Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Indy 2005; The REAL reason the tyres failed?
Topic Started: Jan 25 2007, 10:37 PM (841 Views)
wickedwitch
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've just watched the National Geographic programme about Indy. It raises a few questions in my mind about why those tyres failed in 2005.

The programme hinted that the track surface was not laid correctly (it was done in a bit of a rush). The tarmac was not allowed to "cure" and it seemed that the fact that F1 cars ran the opposite way round to Indy cars didn't enter the equation.

I suspect that the tarmac was laid anti-clockwise (which would be correct for Indy car running) and the F1 cars ran clockwise.

I have always maintained that the reason the tyres failed was due to the track surface being laid for anti-clockwise running.

Your thoughts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dcoulthard19
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Its possible that this issue had an impact but I still would say that michelin were more at fault. Michelin brought too aggressive a tyre and bridgestone brought a tyre that had no problems at all.

Michelin have never made any excuses about the indy farce, they put their hands up, apologised and gave refunds so this suggests that knew that they were totally to blame.

We will never really know the exact reasons behind what happened and thats the way it will be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Well DC19 I think you should not be so harsh on Michelin and I will tell you why.

The Indie circuit was cut with an abrasive diamond pattern that year to aid grip for the Indie 500. The Indie 500 runs counter-clockwise as opposed to the F1 track running clockwise. So the infamous turn thirteen is in reality turn 1 on the Indie circuit.

If you examined the track close up, it was nothing like what you would see in a regular road, it has a crisscross patter running throughout it so it looked liked diamonds. WW’s theory is a plausible one.

But how does this excuse Michelin you ask? Well as Stradlin21 will tell you, the Idie500 is not just a weekend event, it is infact ran the ENTIRE month of May. With testing and qualifying lasting the whole month leading up to the race. Now that is a HUGE amount of data available to the teams with regards to tire wear and grip. It may interest you to know that the IRL cars were ALL running….you’ve guessed it BRIDGESTONE tires! So with the new surface and the new diamond cut being unknown to Michelin and with Bridgestone having a whole months worth of data available to them, is it at all surprising that Bridgestone had the perfect tire where as Michelin did not?
Now in the interests of driver safety, Bridgestone could have passed on their data to Michelin or at least warned them of the abrasive nature of the track. But they did not, more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life. Had Schumacher been killed in his turn 13 accident, you could have hung the guilt firmly on the Japanese tire manufacturer.
Now you can all smile and say ‘yeah but Michelin would have done the same’, but the facts are we don’t know if that is true…..what we do know is that Bridgestone kept quiet. And one wonders how much advance information the Bridgestone shod teams had………..
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dcoulthard19
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think it would be useful F1 teams should tested at indy at some point during the season to get used to the surface and get the tyres ready for the event.

Michelin obviously got caught out but like I said they did take responsibility, how many companies would have done that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dcoulthard19
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
woops, I phrased that first sentence badly.

I ment to say "F1 teams should test at indy as it would be useful to adapt the tyres and setup etc".

Maybe bridgestone should have warned michelin about the surface but I don't think they would have expected what did happen to happen.

I think its best that everyone forgets about indy 2005 and moves on although some of the points made in this thread are very interesting and gives a different perspective on the matter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wickedwitch
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dcoulthard19,Jan 26 2007
06:16 PM


I think its best that everyone forgets about indy 2005 and moves on although some of the points made in this thread are very interesting and gives a different perspective on the matter.

I think you are probably right, but as I said in my initial post, I'd just watched a programme which got me thinking about whether my theory about the clockwise/anti-clockwise stuff was in fact correct.

I'm not an engineer - in fact you all know that I most definitely don't do technical - but it just seems to me that if a track is set up for running in one direction then the lateral G forces if you run the other way round would put more stress on the surface of the tarmac and, by definition, on the tyres themselves.

(if you see what I mean) <think>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

But had WW not brought up this subject, I would not have passed onto you that interesting bit of information about why Michelin were caught out and Bridgestone were not!

;-)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
wickedwitch
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You do have a valid point there TS!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

here you go Rob

Quote Post Goto Top
 
NewMrMe
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Jan 26 2007
05:35 PM
Well DC19 I think you should not be so harsh on Michelin and I will tell you why.

The Indie circuit was cut with an abrasive diamond pattern that year to aid grip for the Indie 500. The Indie 500 runs counter-clockwise as opposed to the F1 track running clockwise. So the infamous turn thirteen is in reality turn 1 on the Indie circuit.

If you examined the track close up, it was nothing like what you would see in a regular road, it has a crisscross patter running throughout it so it looked liked diamonds. WW’s theory is a plausible one.

But how does this excuse Michelin you ask? Well as Stradlin21 will tell you, the Idie500 is not just a weekend event, it is infact ran the ENTIRE month of May. With testing and qualifying lasting the whole month leading up to the race. Now that is a HUGE amount of data available to the teams with regards to tire wear and grip. It may interest you to know that the IRL cars were ALL running….you’ve guessed it BRIDGESTONE tires! So with the new surface and the new diamond cut being unknown to Michelin and with Bridgestone having a whole months worth of data available to them, is it at all surprising that Bridgestone had the perfect tire where as Michelin did not?
Now in the interests of driver safety, Bridgestone could have passed on their data to Michelin or at least warned them of the abrasive nature of the track. But they did not, more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life. Had Schumacher been killed in his turn 13 accident, you could have hung the guilt firmly on the Japanese tire manufacturer.
Now you can all smile and say ‘yeah but Michelin would have done the same’, but the facts are we don’t know if that is true…..what we do know is that Bridgestone kept quiet. And one wonders how much advance information the Bridgestone shod teams had………..

When they first started practicing for the 2005 Indy 500, wasn't there an abnormally high number of tyre problems that caused Firestone (Bridgestone's American arm who were the tyre supplier to all IRL cars) to change to a different construction of tyre then was originally planned?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I find this all very melodramatic...

The Michelin shod drivers lives where not at risk.... there was a solution.... slow down in T13.... <blink>

Should they be forced to yield a position... so be it.... that was their penalty for their chosen tyre supplier failure to bring the right tyre...

The Ferrari's may well still have won in a 1-2...

but I suspect many of the other top teams would have finished above the Jordan's and Minardi's... even slowing down in T13 each lap...



It is not down to Bridgestone to help a competitor.... It has commitments to its customers.... just as Renault, McLaren etc. where under no obligation to pass it's inside information to other teams...

As already stated... Michelin where caught out... held their hand up and took it on the chin.... end of.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
The Saint,Jan 26 2007
11:35 AM
Now you can all smile and say ‘yeah but Michelin would have done the same’, but the facts are we don’t know if that is true…..what we do know is that Bridgestone kept quiet. And one wonders how much advance information the Bridgestone shod teams had………..

Actually I was going to say, I bet Bridgestone did offer Michelin the information on the condition of the track, and Michelin made their tires with that information because they thought they would have a HUGE advantage over B'stone (knowing the Stones would be safer and slower) and could sweep all 8 points paying positions in one of the larger tire markets in the world. Michelin don't have the best safety record in F1, recall the tire problems of Spa 04, recall Button spearing a Minardi after his Michelin blew out. Recall how many Stone runners retired with tire problems (I can give you a hint if need be).


BTY if WW theory is correct and the track is completely different clockwise than anti-clockwise, then the Stones would have been in pretty much the same boat Michelin were in, because they probably didn't run any tests with the IRL cars going clockwise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

John,Feb 27 2007
11:58 PM
I find this all very melodramatic...

The Michelin shod drivers lives where not at risk.... there was a solution.... slow down in T13....  <blink>

Should they be forced to yield a position... so be it.... that was their penalty for their chosen tyre supplier failure to bring the right tyre...

The Ferrari's may well still have won in a 1-2...

but I suspect many of the other top teams would have finished above the Jordan's and Minardi's... even slowing down in T13 each lap...



It is not down to Bridgestone to help a competitor.... It has commitments to its customers.... just as Renault, McLaren etc. where under no obligation to pass it's inside information to other teams...

As already stated... Michelin where caught out... held their hand up and took it on the chin.... end of.

Quote:
 
end of.


It most certainly is not the end of.

There is no melodrama here John, just the ability to identify the reality of corporate underhandedness. Bridgestone were well aware that there was a safety concern at Indianapolis and they kept the data under wraps. They knew fine well that the Ferrari and Bridgestone were not going to win a race in 2005, and saw an oppotunity. Having identified an abraison concern, Bridgestone should have passed this information on to Michelin.

Quote:
 
The Ferrari's may well still have won in a 1-2...


and that is plain silly
Quote Post Goto Top
 
safc_fan89
Member Avatar
safc_fan89
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To suggest the drivers should have just 'slowed down' at the last corner is complete rubbish, that would be equally suicidally dangerous. The teams did the right thing in pulling out...all that had to be done was another batch of tyres to be sent out. It was reported this would happen...so where did they get to? Lost by BA?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
dcoulthard19,Jan 26 2007
06:11 PM
Michelin obviously got caught out but like I said they did take responsibility, how many companies would have done that?

Michelin taking responsibility was a PR stunt to appease all of the pissed off fans and sponsors. It was also a nice way of absolving the FIA who were to blame for the situation escalating out of control.

Nobody is denying that Michelin brought the wrong tyre to the event, but as The Saint says, they did not have the benefit of a month's worth of "testing" at the Brickyard like Bridgestone did. Furthermore, the FIA did everything they could that weekend to ensure that the situation degenerated into farce. Proposed solution after proposed solution was rejected on the grounds that it would be "unfair" to the three backmarker ;-) teams that still used Bridgestones. The fans who had paid to be there and the millions of viewers at home were deliberately screwed over, just so that Bridgestone and the FIA could score a few political points over Michelin.

"Slowing down" in Turn 13 was never an option. Racing drivers are paid to go fast, and what would have happened if someone didn't slow down enough? Not to mention the enormous difference in speed between the Michelin and Bridgestone runners.

Michelin were to blame for bringing the wrong tyres. But they were in no way to blame for the situation that occurred on race day - that was fully the fault of the FIA, who refused categorically to do anything about the situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply