Sunday's F1 Race @ INDY !!!??

[BillZ260]

So, I am wondering, what would the scenario look like if the same thing happened at say the Daytona 500 or some other huge NASCAR race? Something just seems very wrong to have fell through the cracks at this level.

 

I don't get to watch too many of ANY racing but try when I get the chance.

Are folks getting their $$ back? I think they are entitled some of it...

[katman]

This is simple. The fault lies squarely with Michelin. They didn't bring the right equipment to the race. Period. They could have, they didn't. They have been racing that track for 6 years now, they have lots of data. The track was reground twice after the repaving. If Michelin wasn't aware of the problems Firestone had initially with the new pavement then they are guilty of Industrial Stupidity. They constructed a tire that had no margin of safety left in it. Oops. Victim of the tire wars.

 

It is a shame for the fans. It's not the track's fault. The FIA enforces the rules, they're not responsible for putting on "a show". They wouldn't have put in a chicane (and I believe by the rules you'd have to re-qualify) for Bridgestone, who by the way has brought the wrong (slow, but safe) tire to several races this year. I don't like Bernie either, but I don't blame him in this case.

 

Most F1 races are pretty boring to watch on TV anyway (as one of my driver's says: "It's the best cars in racing, but the worst racing in cars"), I rather enjoyed the controversy from the comfort of my recliner. But Michelin should refund everybody who paid for a ticket.

 

As for driver's not being able to hold back- that is BS. Endurance drivers do it all the time, and F1 drivers do it this year because of the one tire rules. If I'm paying a guy millions to get his jollies driving my car his a$$ is going to peg that tack on EXACTLY the rpm I tell him, anywhere on the track, or I find somebody else. It could have been done.

[preith]

I can't see how anyone can blame Michelin. They're the[/i'] top tire manufacturer in international motorsports, they aren't exactly a bunch of shadetree mechanics.

 

That statement seems a bit contridictary to me. In my eyes, that's exactly why this should never had happened. One would think a company that's spending millions on R&D just for these cars would be able to prevent this.

 

Do you guys have any idea how many different solutions to the issue were thought of that the FIA rejected?

 

Ultimately the FIA gave them the most feasible solution which was something to the effect that they could come in as much as they want and change the tires.

 

The idea for everyone to get new tires was rejected. They suggested adding a temporary chicane before Turn 13... the Bridgestone teams agreed to allow the chicane' date=' and IMS management agreed to put one in before the race started.[/i'] Only Ferrari withheld... which is typical for those Italian underhanded twits (anyone who knows the competition history of the company and the personality of Enzo knows exactly what I'm talking about), just like the fact that they're the only team who likes the upcoming Concorde

 

Ferrari has made many controversial moves in the past, but this is not one of them. If your competitor had any other thing on the car that was questionable, would the decision have been any different? Earlier this year Ferrari blew out a rear tire, went back out and blew the front. Those are the risks you take in racing.

 

EDIT: I just read the FIA's official statement on the race' date=' and HOLY F$%# THAT IS A CROCK OF BULL. If anyone was watching on SPEED, the Williams engineer explained it pretty well why putting a speed limit on Turn 13 with no physical barrier is an absurdity beyond comprehension. The drivers are paid to maintain and gain position, and they are the results of years upon years of fierce competition and pushing the limit. To ask a world-class race driver to voluntarily hold his speed down through one corner in the heat of a race is an idiotic suggestion at best. [/quote']

 

I applaud the FIA's decision not the change anything. That would have meant the two days of qualifying would have meant absolutely nothing. Asking your driver to hod back is hardly "idiotic". Like Katman said if you're paying your guy the big bucks and he can't to that, get someone else.

[SBC_400]

first of all, no F1 teams tested at IMS at all this year, the botched re-surface jobs was completed just before the IRL's waste of May. so the only manufacturer that had any track data after the re-surface, and then unsurfaceing (grinding due to a poor re-surface) was the IRL who runs firestone who is owned by bridgestone.

 

here is some info on all of that from my friend who live across the street from IMS

Diamond Ground???????? Ok kids, this treatment is akin to slicing the track surface with knives parallel to the the walls. It leaves hundreds of little long straight cuts. Behind the knives is a diamond wheel, in which all the irregular surfaces are ground flat and true.. Hence my comments in the thread around May that Indy looks like a Boat Ramp. It's the same theroy behind a State Boat Lauch, you get traction due to the algea unable to build a strong hold on the flat surface. The Diamond Grind is the same thing, only the unlevel surfaces are erraticated by the grooving, while the grinding leaves behind a level, smooth surface.

 

They did not test any F1 cars here at Indy, they tested the tire in Spain. There was no time, as El Tonholio just finished the diamond grind process a couple of DAYS prior to the opening of the track for the Indy 500......... and the week after the Indy 500 the track was run in oval form for the "Richard Petty Driving Experiance" or someother dickbag stock car deal. I heard it, and saw sedan roofs go flashing by the top of the wall. Now this leads to the weekend I was at Milwaukee, which to my knowledge no running on the track. This is the only time I was not at home, so the week following Indy, sans the weekend of June 4 and 5, and the week following the Mile, there was no one running on the Oval. The last week they were setting up the road course.

 

The track fiasco can be laid at Tony George's feet, along with his head engineer Kevin Forbes. It cost them six million, and was ALL GROUND AWAY. The track is in the condition it needs to be in to recieve a new layer of pavement. They have weeper problems over there, as ALL the old bricks need to be excavated to remove the fissure pockets which allow ground water to perkolate to the surface. That being said, it was no secret that there was a problem with the track from the get go. Bridgestone cancelled a tire test and then following the initial grind requested the ENTIRE track to be ground.

 

This was all covered in other threads that I have contributed to on YFDS leading up to the Indy 500...

 

Now, Getting my info from Dave Olsen who is a buddy of JV's, the Toyota Team was running tire pressures so low it was silly. They did this in order to gain time on the course's "interior" as we all know the Oval section is foot to the floor mayhem. With these down on air pressure tire's providing tons of mechanical grip for the infield section, they were doing the Top Fuel dishrag routine on the oval, and the tires were subject to the grooves by conforming to them at high speed. Ripping them away from where they were bonded to the carcass. It is interesting to note JV was in favor to running the GP on Saturday, where he told us "**** those guys, they have their cars set up with too low of air pressure" mine is fine, and were (Sauber) are not eating tires (yet)

 

but that's all I know

 

the whole thing was a big mess, and there is now one to be left out of the blame including bernie who bends over every time ferrrari askes him to. And Michelin had no tires on site that could deal with the surface change because it was not a compound issue, it was a construction issue, that they could not have known about due to the fact that there is no test data available to them about running increased vertical load on a grooved surface like the data that firestone made availabe to bridgestone

[blueovalz]

To gain a competitive advantage, any manufacturer will compromise durability for performance, and this is exactly what Michelin did. And this philosophy has paid dividends all season, at least until the USGP. But instead of dealing with it in a proper way, Michelin chose to make it a public issue by demanding the race be modified for its benefit (and its benefit only). 6 years (plus the recent testing by IRL and NASCAR on this new surface) experience on this track means they had the data they needed, but chose not to apply it. If the FIA starts changing the rules every time a performance gap opens, then F1 will turn into another NASCAR, which will be the end of my support.

[SBC_400]

To gain a competitive advantage, any manufacturer will compromise durability for performance, and this is exactly what Michelin did. And this philosophy has paid dividends all season, at least until the USGP. But instead of dealing with it in a proper way, Michelin chose to make it a public issue by demanding the race be modified for its benefit (and its benefit only). 6 years (plus the recent testing by IRL and NASCAR on this new surface) experience on this track means they had the data they needed, but chose not to apply it. If the FIA starts changing the rules every time a performance gap opens, then F1 will turn into another NASCAR, which will be the end of my support.

 

NASCAR and IRL have no relation to Michelin hence no data for michelin

[Scottie-GNZ]

My group was unanimous in saying that next year we will go to PLM or Sebring instead.

 

Hey' date=' how 'bout those American Vettes at Le Mans? Boo-Ya![/quote']

Only missed one PLM (last year, intentionally) since its inception. Probably the most awesone race weekend a road race fan could have at the most awesome road race track. There might not be any 19K RPM V-10s there but the old Judds, triple-rotors and Ferrari V-12s make quite a racket.

 

Only thing I can say about the Vettes at LeMans is "Like a Rock" !!!!

[speeder]

Heh-Heh, he said "dickbag".

 

Seriously, that's some very informative stuff, SBC. Looks as if there's blame to spread everywhere.

[b__sosick]

the should have just ran the race anyway.

 

from what i have heard there was only one turn that the tires were considered unable to handle.

 

or maybe I head wrong.

 

but still!!! they should have dealt with what they had and ran.the.damn.race.

[Moridin]

First of all' date=' how the hell is the C6-R win a "romp"? They were losing most of the race and were slower than the Astons, the win was handed to them when the Astons pushed too hard and broke. And they're not really a "Corvette" either (same goes with every car in that class since Chrysler gave Vipers to ORECA so the French would fudge the rules in their favor), they have an LS2-based engine and that's about it.

[/quote']

 

Not anymore...its an LS7 based engine. Same displacement that's going into the new Z06. Anywho, if you understand IMSA and ACO rules, their is a reasonable restrictor size formula depending on engine displacement, forced induction, and type of fuel used (diesel or gasoline). It is a 24 hour race. Endurance racing has a lot to do with conservation of fuel, tires, engine, and the list goes on and on. Those cars have at least 5 fuel maps. I remember the Porsche's having 3 for wet conditions and two for dry, and maybe even a seperate qualifying one if I recall. My point is, they can dial back the horsepower to conserve the car. Apparently the Aston's didin't know where to race the cars yet when it came to aggresiveness.

 

However, I do agree with your comments about the F1 race. Has Eccelstone ever raced anything before?

[johnc]

Talked with a friend who is a Michelin tire engineer and supports the Grand Am and ALMS series. Michelin screwed up at Indy by bringing a medium speed, softer compound tire to a high speed track. Everything that happened after was a result of the FIA properly enforcing the rules.

 

Each Michelin team could have used the new tires flown in but because of F1 rules they would have had to start at the back of the grid. Michelin convinced all the teams to support the chicane plan to keep them from having to start at the back. When that proposal was correctly rejected by the FIA Saturday night the grid was set based on qualifying times.

 

Not a single Michelin tired team followed the FIA's well known and well documented procedures for withdrawing from a race after entry and they are probably going to be sued for breach of contract.

 

BTW... my friend said that Michelin France was responsible for all of this and completely ignored the advice from Michelin North American regading track condition, proper FIA procedures, etc.

[Guest Battle Pope]

Leave it to the French.

[SBC_400]

Talked with a friend who is a Michelin tire engineer and supports the Grand Am and ALMS series. Michelin screwed up at Indy by bringing a medium speed' date=' softer compound tire to a high speed track. Everything that happened after was a result of the FIA properly enforcing the rules.

 

Each Michelin team could have used the new tires flown in but because of F1 rules they would have had to start at the back of the grid. Michelin convinced all the teams to support the chicane plan to keep them from having to start at the back. When that proposal was correctly rejected by the FIA Saturday night the grid was set based on qualifying times.

 

Not a single Michelin tired team followed the FIA's well known and well documented procedures for withdrawing from a race after entry and they are probably going to be sued for breach of contract.

 

BTW... my friend said that Michelin France was responsible for all of this and completely ignored the advice from Michelin North American regading track condition, proper FIA procedures, etc.[/quote']

 

 

What I dont understand about this is that if it was indeed a problem with the compund being too soft, then why were the failures mostly on toyotas who were running a very low tire pressuer to gain more mechanical grip. and why would a soft compound cause a carcass failure resulting in a seperation of the sidewall from the platform?

[JMortensen]

This is just a SWAG, but here goes. Since the Indy track is all about the straightaway speed, the teams were trying to run the least downforce possible, and maximize mechanical grip for the slower infield section of the track. The lower pressure would gain more mechanical grip as you said, and the trade off is more heat. The heat could cause the tire to delaminate, a la Firestone/Ford Explorer, and there is your failure. Softer compounds put heat into the tire faster than harder compounds, so that's how the softer compound fits in.

 

Just a SWAG, but there it is.

[Moridin]

Talked with a friend who is a Michelin tire engineer and supports the Grand Am and ALMS series. Michelin screwed up at Indy by bringing a medium speed' date=' softer compound tire to a high speed track. Everything that happened after was a result of the FIA properly enforcing the rules.

 

Each Michelin team could have used the new tires flown in but because of F1 rules they would have had to start at the back of the grid. Michelin convinced all the teams to support the chicane plan to keep them from having to start at the back. When that proposal was correctly rejected by the FIA Saturday night the grid was set based on qualifying times.

 

Not a single Michelin tired team followed the FIA's well known and well documented procedures for withdrawing from a race after entry and they are probably going to be sued for breach of contract.

 

BTW... my friend said that Michelin France was responsible for all of this and completely ignored the advice from Michelin North American regading track condition, proper FIA procedures, etc.[/quote']

 

I never had any run in with the guys from Michelin France. All the guys I knew were born and raised in the U.S. (except for the compound chemists that hid on the Michelin truck). I guess I was half right about Michelin...I have to refrase what I said earlier...Michelin "NORTH AMERICA" would not do something like that.

[blueovalz]

I believe that construction of the tire had some major importance here as well. My take on this was that the failures of the tires where at the corner (where the sidewall meets the tread area) of the tire section, that was failing due to the high downforce experienced in the banked turn. Higher tire pressures helped prevent the separation at this location. But higher tire pressure meant an extended period to bring tires up to temperature, which nobody wants. Is this correct?

[RB26powered74zcar]

Michelin has stepped up in a big way, offering refunds to all the fans that got ripped at the F1 GP in Indy. Way to be, Michelin!

 

 

Refunds Offered for U.S. Grand Prix

Ron Green, a spokesmen for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, discusses the announcement by Michelin that they will refund tickets for fans at the U.S. MICHAEL CONROY

June 28, 2005 5:12 PM EDT

 

INDIANAPOLIS - Tire manufacturer Michelin offered Tuesday to refund money to those who bought tickets for the U.S. Grand Prix, which was boycotted by seven Formula One teams after the company decided its tires were unsafe at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

 

Michelin also said it would buy 20,000 tickets for the 2006 race to be given to those who attended the June 19 race during which only six of the typical 20 drivers participated.

 

"Michelin deeply regrets that the public was deprived of an exciting race and therefore wishes to be the first, among the different groups involved in the Indianapolis race, to make a strong gesture towards the spectators," the company said.

 

Indianapolis Motor Speedway spokesman Ron Green said the track was not notified about the refund until 30 minutes before Michelin issued its statement.

 

"We're very encouraged by what they released today," Green said. "Finally, they're acknowledging that they will provide for the fans what the fans deserve. That's all we'd hoped for."

 

Green said the speedway expects to be asked to administer the refunds. He told fans to "sit tight" and await more information. Green said all fans who purchased tickets would be eligible for the refund.

 

Reserved seat tickets for this month's race ranged from $75 to $150. The speedway does not release attendance figures for any of its races, but media reports estimated the U.S. Grand Prix crowd at 100,000.

 

Michelin's refund offer for this year's race could cost the company about $10 million if 100,000 ticket holders seek refunds at an average of $100 each. A similar average ticket price could cost the company $2 million for the 2006 race tickets it offered to buy.

 

Two Michelin tires failed during practice sessions two days before the race - one causing a wreck that prevented Ralf Schumacher from competing.

 

Nine of the 10 teams, excluding Ferrari, proposed to run the race if a series of turns was installed to slow cars on a high-speed part of the course. Ferrari and FIA, the sport's ruling body, rejected the possible compromise, with FIA president Max Mosley saying he would not change the rules because some teams brought the wrong equipment.

 

Michelin said it believed the FIA's decision was "totally incomprehensible and reflects a lack of respect for the spectators."

 

"The reality is that together, Michelin and its partners have done everything possible to assure that the race could take place in total safety," the company said. "We are extremely disappointed that the proposals made with all our teams were not accepted. These proposals, including a chicane, were technically viable and totally met all safety requirements."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. (WOOPS... )

[johnc]

Good move.

[dr_hunt]

Since I worked on one of the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire accident reconstruction and tire failure analysis project for an insurance company, I can tell you what we came to as a conclusion on the tire failure.

 

Bottom line is that the tires were constructed of "old rubber" and/or "inferior rubber" to help Firestone's bottom line at the expense of john Q public. The tire in question in the accident that I worked on delaminated the tread from the carcass after the vehicle went sideways. The tire actually had a nail in it and it was going flat while the driver and his pregnant wife were driving at very high speed (approx 90). He lost control of the explorer causing it to go sideways and roll killing all three. The tire delaminated after the vehicle went sideways, so in reality the vehicle was more responsible for the accident than the tire IMHO. However the tire did delaminate when subjected to transverse stress.

 

Soft rubber can also be torn from the carcass at high speed. I think Michelin was covering their blankety blank and the opposite side of the coin was simply driver safety. However the teams didn't respond appropriately IMHO.