United States F1 Grand Prix 2005 (1 Viewer)

[Chris Derby]

All teams were invitied to the all-team tire selection test and the only Michelin runners that decides to show up were Sauber and BAR. For that matter, they both sent their 3rd-car drivers, everybody else was testing at Silverstone.

Now, it looks to me like the majority of Michelin teams opted out of their chance to test at Indy.

 

[Daryl Furkalo]

F1 uses grooved tires and IRL does not. I have a hard time believing anything Bridgestone learned from Firestone three weeks earlier from the Indy 500 would have changed the compound they brought to the USGP. Michelin has raced there before and should have known better, they are completely to blame.

 

[Paul McElligott]

It wasn't an issue of tire compound but of tire construction. The sidewalls of the tire couldn't handle the vertical G's created by the banked turn at high speeds. Michelin tried to fly tires with another compound to Indy over night before they discovered the compound wasn't the problem.

I don't believe that Bridgestone had an advantage either. Both tire manufactures had raced at Indy five times before. They knew how fast the cars went and how many g's they created through turn 13. Or, at least, they should have.

 

[Trey Fletcher]

Bridgestone had absolutely no advantage over Michelin, regardless of their ownership of Firestone. Both tire manufacturers had raced on this course the exact same number of times. Additionally, Firestone's data on turn 13 (turn 1 in IRL), would have been useless. The tire specifications are different, the car specifications (size, weight, etc.) are different, and the speed carried into the corner is different because the IRL machines are making a left turn after screaming down the entire front straight-away, while the F1 machines are making a right turn at a much slower speed after exiting the short-chute. And finally, Michelin makes the largest tires in the world (standing over 12 feet tall) for the massive haulers used in mining operations. Six of these tires are used to support the vehicle, and their 380(!) ton payload. They KNOW how to build a strong enough tire. They simply dropped the ball and are trying to deflect the blame.

 

[Sami Kallio]

1) The track has a new surface that is much harder on the tires.

2) Bridgestone owns Firestone so they much more info about the track and the new surface than Michelin.

3) No testing was allowed at Indy this year according to what I have heard. Everyone knows F1 testing is very strictly limited.

4) Michelin came out with the truth instead of trying to hide it and while they did provide a tire that didn't hold up, they deserve credit for doing the right thing and putting driver safety in first priority.

5) FIA and F1 failed miserably in providing the fans a race. None of their propositions made sense and they wouldn't bend the rules for safety as they have done in the past (when the shoe was in the other foot).

6) Ferrari played a huge role in #5 and deserve at least part of the blame.

7) http://www.saunalahti.fi/~marjliik/e..._Interview.mp3

 

[Chris Derby]

1) true

2) somewhat true, indy tires and f1 tires and their requirements are different

3) not true, read my previous post

4) they did report that they felt that their tires were unsafe

5) all of the FIA proposals were per the rules. the michelin teams had the option of changing unsafe tires but would not be allowed to refuel on that stop (per the rules). the fia even said that they could run the tires they flew in and be subject to a penalty, but not exclusion.

6) ferrari never said "no" to the chicane, but it was really because nobody ever asked them.



7) paul is quite animated, eh?

the other day i looked at a possible scenario for the michelin runners to run the race. based on the "tires good for 10 laps" figure and taking into consideration that you don't hit turn 13 on your pit-in lap, you could get 11 laps out of a left-rear tire (the only corner that was showing problems). with a 3-stop fuel strategy, you could do 5 tire changes and complete the race. i came up with a few other scenarios (some based on team reports that adding a few psi would allow the tires to be run a few laps longer) where you could do the race w/ 4 tire changes.

all of these were within the rules. did you see bridgestone asking for favors when they pulled michael out of the race with two failed tires earlier in the season?

michelin was not going to accept any solution other than the chicane, an untested, unpracticed on, unqualified on solution that pretty much goes against what the rules say.

 

[Sami Kallio]

Ferrari also refused to agree with the other 9 teams which is a politically correct way to say no. In reality that's what they did and FIA couldn't install chicane because of that. They do deserve a lot of the blame for screwing the fans.

http://insider.speedtv.com/viewtopic.php?t...rthals&start=15

Read the reply by Drood. One of the best views of the fiasco we fitnessed.

 

[Chris Derby]

First of all, I don't understand why their proposals were so "ridiculous in nature and not acceptable". Explain it to me, please. The qualifying and tire rules have been in effect the whole season. They have heavily benefitted the non-Bridgestone teams.

Secondly, the FIA was never going to install the chicane and nothing Ferrari or any of the other teams had to say was going to change that.

The track said that they had no problem installing the chicane. The FIA said that if the chicane was installed, they'd no longer sanction the event. Fans would have had a race to watch, possibly with 14 cars on the grid instead of 6.

Why level the playing field (by changing the rules) for Michelin when they bring the wrong tires to the track? Bridgestone didn't get the same treatment earlier in the year... Again, Ferrari has had catastrophic tire failures, too.

You say "safety issue", but Michelin was willing to run on the track with a chicane, so they must have been "safe enough" to run the entire race sans turn 13 at full speed. I see no problem with the Michelin teams running the track "as is" and accepting their "natural penalty" by having to change their tire.

Drood brings up the chicanes installed "in the wake of Senna's death" TEN YEARS AGO!! I'm not sure about Barcelona either, but the others were put in at the start of the weekend before a single lap was run. If the chicane had been installed at Indy on Thursday, this would be a different situation.

 

[CharlesD]

It is incorrect to say that the 9 teams proposed the chicane option. The chicane option was proposed by the 7 Michelin teams on Saturday night, and was rejected by FIA people at the track on Saturday night. Jordan and Minardi did not become involved at all until Sunday morning.

On Sunday morning various ideas including the chicane and having a non-points exhibition event were discussed among the nine teams. Sometime on Sunday morning the Michelin 7 went directly to Max Mosley (who was not at the track) and demanded a track layout change or they would not race. They also told Mad Max that they were prepared to put on a self-regulated non sanctioned race.

Mosley refused to change the track and, according to Paul Stoddart who was present at the time, threatened to revoke all FIA sanctioned series in the US. Following Mosley's threats the IMS, which had previously been willing to construct a chicane and host the non-sanctioned event, declined to put the chicane in. By this time it was time for the race to start and we all know the rest.

 

[Chris Derby]

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Yee-Ming]

"Drood" makes IMHO the closest reasonable argument to defend Michelin and justifiably push blame to the FIA and Ferrari, by cleverly using driver safety as the justification, and pointing to the precedent set after Senna's tragic death for including temporary chicanes.

However, the argument is flawed for a number of reasons, the first having already been raised by Chris, that those chicanes were added before race weekend started at all, whereas at Indy qualifying had already been run without any chicane.

The bigger flaw IMHO is that post-Senna, safety was an issue across the board for ALL drivers, presumably due to an increase in speed again across the board, and maybe perceived weaknesses in the safety features required by regulations. At Indy, "safety" was a problem ONLY for Michelin runners, and the problem was directly attributable to inadequate equipment, in particular the substandard Michelin tyres. The so-called fix would therefore unnecessarily, and therefore unfairly, penalise the Bridgestone runners, whose tyres were perfectly safe for Turn 13. In contrast, post-Senna the added chicanes were necessary to slow EVERYBODY down for safety reasons, and therefore the "penalty" was fair.

Earlier this season, Bridgestone runners (Ferrari in particular) experienced blowouts, which are in and of themselves a safety problem, in the same way Michelin's sudden deflations were. As Chris says, Bridgestone didn't ask for favours then, why should Michelin be entitled to now?

Sir Frank Williams has always been recognised as a gentleman, and his comments absolving Ferrari (rightly, IMHO) are very welcome in such a heated and cut-throat environment

 

[AjayM]

How do they deserve part of the blame? They showed up prepared to race, Michelin and the teams didn't. Why should teams that have properly prepared for a race compromise that for people who didn't? Especially when there were real solutions on the table. Did any teams offer to slow down when Ferrari showed up this year with a non-competitive car?

Regardless of all that, Ferrari was never asked about the chicane before the race anyway.

Andrew

 

[Sami Kallio]

Found this from http://insider.speedtv.com/viewtopic...r=asc&start=15

Michelin to FIA - "Houston we have a problem."

FIA to Michelin - "What kind of problem?"

Michelin to FIA - "We just had a blowout of the entire side of the support module and are losing oxygen rapidly"

FIA to Michelin - "What? That's ridiculous. We've done this several times before and there's never been a problem!'

Michelin to FIA - "Well, we have a problem now and we're afraid someone may die if we keep on this way. We suggest we abort the original mission and come up with a different trajectory for safety. We've been thinking about this and think we have an alternative that would work."

FIA to Michelin - "What? Who do you think you are? WE decide the trajectory for the mission, not YOU."

Michelin to FIA - "Well, that's normally true. But this is such a big problem...we've all thought about it...nearly everyone agrees. If we change to the alternative trajectory we can still complete most of the mission and not endanger anyone."

FIA to Michelin - "Well I am afraid that's out of the question. If anyone decides to do something differently it will be us, not you. And besides, we're not even sure you have a problem yet."

Michelin to FIA - "If we don't take the alternate trajectory, then time is running short here. We're just going to abort now, splash down in the ocean, and forget the whole thing."

FIA to Michelin - "You may take whatever course of action you wish, but we are informing you right now, if you abort this mission and splash down, you will be facing a court of inquiry and there is no limit to the punishment you may be facing. Do you understand?"

Michelin to FIA - "Yes, we understand. But safety is more important to us than this mission. It's not worth losing a life to finish YOUR mission. So, since you won't help us by authorizing the alternative trajectory, we are going to abort."

FIA to Michelin - "Well, since you have that attitude, we have nothing else to say, other than we will see you in court! Goodbye!"

Michelin to FIA - "Sorry we could not find agreement. Goodbye."

 

[AjayM]

Here's another tidbit to fuel the conspiracy theories, Toyota knew before qualifying on Saturday that there would be no race going on, as they only put about 5 laps of fuel into Trulli's car. Toyota engineers were sweating a lot when the proposed "chicane" was announced (as he would have had to stop on lap 2 to re-fuel).

Andrew

 

[Sami Kallio]

It is very naive to believe Ferrari played no role in the chicane issue. They weren't asked by FIA about it but they told Ecclestone no and the word does get around between those two.

http://www.msportf1.com/news/showart...Table&ID=14418

"At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree"

"Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history."

"By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix."

"It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt. "

 

[AjayM]

First of all I'd take anything Paul Stoddart has to say with a grain of salt, he isn't known for being supportive to the FIA or anything/anybody that does something against his own needs.

Second, even if Ferrari did say no, it's not their decision anyway, it's the FIA's. The FIA doesn't care if all the teams band together, they will not change the course 30 minutes before an event. It's just not going to happen at all.

If you were the FIA, racing in the most litigous society on the planet, would you make a fairly major course change without first studying it's effects on potential accidents, without studying how the cars will handle such a section of track? How about the simple fact that all of the cars were setup to handle a high speed course, and now you're going to change the nature of the circuit to not suit that setup (things like brakes become a HUGE issue here). Would you do that knowing that if a single fan get's a splinter from an accident on the course you're going to get sued for millions and lose because you didn't follow your own safety procedures/rules?

Answer that question and then look at the problem again.

Andrew

 

[Sami Kallio]

That's what happened. So it's all ok? Michelin had a tire that didn't work but equipment failures happen in motorsports. Michelin teams didn't race because FIA wasn't able to find a way to race. Life goes on (thankfully for all the drivers) and we'll have the French GP next. Better luck at USGP next year.

 

[AjayM]

That basically covers it, but expect to hear a lot of complaining next week when the FIA hands down the penalties for the teams breaking multiple rules with their little "staged" event.

 

[Sami Kallio]

What is there to penalize? The teams were justified in their actions, it was unsafe to race so they withdrew from it. With all the FIA suggestion none of them provided anything that would have made it a race, better just to park the cars.

 

[CharlesD]

Thats 1055 hrs race day. The chicane proposal had already been made by the seven teams and rejected by the FIA the previous evening.

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17692/

Later on Saturday, after the above story had been posted FIA officials at the race rejected the Michelin teams request. My view is that the Michelin teams knew that the chicane proposal was not going to be accepted but made it anyway (after the cars were already in parc ferme and it was essentially too late) so they would be able to shift some of the blame onto the FIA.

Stoddart is not a very credible person especially when it comes to bashing Ferrari and the FIA. Remember Melbourne? He said he was unable to run a 2005 spec car and wanted to run a 2004 instead. Then he said he had nine teams agreement (not mentioning who the holdout was except that their cars were painted red). Then it turns out that all ten teams were OK with it. When the FIA rejected the request, 2005 spec Minardis suddenly appeared at the track.