One comment was that the track has been resurfaced since last year and part of the main starting straight has diamond cut grooves in the surface.
Bridgestone used information from US arm Firestone from earlier races (ie Indy 500) this year in the design of the tyres, Michelin based their design on guesswork and last years results.
StarGazer
|
I gave up on F1 yesterday and watched the British Touring car season live instead - excellent racing.
I did enjoy watching the poor F1 commentators desperately trying to find something to discuss! With six cars on track they were struggling to analyse race strategy!
|
|
Having worked in F1 for eighteen years,i have seen some amazing goings-on(most of which the general public never hear about)but yesterdays fiasco hardly warrants our discussion.Despite the political manouvreings going on,i feel the answer was to cancel the race,re-schedule it at the end of the season(after brazil),refund the spectators AND make the re-scheduled race free entry with Michelin picking up the bill.
|
I have an email from someone was was close to one of the conversations going on yesterday.
It Went
Bernie " You wouldnt dare "
Team principal - no reply just a meaningful look!
|
|
|
|
Here is a description of the track resurfacing and grooves added to give more grip to the surface. It is hardly a standard F1 track surface.
www.fastmachines.com/archives/irl/002892.php
StarGazer
|
Not only were Michelin to blame for getting the tyres wrong, they then backed themselves into a corner with a press release saying no teams should race on their tyres. According to Mr Brundle, McLaren were entirely satisfied that the tyres on their car would have been fine, and David Coulthard on the radio on the parade lap said he was happy to race if his boss wanted, and DC is no mad man.
Another point is that ALL of the Michelin runners completed qualifying, which meant 2 laps where they were flat out around the bend with full fuel loads, how come Michelin didn't stop that?
Final point, Ferrari withdrew MS from Spanish GP earlier this year after 2 tyre failures, all the Michelin runners scored points.
|
"and DC is no mad man"
and nor is he quite on the limit like the fast teams.
I can see the FIA's and Ferari's reasons. Michelin had a performance problem. If the tyre can't cut it flat out they should drive slower and therefore loose to those teams that can.
If they wanted to change tyres they could, witht he subsequent penalty. Fair enough.
I can see Michelins point too, If the tyres blew up, even at reduced speed, and people died corporate manslaughter charges would ensue.
But what about the chicane? What if they put one in, and the tyres still blew and someone died?
Someone or "some body of someone's" has firmly grasped this problem by the neck, poked it about, and used it to maximum advantage.
Who or what the advantage is will be played out in the mists of time.
Who said on this board that F1 is the hotbed and birthplace of plotting and skulduggery? Oh yes. Me.
F1 - dont you just love it? you couldnt write the scripts sometimes.
|
|
|
Another point is that ALL of the Michelin runners completed qualifying, which meant 2 laps where they were flat out around the bend with full fuel loads,
Qualifying doesn't take place with full fuel loads. Each and every team keep their fuel load a closely guarded secret. Besides all that, Michelin said that the tyres would only last a maximum of 10 laps unless a chicane was put in to slow the cars down on the approach to the banked oval - which is where the abrasive surface was causing damage to the tyres at high speeds.
|
Ok they still did it with more fuel than they would race the first stint in the race.
And they were also offered the chance of multiple pit stops for tyre changes of the offending left rear during the race which they turned down.
|
|
|
Qualifying doesn't take place with full fuel loads. Each and every team keep their fuel load a closely guarded secret. Besides all that, Michelin said that the tyres would only last a maximum of 10 laps >>
Qualifying takes place with the fuel load that the car will start the race with so can be quite a lot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Michelin based their design on guesswork..."
In which case, you'd think they would have built in a bit more margin for error!
|
This is Michelin's press release on the subject:-
MICHELIN PUTS THE ACCENT ON SAFETY
AT THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
Michelin is very disappointed about the way the United States Grand Prix turned out at Indianapolis, Ind, yesterday for the public, the drivers and the teams.
Michelin is sorry that the tyres it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions this weekend, but driver safety is always a priority. Michelin will never change its stance on this principle, whether we are talking about tyres for competition or any other purpose.
It is regrettable that our pre-race suggestions, agreed in conjunction with our partner teams, were not adopted. Had our ideas been followed, we could have guaranteed driver safety, the participation of our teams and added interest for the public.
Michelin would like to thank its seven partner teams for their close collaboration, for having made propositions to the FIA and for having respected our advice on safety issues.
Michelin will continue to investigate the technical reasons for the tyre-related incidents that affected Toyota during Friday?s free practice.
Ends?
|
Michelin teams summoned by the FIA:
www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html
Says it all really.
|
|
Makes very interesting reading, especially the bit about the letter the FIA sent to the tyre manufacturers on 1 June reminding them of the need for safe tyres!!
|
|
|
|
If the tyre problem had only affected one team, there would have been no discussion about changing the rules and no controversy about the affecetd team withdrawing. The fact that there were 7 teams affected changes nothing with regard to the rules.
Sure, what happened was a PR disaster and a worthless race, but on this occasion at least the FIA retained some integrity by applying its own rules, however misconceived they were with present hindsight. To fiddle the rules to enable an entertainment to take place would have been a greater shame by far.
To blame Ferrari might make the Schu-haters feel better but Ferrari did not veto the chicane idea - merely declined to support it for valid reasons.
|
"To fiddle the rules to enable an entertainment to take place would have been a greater shame by far."
Sorry but I thought F1 was entertainment and people paid to see it..but I stand corrected : the crowds/TV and advertisers are there because they are masochists.
madf
|
"To fiddle the rules to enable an entertainment to take place would have been a greater shame by far." Sorry but I thought F1 was entertainment and people paid to see it..but I stand corrected : the crowds/TV and advertisers are there because they are masochists. madf
Did I say it wasn't an entertainment? What I said was the rules should not be fiddled, or what are they worth? I think views on this incident will change when a bit of time has passed, and the events will be seen as an inevitable and correct consequence of 7 teams turning up without the right equipment. Perhaps they'll be more careful in future.
|
Clarification - "they" being Michelin.
PS - at least this hows that Bernie doesn't control absolutely everything! The FIA has gone up in my estimation, albeit from a fairly low starting point.
|
|
Any truth in the rumour that a speed bump is being constructed on the Hangar Straight at Silverstone as a British solution to the problem?
|
Dont be stupid
Road sensors will be buried under stowe, if the traffic is too heavy variable speed limits will be displayed above the start finish straight.
|
Askig the Michelin runners to slow down on the fastest part of the circuit would have been extremely dangerous. The cars can hold over 200mph for a full twenty seconds at Indy, and to have other cars in front slowing to perhaps 150 would have been a recipe for a very bad accident.
As I understand it, the FIA would not allow a chicane because Ferrari objected, the only team to do so. Bearing in mind F1 is attempting to crack the very lucrative American market it would have been in their Ferrari's best interests to have given way on this occassion even if they were personally disadvantaged.
After all, who gives them any credit for their 1/2 in yesterday's race?
|
Max Mosley was interviewed on R4 this morning, and said that the Michelin runners should have agreed to take the corner more slowly.
Surely he must have realised that was no solution. As Tom says, the potential for an accident would have been huge. A 50 mph differential (say) would have been a recipe for disaster.
Also, it would be very difficult to enforce. The drivers are trained to drive as fast as possible. I'm sure most of them would have simply gone full-throttle and hoped for the best.
Max said they could have 'policed' the Michelin drivers. So presumably exceeding the arbitrary speed limit would have resulted in a drive-through penalty. The race would have been a farce.
I blame Max. He should resign immediately. I don't blame Michelin. Sure, they made a mistake but admitted it straight away, and seemed to spend the rest of the weekend trying to come up with solutions.
|
I don't care whose 'fault' it was, I care even less about legal or regulatory precedents.
The only thing that matters is the customers.
They paid, they got screwed, because the entire F1 community has disappeared so far up its exhaust pipe that it thought multi-millionaire egos were bigger than the show for the guy in the stand.
|
No, surely F1 is all about winning the world championship.
That is what then makes it a great consumer event.
Personally I think that any other decision than that made by the FIA would have resulted in a bigger farce. The next race would have been 'All Michelin shod cars need to change their tyres and only they can do it" or something equally as perverse.
MIchelin got the tyres wrong, the Michelin teams made the wrong choices and then tried to bully their way out of the problems they created for themselves. They were perfectly capable of racing at a reduced speed around the fast corner, and it really would not have been that dangerous. Certainly not on a wide banked corner.
The whole palava was simply the Michelin teams not wanting to lose out due to their own failings, calling the FIA's bluff and then throwing their toys out of their prams when the FIA simply enforced the rules as they stand and as agreed by the teams.
|
Personally I think that any other decision than that made by the FIA would have resulted in a bigger farce.
Quite. The FIA had no choice if it was to retain any credibility as a ruling body - I think they saw this very clearly. I repeat, would it have seemed reasonable to revise the circuit if only one team had been affected? I think not, and the number makes no difference. All IMVHO of course.
|
I was personally shocked that none of the Michelin runners went racing on Monday. Toyota, the only team with blowouts, yes, but not the other teams. Michelin can never say that they guarantee the safety of their tyres: they make tyres that are designed to perform on the edge and hence at any race a blowout could happen given even a manufacture or team setup error.
A chicane would not solve any problems. Modifying a track at the last minute would mean each car would be badly set-up for the revised distance; the track would have been made longer/short, possible increasing the race distance and hence tyre distance; and would have meant slow running cars on a cambered surface. Not fogetting all the safety implications: run-off areas; drivers getting use to the chicane; increased brake wear.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
I was personally shocked that none of the Michelin runners went racing on Monday.
I suppose it would be shocking if they went racing today! Sunday I meant, sorry.
|
|
Just read an interesting interview with Jean Todt on www.italiaspeed.com he says Ferrari were never asked about the chicane, but if they had he wouldn't have been in favour. Also, this notion about the michelin runners not scoring points, it appears from what he says that michelin teams also expected the Bridgestone runners not to score points either!!
|
As I understand it, the FIA would not allow a chicane because Ferrari objected, the only team to do so.
Tom, read the report attached to my previous post, it was nothing to do with Ferrari, the FIA vetoed the chicane idea out of hand.
Ferrari did not object to a chicane, on the other hand they did not refuse to race unless a chicane was put, all they said was that they would stand by an FIA decision regarding a chicane.
|
I really don't see how Ferrari can be in any way shape or form to blame for this fiasco.
I don't hear anybody trying to blame Jordan or Minardi.
The fault for this is Michelins.
Asking the FIA or other bridgestone runners to help them out of their problem is stupid.
JaB
|
Part of the problem is that the rules do not say what the penalty is for changing a tyre which has not failed (might fail apparantly does not count).
Surely the FIA need to correct that - how about a drivethorugh for every tyre changed which has not failed. But imagine how busy the pit lane would have been on Sunday.
|
Yes that was the other problem, the sheer logistics and safety aspects of 14 cars:
1 starting the race from the pit lane...or
2 all coming in for a change of tyre on lap1
It is all michelins fault, but they had no choices.
|
From the BBC web pages....but it is the 7 teams that have been charged with (amonst other charges) 'bringing F1 into disrepute'
Crazy
StarGazer
|
|
And so they should be - there was a solution there for them but they would not take it because it meant being uncompetitive!
|
|
Michelin shod cars could not have raced using slower speeds for many reasons(closing speeds,safe speed was unknown),but the biggest reason is the paying public want to see a genuine race.Without fitting a chicane sat. night and having a half hour warm-up sun.am then i feel the event should have been cancelled and rescheduled.By having six cars going around the track(I won't use the term "race")the FIA were taking the mickey out of the US spectators.
|
Cancelling race.
Racing with 6 cars.
Whichever way you look at it, TOTAL contempt for the public.
Imagine what would happpen if Arsenal; or Man Utd players refused to play on a match as they did not want to and the crowd were waiting for them to come out. Ther would be a riot.
I think F1 deserve to be taught some commercial sense: since they don't appear to have any , it's likely to cost them all many £millions.
Anmd then they might learn that paying cutsomers come first.
Makes football clubs appear professional run operations...:-)
madf
|
From the BBC web pages....but it is the 7 teams that have been charged with (amonst other charges) 'bringing F1 into disrepute' Crazy
It is the teams that have the contract with the FIA and Michelin has a contract with the teams therefore I guess the FIA cannot charge Michelin directly though I might be wrong.
I.e. it is up to the teams to ensure that they have a suitable and safe tyre available, in not doing so they can be charged by the FIA of bring the sport into disrepute.
|
It is the teams that have the contract with the FIA and Michelin has a contract with the teams therefore I guess the FIA cannot charge Michelin directly though I might be wrong. I.e. it is up to the teams to ensure that they have a suitable and safe tyre available, in not doing so they can be charged by the FIA of bring the sport into disrepute.
>>
I may be remembering incorrectly, but after Raikonnen lost the lead due to a tyre flat spotting caused a suspension failure, the FIA wrote to teams and tyre manufacturers reminding them that they were required to ensure the tyres were safe to run for a full race. They werent confident so they withdrew from the race. Perhaps it is the handling of the matter rather than the facts which is the cause of the disrepute charge?
StarGazer
|
Have a look at the following it refers to the letters to all teams about tyres:
www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html
|
As can be seen on here I was one of those who initially blamed Ferrari and the FIA for the whole fiasco. As more facts emerge I have changed my mind and I think the FIA took the right decision and Ferrari are not the villains they were made out to be, particularly by some very biased reporting by ITV during their coverage. They do appear to be very anti Ferrari in their comments, not just this weekend but throughout their coverage.
It would also appear that Michelin were not quite the victims of a simple mistake as they would like everyone to think, as the link above and information from other F1 websites (not all official ones pushing the FIA line) make clear. They had plenty of opportunity to have a back up supply of tyres available should problems have arisen.
Thinking back, R Schumacker crashed after a high speed blowout at Indy last year and Jensen Button has since had a nasty moment when the left rear failed at 200mph and only a Minardi kept him from hitting the wall. Both were on Michelins.
I cannot recall a Bridgestone runner having a sudden tyre failure in that time, though someone will put me right if they have. Could it be that Michelin are pushing the safety limits too far in their bid for more speed?
|
If only it were so simple as the rules.
So, the rules: they could have had a chicane for all, they could have had slower speeds for some - legal opinion is that BOTH solutions theoretically contravene the FIA's own rules, and it put forward one of them! The safety implications of an untested layout or different cars travelling at different speeds on the same piece of track cancel each other out. The chicane would probably have worked, the slower speeds on one corner for Michelin runners would have guaranteed a race and a result just as silly as the one we got on Sunday. F1 would have looked daft: Michelin's top teams pull away on the infield, then get overtaken on every lap on the fastest corner. A great spectacle truly becoming of F1, I don't think.
The blame: Michelin, and they admitted it. They took a policy decision before the season started to run more adventurous compounds so that their teams would finally beat Bridgestone. And risk is what racing is about. Don't think that Bridgestone didn't do the same (witness Schuey's tyre failures in Spain). But it didn't goof on a banked turn unlike any other. It had already been there in the name of its subsidiary, Firestone.
The agenda: the FIA wants one tyre supplier next year, its competence has been questioned for months by certain teams (guess which ones). If it finds Michelin guilty it gets what it wants. If it finds certain teams guilty, it gets what it wants. So, incidentally, does Ferrari. Which, incidentally, is the only team to have signed up to the FIA's agenda. (and a diversion here: did anyone notice how Rubens managed to spray the Ferrari team with dust when he went across the finish line?)
You and I may end up watching a bent and twisted championship or even two championships. But like I said earlier who the hell are we? We're only the customers...
|
So, the rules: they could have had a chicane for all, they could have had slower speeds for some - legal opinion is that BOTH solutions theoretically contravene the FIA's own rules
No, running more slowly is only what, for instance, Minardi do at every race due to the limitations of their car. The Michelin teams could have run more slowly due to the limitations of the tyres perhaps by ensuring that 5th gear (out of 7) was used at turn 13 maybe with a slightly reduced rev limit as well. This would not have contravened any regs.
|
No, running more slowly is only what, for instance, Minardi do at every race due to the limitations of their car. The Michelin teams could have run more slowly due to the limitations of the tyres perhaps by ensuring that 5th gear (out of 7) was used at turn 13 maybe with a slightly reduced rev limit as well. This would not have contravened any regs.
It wouldn't have contravened any regulations in that you can bet your bottom dollar the FIA wouldn't have found fault with a solution it santioned.
But if you look carefully at their sporting regulations, teams running slowly, suddenly and in only one place could theoretically have been seen as: bringing the sport into disrepute; being deliberately uncompetitive; and of risking safety.
That wasn't the point, of course. They would also have looked stupid, which is exactly what some people wanted.
|
I cannot recall a Bridgestone runner having a sudden tyre failure in that time, though someone will put me right if they
have.
>>
Michael Schumacher, two failures in Spain, after which Bridgestone and Ferrari wrote to the FIA asking for a return to tyre cahnging during the race which, ironically, would have benefited Michelin at Indy.
Could it be that Michelin are pushing the safety limits too far in their bid for more speed?
Yes, Michael Schumacher is on record saying that Bridgestone had some faster tyres in advance of Indy though did not use them for safety reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
