelin for this misery. What happens when Bridgestone comes up with a similar alibi next time and asks FIA to change the Imola or Canada track, because their tires are not running good and blowing here and there?

"Sorry, our tires are crap, can you change the track and make it slower please? Thank you" :bustingup


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> "Sorry, our tires are crap, can you change the track and make it slower please? Thank you" :bustingup


That's pretty much what it boils down to, doesn't it?

Less than an hour to go...


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Here's the latest from Atlas-Autosport:



> USGP's Fate Now in the Hands of Ferrari
> 
> By Jonathan Noble	Sunday, 19 June 2005 16:57
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Ah, so Ferrari is the scapegoat again. They should take Michelin out of misery. :thumbup:


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

How... convenient. So if there is no race then Ferrari is to blame? And if there is a race, then the teams are artificially equalized? Does anyone else think this is fair?

(OT: Wow, i just realized my post count is _extremely_ low compared to the rest of you in this thread... )


----------



## thrillhill (Aug 21, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> :bustingup
> 
> Can you say circus?
> 
> ...


Maybe F1 shouldn't race on the same courses that Nascar runs on??? Nascar antics are rubbing off onto F1 :tsk:

Only bridgestone cars on track at this moment


----------



## thrillhill (Aug 21, 2002)

UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> Ah, so Ferrari is the scapegoat again. They should take Michelin out of misery. :thumbup:


No, FIAT is just stupid for not agreeing to a compromise. Typical.

Go Spoonface! I have money on you ... :rofl:

Wow, Formula One is a joke!

.


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

I don't understand how all of a sudden it's Ferrari/FIAT's fault...


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

- Q - said:


> I don't understand how all of a sudden it's Ferrari/FIAT's fault...


USGP's Fate Now in the Hands of Ferrari

By Jonathan Noble Sunday, 19 June 2005 16:57

World Champions Ferrari now appear to hold the fate of the United States Grand Prix in their hands after their rival teams all agreed for a chicane to be erected before the final corner.

Following a series of meetings at Indianapolis on Sunday morning, every team apart from Ferrari gave their approval for the chicane to be erected in a bid to lower speeds at the final corner because of Michelin's concerns about tyre safety.

Ferrari were not present at the meetings and sources at Indianapolis have suggested that the team have been handed an ultimatum by Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone - approve their rival teams' plans or the United States Grand Prix will be run as a non-Championship race.

------------


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Patrick said:


> USGP's Fate Now in the Hands of Ferrari
> 
> By Jonathan Noble Sunday, 19 June 2005 16:57
> 
> ...


:jack:

Good job by Ferrari. They should go and ask Michelin


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Patrick said:


> No, FIAT is just stupid for not agreeing to a compromise. Typical.
> 
> Go Spoonface! I have money on you ... :rofl:
> 
> ...


Why should they agree? Did anyone ever ask Ferrari why Bridgestone tires were not holding as good as the Michelin?

Yes, F1 is a joke.


----------



## WILLIA///M (Apr 15, 2002)

I'll go out on a limb and predict a Ferrari win today.

This is unfrickinbelievable. Start looking for a new venue for the USGP next year. I can't see how they can come back to Indy. :tsk:


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

Yes, i see that. But that's still shifting the blame, in my opinion. The original problem was caused by Michelin, and they shifted the focus to the FIA. And then now the focus is shifted to Ferrari... how? Is it fair for them to agree to a track setup that affects them when they have no reason to be affected? What would you have them do?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

- Q - said:


> Yes, i see that. But that's still shifting the blame, in my opinion. The original problem was caused by Michelin, and they shifted the focus to the FIA. And then now the focus is shifted to Ferrari... how? Is it fair for them to agree to a track setup that affects them when they have no reason to be affected? What would you have them do?


That's a common practice. If anything goes wrong, then Ferrari is to blame.

Sometimes people are forgetting that this is a dirty competition and politics is an important part of it. (see other motorsports events)


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

WILLIA///M said:


> I'll go out on a limb and predict a Ferrari win today.
> 
> This is unfrickinbelievable. Start looking for a new venue for the USGP next year. I can't see how they can come back to Indy. :tsk:


Forget it, I think there will be no USGP ever again. I'm truly sorry for the spectators.


----------



## - Q - (Jun 30, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> Forget it, I think there will be no USGP ever again. I'm truly sorry for the spectators.


 I should've gone last year.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

I will go out on a short limb here and say that if Firestone/Bridgestone had the same problem, there would be a chicane before Turn 13. Bernie, Turd-Guy Mosley, and FIAT would make sure that it happened.

And Alex, lighten up guy, your team will win this race - and probably without any safety car interference or team orders! :thumbup: 


.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> Forget it, I think there will be no USGP ever again. I'm truly sorry for the spectators.


I wholeheartedly agree.

Forget about Formula One in the US after this.

The race organizers are going to get hell for this ... lots of pissed off spectators!

What an oddball year for Formula One. I cannot imagine what will unfold over the next few weeks before the French Grand Prix.

Anyone have any thoughts on that? :dunno:

.


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

Patrick said:


> I will go out on a short limb here and say that if Firestone/Bridgestone had the same problem, there would be a chicane before Turn 13. Bernie, Turd-Guy Mosley, and FIAT would make sure that it happened.
> 
> And Alex, lighten up guy, your team will win this race - and probably without any safety car interference or team orders! :thumbup:
> 
> .


I have this same feeling. Michelin admitted error and asked for change due to safety. They clearly were not doing the change for a performance advantage as they occupied the top 5 or so spots. Clearly safety isnt a concern for the joke that has become the FIA


----------



## JG (Mar 5, 2005)

Patrick said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> Forget about Formula One in the US after this.
> 
> ...


Charlie W. and the rest of the F1 powers that be - just #$%$ed up big time.

How utterly pathetic a spectacle.

I think the manufacturers that want to do the break away series - just got their wish.


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

anyone see barichello's RF tire....looked pretty bad. That would be incredibly ironic.


----------



## dwm (Jun 3, 2003)

What U.S. raceway would want F1 after this? It's embarassing. I turned down tickets to MIS for the 400 today, which is a skip and a jump from home, so I could watch the GP. Oval racing doesn't excite me, but it's a lot more fun to watch than a farce.

Come to a compromise, run the race, review/penalize afterward. In the interest of the fans, the teams and the sponsors.

I think I'll forget about F1 for a while. At least now I can work on the car the rest of the day.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

dhabes said:


> I have this same feeling. Michelin admitted error and asked for change due to safety. They clearly were not doing the change for a performance advantage as they occupied the top 5 or so spots. Clearly safety isnt a concern for the joke that has become the FIA


I disagree. As I pointed out above, changing the track layout would have opened a can of worms and would have been a perfect alibi for Bridgestone to ask for a change in the future.

If I were FIA, I would've cancelled the race and refunded spectator's money.


----------



## dwm (Jun 3, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> I disagree. As I pointed out above, changing the track layout would have opened a can of worms and would have been a perfect alibi for Bridgestone to ask for a change in the future.
> 
> If I were FIA, I would've cancelled the race and refunded spectator's money.


Or let Michelin teams run the tires flown in at the last minute? To me, that seemed the best compromise.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

dwm said:


> Or let Michelin teams run the tires flown in at the last minute? To me, that seemed the best compromise.


They did. According to Michelin, those tires were not 100% safe as well. Can you say Michelin was a mess this weekend?


----------



## Lee (Aug 27, 2003)

Well, we're all predisposed to blame our favorite targets. There's a lot of different reports out there right now. On US TV, both Flavio and Ron Dennis have blamed the FIA and not Ferrari for the rejection of the chicane.

My favorite target is Tony George (for wrecking open wheel racing in America), and, predictably, I blame him. He has failed to provide a properly prepared track. Every major racing series that has raced on the new surface has been caught out--NASCAR, IRL and now F1. So in my view, this wasn't a garden variety failure to prepare by Michelin (Bridgestone presumably had Firestone data). If Silverstone gets criticized for not having broadband in the porta-potties, I think Indy should be heavily criticized for not presenting an adequate racing surface.

I personally think the chicane was the way to go. Unconventional to introduce it on race day, sure, but a least we would have had a race, subject to some penalty for the Michelin cars. Chicanes are standard solutions--they have been institutionalized at Monza, and we use them at the California Speedway for driving schools so novices aren't entering T1 at 140 in E46 M3s on street tires. 

But we have no chicane. Instead, we have the race we have. Sad.

Lee


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

dhabes said:


> anyone see barichello's RF tire....looked pretty bad. That would be incredibly ironic.


Spoonface seems to be having the same problem with his rear tire(s). And yes, if they both DNF because of a tire explosion, I will LMAO. :rofl:

I would love to see MINARDI win!

BTW, who is driving for MINARDI? 

.


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

some dudes with a lot of money 

I am not a spoonface fan... tire failure will make me chuckle. The FIA wont care though, whats safety.


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> I disagree. As I pointed out above, changing the track layout would have opened a can of worms and would have been a perfect alibi for Bridgestone to ask for a change in the future.
> 
> If I were FIA, I would've cancelled the race and refunded spectator's money.


Yes but all but ferrari, as far as we know agreed. This isnt something where simply the michelin teams agreed to. 2/3 of the bridgestone users agreed to a chicane as well.

I agree on your suggestion though. I got offered a ticket last night, kinda glad i worked till 2 am and couldnt go.


----------



## dwm (Jun 3, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> They did. According to Michelin, those tires were not 100% safe as well. Can you say Michelin was a mess this weekend?


Doh, I didn't catch that.

I'm not one for singling out anyone. No one wins here. Not the fans, not the teams, not the sponsors, not the raceway, and certainly not FIA. It's hard for me to consider this a points race with only 6 cars fielded.

Lee's point about the surfacing is valid, but I think that corner has been resurfaced twice recently? i.e. they're _trying_. And I've gotta think the NASCAR and IRL guys are laughing at what happened today.

Out to the garage for me.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

Patrick said:


> I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> Forget about Formula One in the US after this.
> 
> ...


No winners here. Send the bills to Michelin for building a crappy product.


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

alex where did you see the second set wasnt safe? The bbc article suggests the fia wouldnt allow the introduction of the new compound in the middle of the race weekend or if they did they would recieve "serious penalties". I havent seen that the other tires werent overly safe either


----------



## WILLIA///M (Apr 15, 2002)

dhabes said:


> alex where did you see the second set wasnt safe? The bbc article suggests the fia wouldnt allow the introduction of the new compound in the middle of the race weekend or if they did they would recieve "serious penalties". I havent seen that the other tires werent overly safe either


Same here. I thought the issue of introduction of the chicane was an alternative to not being allowed to use the new tires.


----------



## JonW (Jan 6, 2002)

Wow. This really stinks. 

F1 has been trying to crack the US market for ages. Obviously, this weekend is going to be a major setback that will take years to overcome.

I'm not sure how successful 'the powers that be' have considered the Indy race in the past few years. But in the beginning, after the first couple races, there were concerns that it wasn't successful enough and it might not last.

I hope this doesn't mean the end of F1 at Indy. :thumbdwn:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

dhabes said:


> alex where did you see the second set wasnt safe? The bbc article suggests the fia wouldnt allow the introduction of the new compound in the middle of the race weekend or if they did they would recieve "serious penalties". I havent seen that the other tires werent overly safe either


It wasn't in terms of safety, rather the teams didn't test the new compounds, so it was not 'safe' for the teams to use the tires in Indianapolis.

That said, the rules says that every team can bring two different set of tires to the races. However, Michelin brought only one  And this will have consequences.

It was Michelin responsibility to keep an alternative in case of emergency, which they failed to do. Instead of reducing their speeds on Turn 13, the Michelin teams demanded a chicane. But why should FIA accept to build a chicane to favor the teams, who have a performance problem, because their supplier failed to bring the correct tires and punish the teams, who were ready for the race?


----------



## JonW (Jan 6, 2002)

Could the Michelin teams have used their rain tires? They would have been slower, but at least they could race. 

If the rain tires are also unsafe... :tsk:


----------



## dhabes (Jan 22, 2004)

i would assume the rains arent designed for high heat...meaning they would wear out very quickly.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

An angry Indy spectator


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> It wasn't in terms of safety, rather the teams didn't test the new compounds, so it was not 'safe' for the teams to use the tires in Indianapolis.
> 
> That said, the rules says that every team can bring two different set of tires to the races. However, Michelin brought only one  And this will have consequences.
> 
> It was Michelin responsibility to keep an alternative in case of emergency, which they failed to do. Instead of reducing their speeds on Turn 13, the Michelin teams demanded a chicane. But why should FIA accept to build a chicane to favor the teams, who have a performance problem, because their supplier failed to bring the correct tires and punish the teams, who were ready for the race?


Alex, this is wrong. They did bring a second tire, but it isn't that much different. There were plenty of comments from the teams that they were seeing problems developing with all the Michelin tires. It's a Michelin problem, but the FIA needs to get off the dictatorship and work from a position of compromise. It's the FIA that was unable to create a any compromise. Considering safety you can't blame any of the Michelin teams for not running and if Michelin saw a problem with the tires they have to recommend a safe condition or not running. That the FIA was unable to allow anything more equitable for the fans is terrible. I'm glad I went to Canada.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Here's the official statement from the Michelin Teams. Again from Atlas-Autosport.



> Full Joint Statement by Michelin Teams
> 
> Sunday, 19 June 2005 20:08
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

SteveT said:


> Alex, this is wrong. They did bring a second tire, but it isn't that much different. There were plenty of comments from the teams that they were seeing problems developing with all the Michelin tires. It's a Michelin problem, but the FIA needs to get off the dictatorship and work from a position of compromise. It's the FIA that was unable to create a any compromise. Considering safety you can't blame any of the Michelin teams for not running and if Michelin saw a problem with the tires they have to recommend a safe condition or not running. That the FIA was unable to allow anything more equitable for the fans is terrible. I'm glad I went to Canada.


Do you mean the second tire they have flown from Europe? Why did they bring the second set if it wasn't different than the others?

I'm not blaming the Michelin teams for their decision. I'd have done the same.

What could be, in your opinion, FIA's compromise? Changing the Turn 13? Is it FIA's duty to change a GP course, so that the tires hold for more than 10-12 laps? I don't think so. Yes, the teams should've bitten the bullet and change tires for every 10 lap. But they chose not to run. Of course this was a technical disadvantage for the teams, which was caused by their supplier. But, can you blame FIA for it?

Yes, it sucked for the people who spent lots of money and time just to be able to watch this scandal. Yes, it's a huge scandal. It's a scandal caused by Michelin.


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> Do you mean the second tire they have flown from Europe? Why did they bring the second set if it wasn't different than the others?
> 
> I'm not blaming the Michelin teams for their decision. I'd have done the same.
> 
> ...


Have to agree with everything here. Michelin is at fault for not properly preparing their teams.

OTOH I hate to miss an opportunity to :slap: Tony (cocaine cowboy) George. This is payback for all the bad karma he has generated.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

LOL.

How perfect that Spoonface wins the most controversial and ridiculous race in Formula One history. :rofl: 

Another feather in his cap ...

I just read the post-race interview transcripts and I am rolling on the floor laughing.

"Tight race with Rubens."

:rofl: 


.


----------



## RaceTripper (Apr 12, 2002)

Well, I'm here at the Sheraton in Indy after wasting $300 to watch Ferrari put on a testing session. We (wife and I) sat in Stand A Penthouse, just across from the P13 grid position and facing Gasoline Alley. Saw the entire drama unfold.

This is utterly lame. Bernie (saw him talking to Toldt just before the formation lap) should not have let this happen and he has the power to have kept it from happening. He keeps saying he wants Americans to embrace F1 and all that was accomplished today was to make F1 the laughingstock of American motorsports.

I hope Tony George impounds all the cars to file a lawsuit against Formula 1. Bring on the GPWC, and if Ferrari doesn't want to be a part, good frickin' riddance.

At least we still have the Rolex series, and WRC (if FIA doesn't screw that up too).

Dean (very pisssed off in Indy).

:thumbdwn::thumbdwn::thumbdwn::thumbdwn::thumbdwn:


----------



## Lee (Aug 27, 2003)

racerdave said:


> Their failure to arrange a test seems incomprehensible to me... :dunno: :tsk:


Me too--which makes me think they couldn't test there. Seems F1 tests are always at a handful of tracks . . . does anyone know if there are limits on where F1 teams test? We never see tests at fly-away tracks like Indy, Suzuka, Malaysia, etc. But then again there's South Africa . . . . :dunno:

If Michelin could have tested, then I'm tempted to be more critical of Michelin. If they had no choice but to come in cold to a surface that (i) has confounded every other series that has raced on it and (ii) that Bridgestone had vicarious experience with via Firestone, then I'm still where I was this morning. Indy screwed up the surface (I do give them credit for trying to fix it by grinding), then the FIA made the wrong call on the chicane.

Having just got back from Montreal, I feel full sympathy for all the fans at Indy. They were there in the stands. The only acceptable solutions were ones that resulted in a race of some kind among a full field. That's a lot of time, money and energy to watch 6 cars in a charade.

Lee


----------



## IndyMike (Dec 19, 2001)

ObD said:


> :stupid:
> 
> Tony is a dope but Corner 13 has been at Indy since 1906 ... way before Tony's time.


:stupid:

They also probably accuse him of shooting JFK. :tsk:

Okay, while there are unofficial reports that he was in Dallas at the time, since he was only about a year old at the time the only thing he might have had loaded on his person was his diaper. 

Also, I'm not sure what tomorrow's local frontpage headline will read here at the Indianapolis Star, but if If were a local beat writer I would caption it "Bridgestone rebuffs Michelin's chicanery".

:angel:


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

JonW said:


> I'm no NASCAR fan, but they are very, very smart when it comes to marketing their game.


Agreed.

I think perhaps quite a few people will rethink F1's presence in the US after this.

FIA's holier than thou approach will hopefully hit them where it hurts.... $$$$.


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

According to ITV, http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194

"The seven Michelin teams had offered to accept penalties if the track was altered to alleviate their tyre concerns.

They would have been willing to race without being eligible for points, or for the Bridgestone cars to be put to the front of the grid."

So why not compromise and save the race by adding a chicane?! Ferrari would still get their 1-2, the fans would be happy to watch a full field, and everyone would go home happy. Instead, we get this charade... This lack of flexibility on Bernie's part is unfathomable and will only increase the likelihood of breakaway series in a few years. FIA screwed up on several counts: lack of willingness/ability to perform as a mediator, idiotic "one set of tires per weekend" rule, and stupid testing policies that limit teams and manufacturers.

Michelin can only be partially blamed in this case. They had no data points from the new track surface at Indianapolis while Bridgestone did via its Firestone subsidiary in the IRL series. Because of lack of sufficient data, no Michelin tire would have been safe enough in a race of that speed and length. A chicane would have been the only graceful way out. Bernie and FIA should be ashamed of themselves. I doubt I'll ever lose interest in F1 (or GPWS or whatever they end up calling the new series) but I've lost respect for F1's organizers.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

IndyMike said:


> "Bridgestone rebuffs Michelin's chicanery".


Excellent! :thumbup:


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

brave1heart said:


> Michelin can only be partially blamed in this case. They had no data points from the new track surface at Indianapolis while Bridgestone did via its Firestone subsidiary in the IRL series. Because of lack of sufficient data, no Michelin tire would have been safe enough in a race of that speed and length. A chicane would have been the only graceful way out. Bernie and FIA should be ashamed of themselves. I doubt I'll ever lose interest in F1 (or GPWS or whatever they end up calling the new series) but I've lost respect for F1's organizers.


I don't buy it.

Michelin could've gotten data points via some sort of test or visit to the track. Nobody has ever said that they did this. Either way, this whole fiasco started with them.

They first dropped the turd that soon became the biggest sh!t snowball that I've seen since I've started watching F1. :tsk:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

totally Michelins fault, they are singularly responsible for their product design no different than a drivetrain part, brakes, engine management system, etc. :dunno: 

to think a supplier/manufacturer has the right to demand that the sanctioning body go against the rules of competition to accomodate their product design mistake is :bs:

it's an outright embarassment to Michelin :tsk: , they got their @ss handed to them by Bridgestone. Any anger, frustration, disappointment, etc. about the outcome should be directed towards Michelin for doing such a poor job designing their tire. Bridgestone didn't have a problem so Michelin has no excuse, though they are doing their best to convince everyone otherwise


----------



## mrbelk (Dec 5, 2003)

brave1heart said:


> According to ITV, http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194
> 
> "The seven Michelin teams had offered to accept penalties if the track was altered to alleviate their tyre concerns.
> 
> ...


You're confusing Bernie Ecclestone (who operates F1 via his company Formula 1 Management) and the FIA, run by Max Mosely. I really think that Bernie wanted to put on a race yesterday, but the FIA (whose delegate at the races is a guy named Charlie Whiting) refused to alter the track layout. Nothing I've seen or read indicates that Ecclestone was not in favor of adding the turn 13 chicane.

-MrB


----------



## Mr. E (Dec 19, 2001)

I was close to trying to attend the USGP this year, and boy am I ever glad I missed it. I feel terrible for the fans that went. I suspect that was the last Grand Prix we will see at Indianapolis, and what a sad way for F1 to leave the U.S. again, scurrying away with its tail between its legs. I don't even have enough fingers to point at all the people and corporations I think bear some of the responsibility for this pathetic spectacle.

So much for the "pinnacle of motorsports." :thumbdwn:


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

mrbelk said:


> You're confusing Bernie Ecclestone (who operates F1 via his company Formula 1 Management) and the FIA, run by Max Mosely. I really think that Bernie wanted to put on a race yesterday, but the FIA (whose delegate at the races is a guy named Charlie Whiting) refused to alter the track layout. Nothing I've seen or read indicates that Ecclestone was not in favor of adding the turn 13 chicane.
> 
> -MrB


I stand corrected.


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

TeamM3 said:


> totally Michelins fault, they are singularly responsible for their product design no different than a drivetrain part, brakes, engine management system, etc. :dunno:
> 
> to think a supplier/manufacturer has the right to demand that the sanctioning body go against the rules of competition to accomodate their product design mistake is :bs:
> 
> it's an outright embarassment to Michelin :tsk: , they got their @ss handed to them by Bridgestone. Any anger, frustration, disappointment, etc. about the outcome should be directed towards Michelin for doing such a poor job designing their tire. Bridgestone didn't have a problem so Michelin has no excuse, though they are doing their best to convince everyone otherwise


I don't believe Michelin is trying to convince everyone else that this is not their fault. They did not do their homework and nothing can mask the fact that this is a total embarrassment for them.

The point is, what do you do once you realize that you've screwed up? No other Michelin tire has ever been tested with the new track surface in these cars and the risk of failure would remain if they were running Turn 13 in its intended configuration. 9 out of 10 teams would have run the chicane (that's everyone BUT Ferrari). Why not save the race by essentially giving Ferrari 1-2 and adding a chicane? The rules are there mostly to make sure that they keep the playing field level as much as possible. If 9/10ths of the playing field and everyone else benefit from adding a chicane, FIA should bend a rule to accommodate that and reward the parties (Ferrari) that make the biggest compromise in the interest of the fans. NASCAR is so successful because they take care of their fans. The only way they could that is by writing their rules with a pencil, not carve them in stone.


----------



## thrillhill (Aug 21, 2002)

A little off topic, but what does this do to the engine rule?? did the Michelin drivers start the race, or not?? Can they all change motors now??


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

IMO Michelin screwed up... come on admit it Michelin. 

As far as I'm concerned, until they admit their mistake they can stick their street tires where the sun don't shine. And while they are at it they and the FIA can reimburse the hard working people that paid money to attend the Indy F1 race.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

thrillhill said:


> A little off topic, but what does this do to the engine rule?? did the Michelin drivers start the race, or not?? Can they all change motors now??


By doing the parade lap, they have 'started' the race.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Artslinger said:


> IMO Michelin screwed up... come on admit it Michelin.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, until they admit their mistake they can stick their street tires where the sun don't shine. And while they are at it they and the FIA can reimburse the hard working people that paid money to attend the Indy F1 race.


What I have been reading today, they have already admitted this (mistake). The tires were not safe, so they told their teams not to race unless some other solution could have been agreed on. That proved impossible, in spite of all of the efforts.

Even the Bridgestone teams of Jordan and Minardi were ready to not race, and no one is mentioning that. Paul Stoddart agreed to race only after talking with the Jordan team.

The Michelins teams and Michelin apologized yesterday - take it as you will.

The FIA will not be giving anyone any money back. The same goes for Ecclestone and the US Grand Prix organizers.

Anyway, the fallout will come soon. "Turd" Mosley & Co., are waiting to get a report from Indianapolis.

.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> By doing the parade lap, they have 'started' the race.


Yep. There are a lot of pissed off people that bet on the race result (Super Trio, for example) because of this as well! :eeps:

:bigpimp:

.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Patrick said:


> What I have been reading today, they have already admitted this (mistake). The tires were not safe, so they told their teams not to race unless some other solution could have been agreed on. That proved impossible, in spite of all of the efforts.
> 
> Even the Bridgestone teams of Jordan and Minardi were ready to not race, and no one is mentioning that. Paul Stoddart agreed to race only after talking with the Jordan team.
> 
> ...


The rumors has it that during the phone call with the Indy promotores and the technical delegate ,Mad Max Mosley threatened USA to cancel their FIA license for the entire motorsport events. 

:tsk:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

brave1heart said:


> NASCAR is so successful because they take care of their fans. The only way they could that is by writing their rules with a pencil, not carve them in stone.


But NASCAR uses invisible ink when writing some of their rules, only turning on the blacklight when applying it to certain teams. :eeps:

But it's a formula that has worked very, very well for many years...and in the end it satisfies the fans, the teams and the body, even if it pisses each off from time to time.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> The rumors has it that during the phone call with the Indy promotores and the technical delegate ,Mad Max Mosley threatened USA to cancel their FIA license for the entire motorsport events.
> 
> :tsk:


What a jerk-off. I wonder when someone will finally stand up and say that Mosley has GOT TO GO.

He is an out of touch, elderly man, and the wrong man for the job. Look what has happened to Formula One and WRC while he has been sitting in the top job. What else (motorsport) can he and his croonies ruin?

.


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

On the Michelin website under the motorsports section all of the series they participate in are disabled and the statement below appears. So even if you hadnt heard of this issue and were just looking for information on Superbike racing or ALMS you get:



> *Sunday June 19, 2005*
> Michelin puts the accent on the safety at the United States Grand Prix
> 
> 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.
> ...


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> But NASCAR uses invisible ink when writing some of their rules, only turning on the blacklight when applying it to certain teams. :eeps:
> 
> But it's a formula that has worked very, very well for many years...and in the end it satisfies the fans, the teams and the body, even if it pisses each off from time to time.


My point exactly 

The only team that was against the chicane solution was Ferrari. Again, all 7 Michelin teams AND the Bridgestone teams of Jordan and Minardi would have run the chicane AND the Michelin teams had already agreed to a penalty:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

I've thought about this long and hard to try to reason what happened before I replied to this thread. I was at a regional SCCA race all weekend and didn't know what happened until I pushed play on the VCR last night. For what it is worth, here is my take:

#1: Michelin let down the teams and the fans. This is nobody's fault except Michelin! To say they were caught "off guard" by the resurfacing of the track is complete BS! That track prep was all over the racing news during the month of May and they ignored it. The track is the same for all teams and the same for both tire manufacturers. Bridgestone addressed the problem and had no issues, while Michelin completely missed the target and failed to provided proper equipment to it's teams. All the press keeps hammering on about how much advantage Michelin has over Bridgestone because of the amount of good test data that it's teams provide compared to that of Ferrari and Bridgestone. I guess they got too comfortable and missed a very important round of testing. And to add salt on the wounds, IIRCC didn't Michelin have 2 tire failures last year at INDY with Ralf and one of the Renault drivers. If they saw a problem then, when they were changing tires every few laps....what made them think they didn't have to do alot of testing on this surface to insure saftey of a tire to make the entire race distance.

#2:The FIA and F1 are not to blame here. They are the sanctioning and governing bodies that wrote the rules that all teams have signed and agreed to. If the teams or suppliers of the teams failed to bring a competative or safe equipment to the race, tough love I guess. Rules are Rules and the FIA and F1 enforced those rules. They gave the teams 3 options which they failed to recognize. The teams had the choice to run at lower speeds, change tires often, or use an unapproved tire and face a penalty...end of story. NOBODY helped out Bridgestone earlier when the Ferrari retired very early this year due to tire failures. I don't agreed with most of the F1 rules this year(especially the groved tires, one weekend tire, 2 weekend engine, and limiting downfoce in key areas), BUT the rules are the same for everyone and the teams and suppliers have to recognize this and work around it. I really hate the direction of the F1 rulebook, but they HAVE done a great job to enforce the rulebook.

#3: The fans got SCREWED! I feel very sorry for anyone who spent most likely a minimum of $600 per PERSON this weekend to attend the race. Hotels, airfare, ticket, food......what a waste to see a 6 car test sesion. I was really dissapointed by the fans the threw debris on the track...UNACCEPTABLE behavior in my opinion. It was a little funny to hear MS say he could "smell a bit of beer in turn 1".

#4 Sponsor's lost out big time. If I was head a marketing division, I would pull my money out immediately. I would not want to be connected with such a messed up situation.

#5 Don't blame Ferrari for not "allowing" a "race" to happen. That is just rediculous. Ferrari and Bridgestone came to the track with the proper equipment according to the rules that were in place. They should not have to compromise their setup to suit teams that failed to bring the proper equipment. Bridgestone most likely worked on durabilty on the banked corner and fast straight of the track and in doing so most likely sacrificed mechanical grip on the infield section....I'm guessing Michelin did the opposite. So why should Bridgestone cars have to compromise their setup and ultimately give the Michelin cars an advantage, by reducing their strategy that they planned for. The FIA made the correct call not to change the track configuration.

#6: BRING ON GPWC!!!!!! I can't stand F1 current rules and they have ultimately ruined this form of racing. Almost every rule that F1 has imposed has ultimatley ruduced safety. Running chubby grooved tires for an entire race is absolutely rediculous for cars that have 1000 HP. I think F1 is the ONLY major form of racing where tire changes are forbidden. Even most of the entry level racing here in America allows tire changes. And limiting downforce and making the cars more unstable is rediculous. By reducing downforce and ultimatly reducing tire performance, the FIA and F1 have made this form of racing very dangerous! They have NOT reduced the speeds, nor reduced the cost of the sport.....and they never will. F1 teams will spend EVERY LAST DOLLAR to make that car faster.....it's their goal. The small teams are the ones that really loose out, because they cannont keep up with the rule changes like the big teams can. So all the rules that F1 has come up with to reduce cost and help out the smaller teams has ultimately made the cars unsafe and made the smaller teams even more uncompetative. 

This is my take on this. You can agree or disagree, but what is done is done! I LOVE F1 racing, but every year, it gets more and more difficult to watch as they impose absolutly rediculous rules that ultimately end in the result we saw this past weekend. I hope this really nails the last nail in the F1 coffin and the GPWC gets the last laugh and brings back what F1 racing should be....the man with the most money and fastest car wins(F1 of the early 90's).


----------



## F1Crazy (Dec 11, 2002)

I fail to understand how we can blame anyone else but Michelin for the situation. You can't put blame on the FIA because they don't want to bend rules, you can't blame the Speedway for resurfacing the track, you can't blame Ferrari or Bridgestone as they did their homework. 

The sad part is that nobody could find a solution to the problem. IMO it was up to Michelin teams to ensure that they race without compromising safety. Peter Windsor had intersting solution - Michelin teams go through pitlane to avoid the turn 13, we still have the full grid racing and the teams can race for the remaining points and all is well within the rules.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

brave1heart said:


> My point exactly
> 
> *The only team that was against the chicane solution was Ferrari*. Again, all 7 Michelin teams AND the Bridgestone teams of Jordan and Minardi would have run the chicane AND the Michelin teams had already agreed to a penalty:
> 
> http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194


This is not correct. Bernie Ecclestone mentioned Jean Todt the possibility about a chicane. He said it's up to FIA to decide. They were never involved in the chicane discussions.


----------



## F1Crazy (Dec 11, 2002)

One more thing... Why don't we extend the one tire rule to 2 race weekends, just like engines???


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

F1Crazy said:


> One more thing... Why don't we extend the one tire rule to 2 race weekends, just like engines???


Soon F1 cars will be as slow as street cars. Maybe there's a chance for us too?


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> Soon F1 cars will be as slow as street cars.


Oh boy that will be exciting!!! :thumbup: I wonder how much tickets will be?  Ah, who cares, just as long as F1 and their teams are saving $$$ by using really hard compound tires that last a really long time! :rofl:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

brave1heart said:


> My point exactly
> 
> The only team that was against the chicane solution was Ferrari. Again, all 7 Michelin teams AND the Bridgestone teams of Jordan and Minardi would have run the chicane AND the Michelin teams had already agreed to a penalty:


That's fine, But you can almost be sure that if the shoe was on the other foot that not all of the Michelin teams would have agreed to to change the track for Ferrari and Bridgestone. An I would put a lot of money on that bet. Ferrari has been the brunt of much hatred in the past 2 years concerning being Max's pet and making rules to suit Ferrai and blah blah blah. Those Michelin teams (Williams and McLaren) would take any chance they get to stick it to Ferrari and not allow them to run. It's easy see the solution when the majority is affected, but I'm not so sure that same majority would see the same solution for the minority. :dunno:


----------



## RaceTripper (Apr 12, 2002)

We canceled our plans to attend the track drivearound for ticket renewals at 4 PM today. Instead we're heading back home after lunch.

I noticed on the Indy website today that ticket renewals are until August 4. Usually ticket renewals last only for the week following the event. Guess they figued out no one will be in the mood to renew tickets that soon.

But I still feel like I'm owed a refund. I didn't pay $300 to watch Ferrari parade around the track with Jordan/Minardi in tow. I paid to watch a race that never occurred.


----------



## berford (Sep 10, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> I've thought about this long and hard to try to reason what happened before I replied to this thread. I was at a regional SCCA race all weekend and didn't know what happened until I pushed play on the VCR last night. For what it is worth, here is my take:
> 
> #1: Michelin let down the teams and the fans.
> 
> ...


Your entire dissertation is right on point. Lovely analysis.

Here's an alternative Monday morning headline I would have liked to see: Michelin works out deal with their teams whereby Bridgestone provides tires (tyres) for all competitors.

Wouldn't that have been more fun?

By the way, after MS ran RB off the track coming out of the pits, one of the Speed guys suggested he (MS) should be black flagged (perhaps a drive through would have been more equitable.) But there was no penalty, of course. Then, there was some banter from Ferrari that sounded suspiciously like team orders. I thought that was verboten.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

berford said:


> Your entire dissertation is right on point. Lovely analysis.
> 
> Here's an alternative Monday morning headline I would have liked to see: Michelin works out deal with their teams whereby Bridgestone provides tires (tyres) for all competitors.
> 
> Wouldn't that have been more fun?


Maybe that would have been the best solution as long as Bridgestone could have provided enough tires for all the teams.

Would have Michelin agreed to this compromise? :dunno:


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Artslinger said:


> Maybe that would have been the best solution as long as Bridgestone could have provided enough tires for all the teams.
> 
> Would have Michelin agreed to this compromise? :dunno:


No way.

.


----------



## berford (Sep 10, 2002)

Patrick said:


> No way.
> 
> .


With all the fall out they're going to get, it would have been a very good political solution. Now all the publicity is going to be negative.


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

My email to Michelin from their website:

Seeing as how you cannot build a tire that can complete a GP race here in the US, I have no choice, but to change my Michelin tires for Bridgestones so that I can go to work on the freeway with offramps built with inclines...


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

LeucX3 said:


> My email to Michelin from their website:
> 
> Seeing as how you cannot build a tire that can complete a GP race here in the US, I have no choice, but to change my Michelin tires for Bridgestones so that I can go to work on the freeway with offramps built with inclines...


 :rofl: I laughed at the commentary on SPEED that said something to the affect that "all the circle track guys in the US will be shaking their heads at such a big problem caused by 6 degrees of banking!" I realize downforce and speed play a major factor, but it is still rather funny that a tire manufacturer can't design a proper tire for 6 degrees of banking.


----------



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

LeucX3 said:


> I have no choice, but to change my Michelin tires for Bridgestones so that I can go to work on the freeway with offramps built with inclines...


Given that Michelin is a French company, the proper method of protesting is to go out and buy Goodyear'Freedom' tires :rofl:


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

Artslinger said:


> Maybe that would have been the best solution as long as Bridgestone could have provided enough tires for all the teams.
> 
> Would have Michelin agreed to this compromise? :dunno:


Wouldn't the different tires create problems for the Michelin teams? Surely the cars are adjusted to account for certain performance attributes of the tires they have. Without testing, I assume the safety concerns would be even larger than driving through a chicane without any practice laps.

It really is an embarassment, mostly to Michelin, but also to F1 for not figuring out a better solution. This surely was the worst possible outcome, perhaps even more so than cancelling altogether, which to me is better than a farce.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Tanning machine said:


> Wouldn't the different tires create problems for the Michelin teams? Surely the cars are adjusted to account for certain performance attributes of the tires they have. Without testing, I assume the safety concerns would be even larger than driving through a chicane without any practice laps.
> 
> It really is an embarassment, mostly to Michelin, but also to F1 for not figuring out a better solution. This surely was the worst possible outcome, perhaps even more so than cancelling altogether, which to me is better than a farce.


Of course I'm no expert but I honsetly don't think it would have been a problem.

It might take a few laps for the driver and teams to adjust to the different tires, and I would have allowed tire changes because of possible tire wear problems for the Michelin teams.


----------



## berford (Sep 10, 2002)

Artslinger said:


> Of course I'm no expert but I honsetly don't think it would have been a problem.
> 
> It might take a few laps for the driver and teams to adjust to the different tires, and I would have allowed tire changes because of possible tire wear problems for the Michelin teams.


Whatever solution that was negotiated would have been "imperfect."  But I think all teams running on Bridgestones would have been "reasonable." Of course, the Ferraris, Jordans and Minardis would have had to be allowed new tires as well. And perhaps requiring the teams to get used to the different tires would have been a sufficient penalty for causing the problem.

Did anyone else catch the Speed commentary that they aborted the broadcast in France because of the embarrassment to Michelin? No French tires, no French broadcast. How petty!!


----------



## elbert (Mar 28, 2002)

berford said:


> No French tires, no French broadcast. How petty!!


Uhh, this is the French we're talking about, what else do you expect


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> That's fine, But you can almost be sure that if the shoe was on the other foot that not all of the Michelin teams would have agreed to to change the track for Ferrari and Bridgestone. An I would put a lot of money on that bet. Ferrari has been the brunt of much hatred in the past 2 years concerning being Max's pet and making rules to suit Ferrai and blah blah blah. Those Michelin teams (Williams and McLaren) would take any chance they get to stick it to Ferrari and not allow them to run. It's easy see the solution when the majority is affected, but I'm not so sure that same majority would see the same solution for the minority. :dunno:


Of course, Michelin teams would have done the same. Key difference, though, is that you CAN have a good race with 9 out 10 teams. The request for a chicane doesn't make the Michelin teams right and Ferrari's opposition wrong; the only thing that is wrong is the failure to reach a compromise for the sake of the sport and the fans.

We may disagree on who is to blame mostly for this F1 disaster but I think we can all agree that of all possible case scenarios, this was the one that minimized the combined interests and outcome of all parties involved: teams, fans, sponsors, promoters. There should have been a compromise.


----------



## Mr Paddle.Shift (Dec 19, 2001)

I am really worried that I am the only one seeing things differently. Don't stone me just yet.

Why this frustration and anger directed at Michelin?

From the way I see things, you folks are blaming Michelin for warning the teams that tires may not be safe for the track. But the ultimate decision still lies with the team principal no? Michelin merely proposed a chicane. If FIA didn't like it, they could have suggested a better proposal that could have:

1. Everyone raced at the track.
2. Made the fans very happy.
3. Made Tony a happy host cos the fans were happy.
4. Showed the US market that despite this hurdle, FIA and the teams can still overcome it.

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

Let's just do a survey right here right now.

How about *YOU * being in the shoes of Michelin. *YOU * received the lab results early Sunday morning and *YOU * realized that the results are inconclusive. *YOU * have 7 teams running Michelins. *YOU * found out that the tires might be unsafe for the track. What would *YOU * have done?

I want to hear from those who posted here stoning Michelin on the stick.


----------



## Mr Paddle.Shift (Dec 19, 2001)

Test_Engineer said:


> :rofl: I laughed at the commentary on SPEED that said something to the affect that "all the circle track guys in the US will be shaking their heads at such a big problem caused by 6 degrees of banking!" I realize downforce and speed play a major factor, but it is still rather funny that a tire manufacturer can't design a proper tire for 6 degrees of banking.


IIRC, the tire that failed on Ralf's car was LR. On a right-hander banking, the RF and RR should experience slightly more load than LR and LF. IMO, that tire didn't fail cos of the banking.

EDIT: I apologize for a slight confusion. If the car is on a straight right inclined plane, then more load on right side of tires. If car is on a straight left inclined plane, more load on left tires. Yes it is true that a car under going right turn will experience more load on the left tires. But since this incident happened on a right turn right inclined plane, I need to work out some changes. Thanks for reading.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Mr Paddle.Shift said:


> I am really worried that I am the only one seeing things differently. Don't stone me just yet.
> 
> Why this frustration and anger directed at Michelin?
> 
> ...


If the tires were unsafe, why did they ask for a chicane? An unsafe tire is unsafe everywhere on the track, no?

They should've withdrawn from the race at the beginning and not make a drama until the very late minutes before the race.

'Our tires are not safe at T13, can we change it and make slower' is not an alibi. Can Bridgestone ask for a similar favor, when their tires are not good for one lap at the Qualifying? 'Sorry our tires won't reach the desired temperatures in one lap. Can we run 3 Qualifying laps?' 

No, I don't want to be in the shoes of Michelin.


----------



## Mr Paddle.Shift (Dec 19, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> If the tires were unsafe, why did they ask for a chicane? An unsafe tire is unsafe everywhere on the track, no?
> 
> They should've withdrawn from the race at the beginning and not make a drama until the very late minutes before the race.
> 
> ...


Not answering the questions, Alex! 

What would you have done?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Mr Paddle.Shift said:


> Not answering the questions, Alex!
> 
> What would you have done?


I don't have enough technical background to answer those questions. Maybe they should've asked Bridgestone how they are building their tires?

Seriously, it's Michelin's duty to build tires that would last for a race. If you have read FIA's statements, you'll see that they are criticizing Michelin, because the second sets that they brought along were not safe as well. Not only that, but the tires that they have flown from Europe were, according to Michelin, also not safe.

Michelin brought 3 sets of tires to Indy and all were crap.

Now you tell me whose mess is this?


----------



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> If the tires were unsafe, why did they ask for a chicane? An unsafe tire is unsafe everywhere on the track, no?


Not being a tire manufacturer, I can speculate that it was due to heat that built up at the end of a pair of straightaways pushed the limits of the tire's ability to deal with the temperatures built up that high, ie a sustained high temp was the factor they believed (but could not prove conclusively) was the cause of the failures.

By inserting a chicane, the cars wouldn't go as fast, thus reducing the temp of the tire at T13, and therefore reducing the potential for failure.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

WileECoyote said:


> Not being a tire manufacturer, I can speculate that it was due to heat that built up at the end of a pair of straightaways pushed the limits of the tire's ability to deal with the temperatures built up that high, ie a sustained high temp was the factor they believed (but could not prove conclusively) was the cause of the failures.
> 
> By inserting a chicane, the cars wouldn't go as fast, thus reducing the temp of the tire at T13, and therefore reducing the potential for failure.


I can't find the link in english (I've read it in german news), but Mr Dupasquier (Michelin chef) said that the T13 was actually not that much of a problem as they expected, but only a part of.

Again, there are some things that we don't know. That's why it would be better to wait for Michelin's official explanation.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Mr Paddle.Shift said:


> Let's just do a survey right here right now.
> 
> How about *YOU * being in the shoes of Michelin. *YOU * received the lab results early Sunday morning and *YOU * realized that the results are inconclusive. *YOU * have 7 teams running Michelins. *YOU * found out that the tires might be unsafe for the track. What would *YOU * have done?
> 
> I want to hear from those who posted here stoning Michelin on the stick.


I would have done the same thing Michelin did! Safety is always JOB 1 in motorsports(well technically speed is #1, but safety is a very high priority). I am not upset at Michelin for telling it's teams not to race...that was exactly what they should do. My complaint is that Michelin failed to engineer a tire the meets the needs of the speedway. Every rule was followed and this was the result. If Michelin did their homework and engineered a tire to last the entire race as the rules state..... none of this would have happened. Bridgestone had absolutly no problems with tires, so it was possible. Again, my problem is not with Michelin pulling it's teams from the race, my problem is the fact that Michelin FAILED to provide a tire that meets the rules and regulations. They can bring 2 constructions, and they failed to factor the loading of the car properly and did not make either tire usable. This is the highest and most expensive form of open-wheel racing in the world, you better have your A GAME on when you come into town!...Michelin did not, and paid the ultimate price of being the cause of 14 cars NOT on the grid on Sunday.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

I just don't understand why they didn't have a tough-as-nails-if-less-than-optimal backup tire ready to roll at all times, just for these sort of situations. Seems like an obvious precaution.

Whenever I play an important gig, I always have a spare instrument ready to go in case the neck snaps on my good bass, or whatever. :dunno:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Plaz said:


> I just don't understand why they didn't have a tough-as-nails-if-less-than-optimal backup tire ready to roll at all times, just for these sort of situations. Seems like an obvious precaution.
> 
> Whenever I play an important gig, I always have a spare instrument ready to go in case the neck snaps on my good bass, or whatever. :dunno:


This is absolutely my point!

Bring one tire, "soft tire", for optimal performance, and a second tire of durabilty,"hard tire", and slightly less than optimal performance. Michelin already has all of the top teams, with the only exception being Ferrari, so a slight sacrifice in performance for durability is not as big of a factor when only 1 team will gain on you as a result.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Plaz said:


> I just don't understand why they didn't have a tough-as-nails-if-less-than-optimal backup tire ready to roll at all times, just for these sort of situations. Seems like an obvious precaution.
> 
> Whenever I play an important gig, I always have a spare instrument ready to go in case the neck snaps on my good bass, or whatever. :dunno:


Actually this is the main question ; why didn't they have a backup tire?



> The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.


http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/200605-01.html


----------



## WILLIA///M (Apr 15, 2002)

Plaz said:


> I just don't understand why they didn't have a tough-as-nails-if-less-than-optimal backup tire ready to roll at all times, just for these sort of situations. Seems like an obvious precaution.
> 
> Whenever I play an important gig, I always have a spare instrument ready to go in case the neck snaps on my good bass, or whatever. :dunno:


They always bring 2 types of dry weather tires, as they are required to, but the difference is in the tire compound, either hard or soft. I'm not a Michelin engineer but I don't think that they differ in basic underlying construction and it was the underlying construction at the location between the shoulder and the tread that was giving away. Still Michelin's screw up obviously but they aren't going to furnish an uncompetitive tire to any of the teams as a safety back up.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> Now you tell me whose mess is this?


This didn't happen in a vaccum.

FIA created the environment for it to happen by allowing tire companies to compete without stringent enough requirements (or lax enforcement of the requirements if they do in fact exist). The Michelin teams allowed it to happen by not ensuring that Michelin did adequete testing and/or doing their own "independent" testing. Michelin screwed up by not making decent tires available. Ultimately, the teams chose to withdraw from competition rather than do what every racing driver and team has done since the dawn of racing...drive within the limitations of their equipment.

Alex, if you want to place all the blame at Michelin's feet, feel free. No one is stopping you and plenty of other people are doing it too. But doing so only takes the narrowest, most shortsighted view possible by ignoring every other factor, IMO.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> This didn't happen in a vaccum.
> 
> FIA created the environment for it to happen by allowing tire companies to compete without stringent enough requirements (or lax enforcement of the requirements if they do in fact exist). The Michelin teams allowed it to happen by not ensuring that Michelin did adequete testing and/or doing their own "independent" testing. Michelin screwed up by not making decent tires available. Ultimately, the teams chose to withdraw from competition rather than do what every racing driver and team has done since the dawn of racing...drive within the limitations of their equipment.
> 
> Alex, if you want to place all the blame at Michelin's feet, feel free. No one is stopping you and plenty of other people are doing it too. But doing so only takes the narrowest, most shortsighted view possible by ignoring every other factor, IMO.


It's good that they are getting spanked for their mistake at Indy. They won't (I hope) make the same mistake again.

My beef is not with Michelin or any other supplier, it is FIA that I have a problem with. I don't need to repeat myself here. I have already given my reasons why I don't agree with them.

Michelins come and go, but if you lose the spectators, you lose the sport.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

I would have done exactly what Michelin did, given the situation they were in. If there's any chance of compromised safety, there's no question about racing or not. As Dupasquier has said; "We screwed up." We still don't know if the Firestone tests for the IRL helped Bridgestone. If it did it would only suggest that Michelin needs to conduct some tests under similar conditions.

I think the Michelin teams were prepared to give all the points to the Bridgestone teams and conduct the race with a chicane, for the fans. The FIA vetoed the chicane or shall I say, Max Mosley vetoed it since I don't think it went any further.

In that turn, the left rear tire, under power at high speed, will undergo a higher load (both vertically and laterally) than at lower speed. I haven't heard a complete analysis of the problem (probably won't) but they've talked about the vertical load as being the problem. The vertical load would come from the speed, centrifugal force and the down force from the rear wing at high speed. Not that it makes that much difference, but I am a mechanical engineer though not a tire engineer.

The final question I would add is, how much of the FIA's lack of compromise is due to the teams involved being primarily those planning the breakaway series?


----------



## IndyMike (Dec 19, 2001)

Plaz said:


> Excellent! :thumbup:


Thanks, but apparently this local beat writer did not come to the same idea, or perhaps it was too long, and hence labeled it 'GRAND SLAMMED'.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/SPORTS0103/506200379

There is more talk on the local stations that the discussion concerning possible refunds would be posted on the IMS web page within the next day or so. It would be an amazing statement by IMS were they to offer a refund. They are in no way, shape or form responsible for this discombobulation, and there is a strong hint that if F1 is to return in '06 the IMS would insist upon more control over the event to preclude this incident from reoccurring.

If I were Tony George I would tell the FIA to go take a hike, and instead make strong overtures to GPWC representatives that he would be receptive to holding one of their sanctioned events at IMS. Because as it is right now F1 is dead in America IMHO.

Tony needs to understand that F1 needs the IMS more than the IMS needs F1. He may have a lot of faults, but if there is anyone he understands it is like-minded mavericks attempting to get a fledling league off the ground. An event at IMS would give GPWC immediate credibility. And if the GPWC stocks it's ranks with enough high caliber drivers exuding the right 'demographics' I have no doubt it would draw upwards of 200,000 at IMS within a few short years.

F1 fell on their swords this time, and you'll have to look long and hard for anyone on this side of the pond to help them pull it out.


----------



## RaceTripper (Apr 12, 2002)

IndyMike said:


> ...There is more talk on the local stations that the discussion concerning possible refunds would be posted on the IMS web page within the next day or so. It would be an amazing statement by IMS were they to offer a refund. They are in no way, shape or form responsible for this discombobulation...


 That may be but I did pay IMS to see a race and there wasn't one. I expect IMS to refund my money, even though I agree it isn't their fault. They still allowed things to go beyonf their control. They should refund my money, and turn around and get reimbursement from those who are responsible.

What's interesting is that usually we have one week to renew tickets. This morning the IMS ticket website said the renewal expiration was August 4. Now it says July 5. I can't bring myself to spending another $350 for something I have no certainty of receiving. It's like buying concert tickets and being told the band will play that night if they feel like it; otherwise, the MC will tell bad jokes all night. Enjoy bending over.

So July 5 is too soon for me to believe I'm making a wise choice renewing my tickets. So I think I could be losing my seats (which were great BTW -- Stand A penthouse with a view of the entire pit row, turn 13 & the straight, and the infield around turn 10 off in the distance).

Dean


----------



## Lee (Aug 27, 2003)

The nature of the new IMS surface is a real issue, e.g., the first google result for "indy irl tire test" is:

http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/thatsracin/archives/11354693.htm

All the pat responses that "the track has been there for a hundred years" and that "Michelin failed to do its homework" ignore that the track simply is not like it was last year. When other teams (who race in racing series that allow testing at Indy) tested, they shut down their homework session because of unusual right side (that's left for us, folks) wear. These are teams that probably know the track better than any F1 team. Yet they were caught out, packed up and went home.

Further, no one has explained how or when Michelin could have tested at Indy. I don't think they could.

I'm not naive--I don't expect everyone to say, oh, you're right. But I think it's grossly over simplifying to simply state that this year's top tire company suddenly dropped the ball and is wholly, 100% at fault.

Either way, the FIA's "lift in 13" solution would have been an insulting sham, not too mention potentially less safe than a chicane by creating dramatic speed differentials at the fastest point on the track.

Oh well. For me, at least, The End.

Lee


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Here's when it had the grind: mid April. Michelin wasn't capable of at least inspecting the track surface? They could've sent one of their "driving experience" cars (old Arrows) over here just to get some data. No excuse on their part.

But all of F1 has egg on its face... nobody compromised to put on a REAL race.

Anyway, here's this:

http://irl.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050421145414.shtml

and this:

"While the Speedway has been around for nearly a century, the track surface itself is brand new in 2005 and poses fresh challenges to drivers, teams and Firestone. Repaved over the winter, the track underwent a diamond-cut grinding in mid-April - shortly before Firestone completed a successful tire test on the new surface.

"The test confirmed Firestone's Race Tire Development group made the right call in its tire selection for this May," says Speyer. "Not surprisingly, the tire specification chosen is identical to the 2004 tire spec that performed so flawlessly here a year ago. Tire wear was even better than we had anticipated at that test, and we expect it to continue improving as the surface gets 'rubbered in' over the next few weeks with thousands of laps run on it. Of course, tire management is always an issue at Indianapolis, since each full-month entry is limited to 35 sets of Firehawks for the duration. With the new qualifying format that permits a car up to three attempts on each day, we're certain to see some unique tire management strategies this year. It's something we'll monitor."


----------

