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 (843 Views)
safc_fan89
Member Avatar
safc_fan89
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It summed up why the FIA is not popular. I guess F1 is just lucky that there was some support for F1 in America afterwards, because Indy 05 was a complete mess and I think showed that F1 is FAR too political, with no-one prepared to compromise. The fans should always take priority.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
02:43 AM
There is no melodrama here John,


Oh come on.... 'more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life' is a tiny bit melodramatic.....

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
02:43 AM
Bridgestone were well aware that there was a safety concern at Indianapolis and they kept the data under wraps...


Am I wrong in not accepting your appraisal of Bridgestone's actions... Sorry Alan, I didn't know you worked for Bridgestone and where privy to what happens behind closed doors and what it said or didn't say in conversation with the FIA and it's competitors....

I do apperciate that you believe they held back or had no discussions with Michelin... but you don't actually know... none of us do.

But I take back what I said about going slower in T13.... not practical... but Rob had a point about the Firestone clad teams in IRL racing in the opposite direction on different rubber....

how BS could design a tyre for F1 cars to travel in the opposite direction is a mystery

What do I think...

Michelin designed a tyre in 2005 that was far superior to the B'stone... and at every circuit they proved that... but maybe... just maybe... the 'flaw' in the B'stones that made them so crap elsewhere is excatly what made them superior at Indy.... more a case of they didn't design a better indy tyre.... they 'lucked in' and that the track conditions (at Indy) where so different to any other track that year... it worked.... B'stone where as shocked as anyone they won.

This, of course, is only another theory for the melting pot.... <whistle>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
Red Andy,Feb 28 2007
01:48 AM
that was fully the fault of the FIA, who refused categorically to do anything about the situation.

What would you have them do? Michelin screwed the pooch, and then successfully transferred the blame to the FIA, Ferrari, and apparently B'stone.

The idea of a chicane would have never worked, and if I was an attorney for Tony George I would have advised him not to let the FIA build one on his track. Michelin told their teams not to race because of safety concerns, but then asked IMS to install and untested chicane and absorb all of the legal liability that went with it, leaving Michelin smelling of roses, when they are the ones that started the sh*t parade. Anyway Michelin never intended for the chicane to be built, why else would Truli have qualified on some 3-4 laps of fuel? Pure spin on their part.

Furthermore how could Michelin be 100% certain their tires would last even with the chicane? After all their tires that were supposed to be able to last 73 couldn't last 10 (according to Michelin) so how are we to trust them that they knew what the hell they were doing?

It was very unfortunate but the outcome was the least farcical possible. The chicane idea was crap from the word go, not legally possibly (I'm not talking about FIA rules here, I'm talking about IMS being sued if anyone was hurt as a result of the chicane). Having the Michelin teams under yellow in turn 13 was idiotic at best. Giving the points to all the non-Michelin runners was worthless for the threat of future appeals (don't even act like it wouldn't have happened, if Toyota had finished 3 points behind Ferrari in the WCC but finished ahead of them at Indy).

Perhaps Bridgestone could have given tires to all 20 teams, but I don't know if they had enough, plus there may have been issues with other sponsor tie ins, so you may have had teams dropping out to save a sponsor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Quote:
 
Oh come on.... 'more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life' is a tiny bit melodramatic.....

Not melodramatic John, and neither is it a tool for you to use in order to rubbish my point.
Quote:
 
Am I wrong in not accepting your appraisal of Bridgestone's actions... Sorry Alan, I didn't know you worked for Bridgestone and where privy to what happens behind closed doors and what it said or didn't say in conversation with the FIA and it's competitors....


Well John I don’t work for Bridgestone but nor do you, so in that respect we have to work with what we can see in front of our noses. In front of my nose I see Bridgestone bitch-slapped all season long but coming to one particular race with the perfect tyre choice. That particular race is one where they have had a months worth of data from the INDY 500 cars who were all Bridgestone shod. We also see Michelin come to the race with too soft a compound for this VERY abrasive track. We also have Michelin admitting they were caught out with the wrong tyre choice and we see Bridgestone cars take the win in a season when they would have won sweet FA! Now come on John, your blindness when it comes to anything to do with Schumacher is common knowledge, but even you cannot deny what is as plain as the nose on Kubikas face!

Quote:
 
I do apperciate that you believe they held back or had no discussions with Michelin... but you don't actually know... none of us do.


But we do know John, had their been a discussion, Michelin would have had a much harder compound tyre.

B
Quote:
 
ut I take back what I said about going slower in T13.... not practical... but Rob had a point about the Firestone clad teams in IRL racing in the opposite direction on different rubber....


The way the track was cut was WW’s theory not mine and not something you can use to rubbish what I am saying. Regardless of the rubber, Bridgestone had all the information they needed on the track abrasion coming up to the USGP.

Quote:
 
how BS could design a tyre for F1 cars to travel in the opposite direction is a mystery


Another silly attempt to rubbish my points, what are you talk about John?

Quote:
 
Michelin designed a tyre in 2005 that was far superior to the B'stone... and at every circuit they proved that... but maybe... just maybe... the 'flaw' in the B'stones that made them so crap elsewhere is excatly what made them superior at Indy.... more a case of they didn't design a better indy tyre.... they 'lucked in' and that the track conditions (at Indy) where so different to any other track that year... it worked.... B'stone where as shocked as anyone they won.


I don’t accept that any more than I accept the world is flat.

Sorry John, I know I have a blind spot for Button, but I would not sit here and defend the indefensible.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
Competitors are under no legal or moral obligation to share any data whatsoever. Any idea that Bridgestone should have given their data from running IndyCars on the track to Michelin is merely sour grapes and a massive over-simplification of the situation. Of course, had Ferrari been running Michelin, and Renault on Bridgestones, then the very same haters would be laughing rather than crying over spilt milk....

roflmao
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
09:19 AM
Quote:
 
Oh come on.... 'more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life' is a tiny bit melodramatic.....

Not melodramatic John,

I have to disagree, it is a little melodramatic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM
Not melodramatic John, and neither is it a tool for use to try and rubbish my post..


That phrase was characterized by exaggerated emotions...(i.e. it was melodramatic...) by calling it so I was not using it as a tool to try and rubbish your post... mearly highlighting its dramatic impact.

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

Well John I don’t work for Bridgestone but nor do you, so in that respect we have to work with what we can see in front of our noses.....


So we are even then....

You don't know and I don't know....

the rest is just your opinion on what you surmise might have happened... but cannot prove.... just as I also cannot prove it did not happen.... but I don't have to accept it as fact that it did...

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

had their been a discussion, Michelin would have had a much harder compound tyre..


Again.... we don'y know anything of the sort...

Michelin may have felt... given their impressive season so far.... that they knew better than to listen to B'stone.... they where after all rivals.


The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

The way the track was cut was WW’s theory not mine and not something you can use to rubbish what I am saying. Regardless of the rubber, Bridgestone had all the information they needed on the track abrasion coming up to the USGP..



Every counter argument is just that... it is not rubbishing you our your view...

As for the track condition information... B'stone had all the information on how that effected IRL cars going in the one direction....

But they had NO data on a B'stone shod F1 car going in the opposite direction...

none... ziltch.... nada

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

I don’t accept that any more than I accept the world is flat. .


I didn't offer it as a fact... merely another theory...

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

I would not sit here and defend the indefensible.


But you defend Michelin.... <thumbs>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Norbert,Feb 28 2007
03:26 PM
Competitors are under no legal or moral obligation to share any data whatsoever. Any idea that Bridgestone should have given their data from running IndyCars on the track to Michelin is merely sour grapes and a massive over-simplification of the situation. Of course, had Ferrari been running Michelin, and Renault on Bridgestones, then the very same haters would be laughing rather than crying over spilt milk....

roflmao

Ahhh Norbert, worst post of the day, my points are nothing to do with hate.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

John,Feb 28 2007
03:59 PM
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM
Not melodramatic John, and neither is it a tool for use to try and rubbish my post..


That phrase was characterized by exaggerated emotions...(i.e. it was melodramatic...) by calling it so I was not using it as a tool to try and rubbish your post... mearly highlighting its dramatic impact.

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

Well John I don’t work for Bridgestone but nor do you, so in that respect we have to work with what we can see in front of our noses.....


So we are even then....

You don't know and I don't know....

the rest is just your opinion on what you surmise might have happened... but cannot prove.... just as I also cannot prove it did not happen.... but I don't have to accept it as fact that it did...

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

had their been a discussion, Michelin would have had a much harder compound tyre..


Again.... we don'y know anything of the sort...

Michelin may have felt... given their impressive season so far.... that they knew better than to listen to B'stone.... they where after all rivals.


The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

The way the track was cut was WW’s theory not mine and not something you can use to rubbish what I am saying. Regardless of the rubber, Bridgestone had all the information they needed on the track abrasion coming up to the USGP..



Every counter argument is just that not rubbishing you our your view

As for the track condition information... B'stone had all the information on how that effected IRL cars going in the one direction....


The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

I don’t accept that any more than I accept the world is flat. .


I didn't offer it as a fact... merely another theory...

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
03:19 PM

I would not sit here and defend the indefensible.


But you defend Michelin.... <thumbs>

But this is bunkum John, we do know that Bridgestone had a perfect tyre and that Michelin had a potentialy lethal one...have a look at Ralf on T13 if you have any doubts about that.

We dont have to see the sun behind the clouds to know it is there.

The fact is that Brisgestone knew how abrasive and therefore dangerous the track was and did not warn anyone of that.

If they had, Micehlin would have supplied a SAFE tyre.

But they did not.

We are not even in any way

Quote:
 
But they had NO data on a B'stone shod F1 car going in the opposite direction...

none... ziltch.... nada


Only if you go with WW's theory, please dont confuse our two quite seperate posts.

And I am not defending Michelin, I am highlighting what was a mess and what caused it. I dont look at it as Bridgestone V. Michelin or Ferrari V. the rest or in your case Schumacher V The rest. Please dont confuse my motives with your M/O.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
But this is bunkum John

Now who is rubbishing others arguments... This is not 'bunkum' it is counter argument....

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
we do know that Bridgestone had a perfect tyre and that Michelin had a potentially lethal one...

again with the melodramatic language...

B'stone had the right tyre... Michelin had the wrong tyre... sometimes shit just happens

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
have a look at Ralf on T13 if you have any doubts about that.


Ralf crashing in T13 at indy is the rule not the exception... he has had terrible races at Indy regardless


The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
We don't have to see the sun behind the clouds to know it is there.

True.... but we are not denying the sun exists... even I cannot make that link...

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
The fact is that Bridgestone knew how abrasive and therefore dangerous the track was and did not warn anyone of that.


Again... we know absolutely nothing for sure.... but we guess a lot.

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM

We are not even in any way


not from where I'm standing.... so again I guess perception of a situation varies

The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:11 PM
And I am not defending Michelin, I am highlighting what was a mess and what caused it.


Fair enough... I just disagree with what you say caused it...

Now in fairness others on here have also disagreed with your assesment on B'stone as a cause...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
This is my last post in this thread, I've made nearly all the points I care to make, no has refuted them, so I am going to reason that everyone knows I am correct.

Saint your theory simply has to many assumptions to be valid. This is not a personal attack on you, just your opinion on this matter.

As I said in the other Surely Not!
"Michelin should have (if they didn't) known that the Indy surface was re-paved. They simply did not do their research, with half a tire, concrete, a few meters of rope, and a force gauge Michelin could have calculated the coefficient of friction on the track. Since the angle of turn 13 has not changed for at least 75 years, knowing the approximate forces that would have been applied to the tire is a simple physics equation (assuming Michelin has physicists in their employment).

If anyone was "more interested in a 'win at any cost' policy than the safety of the drivers" it was Michelin by choosing not to error on the side of safety. "

Michelin's oversight does not IMO constitute any failure on Bridgestones part.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic, <bye> I'm confident in the members of this board to keep it civil. <clap>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
The Saint,Feb 28 2007
04:01 PM
Norbert,Feb 28 2007
03:26 PM
Competitors are under no legal or moral obligation to share any data whatsoever.  Any idea that Bridgestone should have given their data from running IndyCars on the track to Michelin is merely sour grapes and a massive over-simplification of the situation.  Of course, had Ferrari been running Michelin, and Renault on Bridgestones, then the very same haters would be laughing rather than crying over spilt milk....

roflmao

Ahhh Norbert, worst post of the day, my points are nothing to do with hate.

And your post knocks mine off the top spot due to the usual farmyard smell......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theghostofnuvolari
Member Avatar
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well I'm going to say that I completely agree with Rob here.

So there.

My logic runs as follows:

Michelins budget for F1 = $50 million ?

Cost of sending team of technicians with testing aparatus to Indy $50,000 ?

Cost of phone call to Indy to ask about any changes to the track since 2004 $5.00 ?

Michelin didn't do the adequate research and actually given the stupidity of NOT calling Indy, they probably did do some research, and just got it completely and utterly wrong.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Saint
Unregistered

Rob I have never argued your points because I have never looked at them.

What we do know and is irrefutable, even by John is:-

1/ Bridgestone shod cars had one whole months worth of testing and racing on the newly laid and freshly cut Indianapolis track.
2/ Michelin had no testing on the newly laid Indianapolis track.
3/ The surface was potentially lethal to cars with the Michelin softer compound tyres. If you doubt this, please go and have another look at the Ralf Schumacher crash on turn 13 that year and also the other tyre deflations. Also go and look at the Michelin press releases where they state that they could not guarantee the safety of their tyres for more than a few laps.
4/ Bridgestone had the perfect tyre for the extremely abrasive track. More abrasive than anyone could have figured out without the 1 months worth of data from the Indy 500. Not something you could work out with a calculator as Rob has stated. Maybe we should abandon testing and test by calculator instead.
5/ Michelin did not.
6/ Bridgestone tyres were extremely uncompetitive in 2005, only in one race were they the better tyre to have, and that was Indianapolis.
7/ I am not motivated my the aforementioned ‘hatred’ or by a us v. them mentality here.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Rob,Feb 28 2007
04:49 PM
This is my last post in this thread....

Coward... <thumbs> .. I too am tired of it now... <huh> it is just repeating itself now so I'm done
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply