Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

ok - I've got this idea, these really fragile, but 'state of the art' cars will come & race on the tracks in the USA, the way to sell it is the slick professionalism of the operation, the attention to detail & the technology .....

- and like everyone else, I feel incredibly let down and bewildered

one thing about the diamond cut track - isn't the F1 race run the 'wrong' way, compared to indy/champ ?

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

fair comment , but , aligning this with aircraft failing is a bit far fetched :(



should it make any difference though , of the cars that ran , was tyre wear a problem :angel:

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

major change this year, last year trye changes were allowed on pit stops, this year they have to ast for qualifying and the entire race, so they been redesigned.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

good point , but i still cannot believe that michelin have been so naieve when bridgestone have not :(

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

I think Michelen have no doubt that they messed up. I don't think naivety came into it. They just got their sums wrong. Plain and simple.

Problem is that affected the majority of teams. Tyres are just about the only "common" component in F1. Everything else the teams do is independent. Yes some teams have had parts that may not be reliable in the past, but that places the individual team with that fault at a disadvantage, the rest are free to get on with the job.

The problem here is that Michelin were virtually certain that their tyres would not last. Moreover they knew that if they failed, ther probability would be when they were under most stress, repeating a crash that had already ocurred, with possibly far more serious consequences. IN today's liable world I don't see that Michelen had any other choice but to put their hands up and admit the tyres were unsafe. Comparisons with Boeing, etc just don't relate especially when you consider all the efforts made by airlines to get a high safety record.

The issue is thus not so much that Michelin had a fault, but how F1, the teams and the rule makers handled or failed to handle it.

The press statement from FIA is an appalling whitewash trying to blame everyone and basically saying they had nothing to do with it. http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...200605-01.html

The fact is that their idea that all but 6 cars would have had to run, vastly slower than the others round a high speed bend was practical and safe strikes me as ludicrous. Does F1 not still have the 107% rule (cars slower than 107% of the fastest car do not qualify for the race)? That was there precisely because of the risks of incompatible closing speeds.

I'm sure this one will run and run. It's about the only "interesting" thing to hit F1 for years.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

That "statement" is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the FIA to weasel out of any resonsibility. They claim that Michelin have "brought F1 into disrepute", but the FIA's behaviour makes this pale into insignificance.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

The tyre rule should have been allow tyre changes on pit stops but not allowing to change type, so the extra element of keeping same type of tyre for race stays but it stays safe.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

Surely that is becase Bridgestone got data from Firestone who had already raced on the track but Michelin had no such data.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

you've also got to remember how these tyres are made.. instead of being rubber filled with air they are a carbon fibre material, with rubber around that filled with nitrogen.. chemicals are then bonded with the rubber to and it is the reaction of that chemical with the track that generates heat and grip.. that heat then has to dissipate throught the sidewall of the tyre..

Michelin brought 2 tyres to the track with different chemicals to provide different levels of grip and durability but they were still manufactured in the same way.. the problem was that the build up of heat was greater than they expected because of the new surface and the heat wasn't dissipating through the sidewall.. this led to the tyre failures and was the same with both sets of tyres they brought

Michelin had never run an Indy since last year and obviously they had very litle data on the new surface unlike Bridgestone.. you can't expect them to just make a new tyre in 24 hours in a completely new way they would be even more dangerous

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

Agree completely. The FIA are acting in an appaling manner now rather than doing the right thing and trying to bring everyone back together to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

I don't think that would have made a great difference to this race as Michelin were only able to bond the tyres for 10 laps, so you'd need 7 changes.

From what I can make out this is exactly what they offered to do, but the FIA's position was that each team that used one of these tyres would be penalised for doing so. Damned if you, damned if you don't.

There have been lots of musings about a breakaway Formula 1 franchise (minus Ferrari by all accounts). I think this whole situtation might accelerate this, and we might get back to real motor sport again.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

they brought a new tyre out for Sunday but basically it was made in the same way and so had the same problem

As for the FIA's idea that 14 cars should go through turn 13 slowly that was totally ludicrous and that's from the governing body who are supposed to be there for safety.

As far as I can tell there were 2 solutions.. install a chicane, unfair to Birdgestone, unless the Michelin runnings didn't score points

Run the race at a later date

What would have been ironic would have been if a Bridgestone car had a tye problem during the race.. thankfully no one was injured during the weekend which should be the most import thing

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

They would have been penalised anyway if they ran a different tyre from Sat to Sun...but I thought they did plan to redesign in time for the race...but I may be wrong on this.

Absolutely. That solution would be as dangerous, if not more so than running unsafe tyres.

I guess this is where we will all have our opinions. IMHO, installing the chicane woud have been unfair on the Bridgestone teams if the Michelin teams didn't offer to surrender any points they gained in the race.

I think although it wasn't an ideal situation, it was a most sportsmanlike offer and of course would have pleased 120,000 punters in the stands and tens of millions of viewers around the world. It would have also made the FIA and Ferrari look good, unlike now where they look like the baddies.

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

I think quite alot of the problem stemmed from the attitude of the teams bosses they went to the fia as 9 teams saying 'we wont race unless you put a chicane in'
which to me is the wrong approach, if i was the fia i would of told them where to shove it.
If however they said 'we cant race as it is but we will race if you put a chicane in' they might have gotten a better response, simple as it they tried to bully the fia as for them saying ferrari objected to there proposals, because they're not part of there gang they were NEVER ASKED if they would race with a chicane in.
I dont support ferrari's antics by any means nor do i what the other 9 teams do its just ludicrus

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

yes you are right there but each party was just blaming everyone else..

once they had said they can't race and couldn't come up with a solution for them to all agree on then the FIA as the governing body should have come up with one.. instead they were just as petty and childish and said these are the rules it's your fault.. that attitude didn't help anything either

it also says alot of the attitude of everyone that the 9 teams couldn't stick the the agreement they made and the GPDA, even without Montoya who isn't a member, couldn't have come up with a mass driver pull out to force the FIA into action.

It's just another case, all be it the biggest and most public one to date, of none of the teams being able to look beyond their own selfish interests. The sport really needs a dictator to take charge and just sort the rules out with no political agenda as the teams themselves can't do this as this shows

Re: All F1 2005 Discussions
 

According to what I read on another site in 2003 at the Brazilian GP Bridgestone brought intermediates while Michelin brought a full wet. There was a huge rainfall that day. It was Bridgestones fault for only bringing intermediates so why did Whiting delay the start of the race and then put the cars out behind the safety car to clear water from the track. Obiviously for safety reasons, but surely this was unfair to Michelin, after all a bridgestone driver won the race. So if he did it in that case, why didn't he make a change for safety reasons in this case?