| 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: |
| Indy 2005; The REAL reason the tyres failed? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 25 2007, 10:37 PM (843 Views) | |
| safc_fan89 | Feb 28 2007, 08:44 AM Post #16 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| John | Feb 28 2007, 10:22 AM Post #17 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh come on.... 'more important to them was gaining an advantage than a drivers life' is a tiny bit melodramatic.....
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....
|
![]() |
|
| Rob | Feb 28 2007, 02:49 PM Post #18 |
![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| The Saint | Feb 28 2007, 03:19 PM Post #19 |
|
Unregistered
|
Not melodramatic John, and neither is it a tool for you to use in order to rubbish my point.
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!
But we do know John, had their been a discussion, Michelin would have had a much harder compound tyre. B
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.
Another silly attempt to rubbish my points, what are you talk about John?
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. |
|
|
| Norbert | Feb 28 2007, 03:26 PM Post #20 |
![]() ![]()
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Feb 28 2007, 03:38 PM Post #21 |
![]() ![]()
|
I have to disagree, it is a little melodramatic. |
![]() |
|
| John | Feb 28 2007, 03:59 PM Post #22 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
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...
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.
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
I didn't offer it as a fact... merely another theory...
But you defend Michelin.... <thumbs> |
![]() |
|
| The Saint | Feb 28 2007, 04:01 PM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ahhh Norbert, worst post of the day, my points are nothing to do with hate. |
|
|
| The Saint | Feb 28 2007, 04:11 PM Post #24 |
|
Unregistered
|
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
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. |
|
|
| John | Feb 28 2007, 04:41 PM Post #25 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now who is rubbishing others arguments... This is not 'bunkum' it is counter argument....
again with the melodramatic language... B'stone had the right tyre... Michelin had the wrong tyre... sometimes shit just happens
Ralf crashing in T13 at indy is the rule not the exception... he has had terrible races at Indy regardless
True.... but we are not denying the sun exists... even I cannot make that link...
Again... we know absolutely nothing for sure.... but we guess a lot.
not from where I'm standing.... so again I guess perception of a situation varies
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... |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Feb 28 2007, 04:49 PM Post #26 |
![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Feb 28 2007, 05:03 PM Post #27 |
![]() ![]()
|
And your post knocks mine off the top spot due to the usual farmyard smell...... |
![]() |
|
| theghostofnuvolari | Feb 28 2007, 05:06 PM Post #28 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| The Saint | Feb 28 2007, 05:11 PM Post #29 |
|
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. |
|
|
| John | Feb 28 2007, 05:11 PM Post #30 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Coward... <thumbs> .. I too am tired of it now... it is just repeating itself now so I'm done
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







it is just repeating itself now so I'm done

12:31 AM Jul 11