News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Sure, the rules are the rules and must be applied.

The point is, the rules and procedures in place are pathetic. The FIA are holding everyone else to high standards so they themselves can be lazy bastards - thus no contingency last weekend.

I'll bet they don't come down too hard on Wednesday anyway because they know if they do a lot about them will come out and probably all end up in the courts. My money says a stern warning to the teams just so they publically appear to be in charge and void of blame. Then they hope it just all goes away rather than having the teams and Michelin going after them.

Byron Forbes wrote:

The Qualiflyer wrote:

F1greyhound wrote: What would you do from the driving seat(FIA)?

Thats the real question. What would I do? probably nothing different to what was done. This was a left field issue that no contingency plan existed for and it had to happen to identify the possibility of it (or something else of similar magnitude) happening again.

I disagree. I think this was very foreseeable. I'd imagine the teams would have pointed out the possibility of this as soon as being advised of the rules. In any case, it's very easy to see the potential for this outcome.

Even at a normal track, a good dose of rain leaving the track with maximum abrasion, an abnormally hot or even cold day or some sort of change to the surface, and suddenly you have no tyre option that will last for a full race. At Indy, this happened to coincide with a dangerous situation due to a potential catastrophic tyre failure that puts cars into walls. There are a lot of walls to hit after such failures at many F1 tracks!

The FIA are expecting everyone else to be prepared for all possible outcomes and think things thru so...............................

You haven't convinced me Byron.

With two tyres and a 'known' circuit (forget the resurfacing, that only changed grip and wear characteristics, this was load related sidewall failure) no-one would have imagined that the software would have let them down like this. Software? Yep, it was all the 0's and 1's in the modelling tool that got it wrong and that caused Michelin to create two compounds using the same flawed construction.

Given Michelins extremely aggressive approach by having tyres that are right on the edge, they fell over it. Even when the FIA sent the tyre letter off some weeks before it was assumed that the problem with previous failures was tyres failing under unusual duress (ie, due to other causes than the track design). Both suppliers err on the side of conservatism on new tracks but Michelin simply used a model that didn't apply when specifying the tyres for Indi.

I suspect they have found the problem in the model and we will see Michelins performing back closer to Bridgestone for the rest of the season.

As for your notions about rain, temperature etc - those issues are addressed by allowing the teams to change tyres for safety related reasons without penalty. Again those are wear rate related (which was forseen) rather than construction related. Nobody truly believed a supplier could get a component that wrong.

This is no different to times in the past when individual teams have withdrawn because of component failure (eg wing mounts) that couldn't be replicated or addressed in the available time.

So Qualy, have Michelin conceded this publically anywhere yet? Or is it just popular assumption? Have they conceded that, assuming this is right, that it would have occured even if the track was identical to the 2004 race?

Until I see Michelin concede this, I am seeing it as a case of Firestone/Bridgestone being privvy to data about the 2005 track. Firestone/Bridgestone have claimed there is no difference but this is an obvious thing for them to say for the sake of simply not letting Michelin know. Which has a whole heap of other implications reguarding irresponsibility on Bridgestone's part.

Byron Forbes wrote:So Qualy, have Michelin conceded this publically anywhere yet? Or is it just popular assumption? Have they conceded that, assuming this is right, that it would have occured even if the track was identical to the 2004 race?

Until I see Michelin concede this, I am seeing it as a case of Firestone/Bridgestone being privvy to data about the 2005 track. Firestone/Bridgestone have claimed there is no difference but this is an obvious thing for them to say for the sake of simply not letting Michelin know. Which has a whole heap of other implications reguarding irresponsibility on Bridgestone's part.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree I guess. Competitors do not share data and without knowing what information Michelin had (because Michelin didn't tell them either) Bridgestone had no way of knowing that Michelins model was going to produce a dangerous tyre. Bridgestone are in my opinion not only uninvolved but totally blameless. Had they known Michelin would bring a tyre that was potentially hazardous then their position would have been different. They didn't know and they are out of the loop.

The FIA are casting far and wide to find people to blame, it's not surprising to me they haven't made the same accusations you are. Instead they are concentrating on the one target they have access to ... the teams supplied by the company that created the problem.

I agree essentially with Qualiflyer.

I wonder what might of happened if Bridgestone didn't have the benefit of Firestones recent knowledge of the new track surfacing?
Michelin didn't have the opportunity to do any on track testing before the meeting.

It is quite possible that the new track surface with it's diamond cut facing and the combination of the high speed banked curve has increase the grip level of the track surface to be more than any other circuit that F1 race on. this grip/slip ratio level being greater than that Michelin could model for.

Logic tells me that, if the tread surface of the tyre has increase it's adhesion threshold to the track surface, the more the stress is transfered the the wall of the tyre. (like holding a rubber band in you fingers with varing degrees of pressure and stretching. the tighter the grip the more the band will stretch before slipping from your grasp, until your grasp is strong enough that the band will break.) Running a lower tyre pressure will increase the grip level of a tyre, and also weaken the tyre wall roll resistance.

I would be interested to know if the speeds through turn 13 were higher than before the resurfacing, or what the G-forces were, I know that the overall lap times were simmilar to recent years, however . Does anybody know this?

We have to remember that this new tyre rule is only in it's first year . I can't remember the last time when tyres were required to last whole race distances. So this is new territory for the tyre makers this season, and we have seen the to & fro's of this all year. All component manufactures are trying to find that fine tuned balance between performance and reliability, It is essentially the art of engineering, and the fundermental basis of this whole motorsport game.

Again with a new rule concept like this, and I guess it should be considered to be on a kind of probation, there has not been enough leniency or any contingancy plans built into the ruling structure to deal with these teething problems.

Today(Sunday) on Australia's local Motorstort round up RPM, Russel Ingal(multi Bathurst 1000 winner) of the V8 Supercar league expressed his astonishment that the USGP ended as it did. He explained that in the V8's they would do what ever it takes to make sure a race will run, fans come first. F1 have yet to realise this.

If a chicaine made it possible for the Michelin teams to run than that was a viable option whether it disadvantaged the Bridgestone teams or not. anyhow, it would of only disadvantaged the Bridgestone teams back to a level playing field anyway.

How is it the one team (Ferrari) can hold a 90% majority to ransom by counter voting on a proposal.

You have presented a well constructed, sensible ,logical theory for the tyre failures, and kept emotion out of it. It looks quite out of place! Your question about ferrari is my bone of contention. In latter years Ferrari SEEMS to show scant concern for the F1 fans. Perhaps it considers the Tifosi will forgive all as long as Ferrari wins

Byron Forbes wrote:

GhoGho wrote:

Byron Forbes wrote:
That's what it all comes down too, no matter what anyone says!

Byron, I hope they never resurface your street, you might never be able to go anywhere safely again......

Well, if they did, and the bloke in the house across the street (who worked for Bridgestone) knew about a pothole I was about to walk into, we could rest assured he'd stand back and say nothing. The only question is would he laugh his head off or feel guilty?

Maybe he thought you would know about the pot hole. Or perhaps you could look where you are walking.

F1 Greyhound you are right about the cinisism which is rapidly turning into frustration. In my mind the problem sheets home to the Concorde agreement that is no longer valid. There is no other group that can do anything about this other than the FIA and Max is the boss. Who else can we blame?
The new rules are all about trying to work around Concorde, money and the politics that is inevitable with the money involved. Maybe I am a purist but I would like to believe than someone at the FIA has the sense to see that the root of the problem needs addressing. That person should be Max. That is his job and if he can't do it or does not want to do it he must make place for someone who will at least try.
On the question of should Bridgestone have told Michelin? Well that depends on if F1 is a sport or a war. The sporting thing to do would have been for Japan to notify the US a year before they attacked Pearl Harbor. That was a war.
The more important question is: Did Bridgestone know that the effect of not telling Michelin would be that profound? I don't think so.
That is always assuming that Michelin did not find out from many of the teams that were racing there before anyway.

The Heretic wrote:F1 Greyhound you are right about the cinisism which is rapidly turning into frustration. In my mind the problem sheets home to the Concorde agreement that is no longer valid. There is no other group that can do anything about this other than the FIA and Max is the boss. Who else can we blame?
The new rules are all about trying to work around Concorde, money and the politics that is inevitable with the money involved. Maybe I am a purist but I would like to believe than someone at the FIA has the sense to see that the root of the problem needs addressing. That person should be Max. That is his job and if he can't do it or does not want to do it he must make place for someone who will at least try.
On the question of should Bridgestone have told Michelin? Well that depends on if F1 is a sport or a war. The sporting thing to do would have been for Japan to notify the US a year before they attacked Pearl Harbor. That was a war.
The more important question is: Did Bridgestone know that the effect of not telling Michelin would be that profound? I don't think so.
That is always assuming that Michelin did not find out from many of the teams that were racing there before anyway.

if michelin didn't know the conditions then the people working there should start looking for new jobs...they tried to push the limit & got found out

bundy wrote:

The Heretic wrote:F1 Greyhound you are right about the cinisism which is rapidly turning into frustration. In my mind the problem sheets home to the Concorde agreement that is no longer valid. There is no other group that can do anything about this other than the FIA and Max is the boss. Who else can we blame?
The new rules are all about trying to work around Concorde, money and the politics that is inevitable with the money involved. Maybe I am a purist but I would like to believe than someone at the FIA has the sense to see that the root of the problem needs addressing. That person should be Max. That is his job and if he can't do it or does not want to do it he must make place for someone who will at least try.
On the question of should Bridgestone have told Michelin? Well that depends on if F1 is a sport or a war. The sporting thing to do would have been for Japan to notify the US a year before they attacked Pearl Harbor. That was a war.
The more important question is: Did Bridgestone know that the effect of not telling Michelin would be that profound? I don't think so.
That is always assuming that Michelin did not find out from many of the teams that were racing there before anyway.

if michelin didn't know the conditions then the people working there should start looking for new jobs...they tried to push the limit & got found out

I find it hard to believe that a company like Michelin was compleley naieve about the state of the Indy track

Here's my two cents' on the fiasco at the USGP--Indy....

It seems as though the basic problem stems around Michelin's failure to bring suitable tires to race at Indy this year. In this day and age, that is just plain stupid, especially for a major tire supplier such as Michelin. After 5 yrs. of USGP races at the Brickyard, one has to wonder why they couldn't construct tires w/the right compounds for racing there this year; after all, don't these companies keep reams and reams of data on how their tire compounds work on various racing surfaces(i.e. asphalt, tarmac, concrete, etc.). Ironically, Bridgestone, which has had problems galore this year in F1, were quite able to run on the road course, w/both the banked turn 13 and the infield road circuit; why couldn't the FIA, F1 Mgmt. or Race Control at the track require ALL teams to use the Bridgestones for just this race?

As to the point raised by gm on whether Bridgestone had an"advantage" from the testing its' U.S. subsidiary, Firestone, conducted prior to this year's Indy 500, I disagree, for the following reasons:1--The tires Firestone tested(the Firestone Firehawk racing slicks) were not tested on the road course section, but only on the diamond-ground oval; thus, any info gleaned for Bridgestone would've only applied to 1/3rd of the USGP track surface--that's not much of an advantage, if any, and 2--According to an interview currently posted over at AutoRacing1.com's front-page, Bridgestone's Exec. Dir. of Motorsports, Al Speyer, deines that there was any cooperation between Bridgestone and Firestone on what tire compounds would work at the USGP. Since Speyer coordinates the tire preparation/management for both American open-wheel series(ChampCar and the Indy Racing League) he would know if there was any info that Bridgestone's F1 people could've needed to gain advantage over Michelin.

Finally, I agree with the Heretic over the "stupid political games" that the assorted leaders around the Formula 1 world seem to play and how it "(blew) up in their faces". This reminds me of all the politics that were in play when the CART-IRL split occured in the mid-1990's; then, you had the car owners, who couldn't come to a unified decision concerning the series, the rules, or anything else for that matter(other than opposing George and Co.) and Tony George, whose main concern was protecting the few oval races on the schedule(including Indy) from the seeming neglect that the various owners in CART accorded them. Seems as though F1 is headed down that dangerous road; the last thing F1 fans need is a split and two rival series to divide them(it happened here in the States and both series have paid heavily for it ever since).

ML, as I understand it, for the "M" runners to throw B'stone tyres on their vehicles would be akin to you putting square bicycle tyres on your vehicle, the driving at 100mph, and wondering why the suspension failed. The cars are designed around the tyre, and to throw a different breed on what cause major problems and component failure.

damn

IS Fred troubling you again

Posting twice

Kapel wrote:IS Fred troubling you again

Posting twice

Where is that bloody axe?????