News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

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

Bridgestone said there was no potholes and even covered them up with a thin later of bitumen!

mlittle wrote: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.

Point 1/ That's the only relevent part of the track anyway. 2/ Al Speyer is a shining example of honesty is he?

See here - http://www.newsonf1.net/2005/news/06/jun15br.htm

Hisao Suganuma, Technical Manager, said: ?The Indianapolis formula one circuit is quite unique with its high speed oval section followed by a very low speed infield section. At the end of the main straight, cars reach nearly 350km/hr, making heat durability a key issue at Indianapolis. The infield, however, has a series of tight corners which slow the cars down significantly. The whole track has a relatively smooth surface and therefore needs compounds from the softer end of the scale to be competitive. Sections of the circuit have been resurfaced since last year but have been ?diamond ground? to avoid any change in the nature of the track. This has been confirmed by our colleagues at Bridgestone/Firestone North America who have extensive experience of this circuit having recently completed a successful Indy 500. The high speed sections of the circuit, however, can cause high tyre wear so we shall need to think carefully about wear durability. Good grip and wear balance will also be necessary.?

This statement show's they were privvy to info about the track. He talks about the track's resurfacing/diamond ground and he then claims there is no differenrce which is absurd. Bridgestone have an obvious reason to claim that - to deceive Michelin. Hisao Suganuma might be like a U.S. president not told about Area 51 - plausible deniability.

Mate, don't be scared. The bloke behind you has a nice white jacket for you to try on.

Does anyone know of the effects of diamond grounding. As far as what you have said, it has brought the surface of the track back to its original finish. I know you disagree with that statement, but as far as I know (and I know full well I could be wrong) if you diamond ground a surface, you will make it smoother. ie less abrasion.

rah wrote:Mate, don't be scared. The bloke behind you has a nice white jacket for you to try on.

Does anyone know of the effects of diamond grounding. As far as what you have said, it has brought the surface of the track back to its original finish. I know you disagree with that statement, but as far as I know (and I know full well I could be wrong) if you diamond ground a surface, you will make it smoother. ie less abrasion.

Even if it makes it smoother & less abrasive ,this infor should have been provided to Michelin by Firestone/Bridgestone,will be the arguement of some ppl here

Rah its very similar to Renault sharing their traction info with Mclaren for French GP. (In the Name of safety)

rah wrote:Mate, don't be scared. The bloke behind you has a nice white jacket for you to try on.

Does anyone know of the effects of diamond grounding. As far as what you have said, it has brought the surface of the track back to its original finish. I know you disagree with that statement, but as far as I know (and I know full well I could be wrong) if you diamond ground a surface, you will make it smoother. ie less abrasion.

If you think they resurfaced the track so that it could be the same as it was b4 they resurfaced it, then there's no doubt about who's earnt a white jacket award around here.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=190238

Good ole Max has now intimidated the teams stating they will do nothing if they don't like the penalties.

"What are they going to do? If they go on strike, they're simply cutting off their nose to spite their face. That won't happen."

Talk about fueling the fire. It really is all about power and ego rather than the good of F1 with him, isn't it? It's almost as if this is what he wants them to do!

His remarks toward Stoddart are fairly childish too, but at least they are in response to something.

So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

The Qualiflyer wrote:So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

Typical........................bloody FREDS......

The Qualiflyer wrote:So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

Besides which diamond grinding is another term for texturizing, a common practice for road rehab here in the US. People drive on these diamond ground roads every day without any problems. Hell even the michelin runners like me have no problems with these surfaces!

One other interesting thing is that all the other forms of motorsport (Ausie V8's included) have all claimed the show must go on regardless, but here in the states if it had rained at almost any other event the race would have been cancelled or postponed till the following day when fans would not have been able to attend anyway.

Byron Watch out for those potholes

The Qualiflyer wrote:

Byron Forbes wrote:

The Qualiflyer wrote:
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.

Quali, i agree with your assesment of the situation. Turn 13 at Indy is also not realy considered to be a real turn by the drivers due to the banking taking most of the lateral loading away, allowing the high sppeds attained. this would also indicate a structurally flawed tire rather than one affected by grip.

GhoGho wrote:

The Qualiflyer wrote:So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

Besides which diamond grinding is another term for texturizing, a common practice for road rehab here in the US. People drive on these diamond ground roads every day without any problems. Hell even the michelin runners like me have no problems with these surfaces!

One other interesting thing is that all the other forms of motorsport (Ausie V8's included) have all claimed the show must go on regardless, but here in the states if it had rained at almost any other event the race would have been cancelled or postponed till the following day when fans would not have been able to attend anyway.

Byron Watch out for those potholes

Aussie V8s would race if Noah was doing the 2 by 2! They just red flag when more than half the field is littered around the track in various states of undress

Byron Forbes wrote:

mlittle wrote: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.

Point 1/ That's the only relevent part of the track anyway. 2/ Al Speyer is a shining example of honesty is he?

See here - http://www.newsonf1.net/2005/news/06/jun15br.htm

Hisao Suganuma, Technical Manager, said: “The Indianapolis formula one circuit is quite unique with its high speed oval section followed by a very low speed infield section. At the end of the main straight, cars reach nearly 350km/hr, making heat durability a key issue at Indianapolis. The infield, however, has a series of tight corners which slow the cars down significantly. The whole track has a relatively smooth surface and therefore needs compounds from the softer end of the scale to be competitive. Sections of the circuit have been resurfaced since last year but have been “diamond ground” to avoid any change in the nature of the track. This has been confirmed by our colleagues at Bridgestone/Firestone North America who have extensive experience of this circuit having recently completed a successful Indy 500. The high speed sections of the circuit, however, can cause high tyre wear so we shall need to think carefully about wear durability. Good grip and wear balance will also be necessary.”

This statement show's they were privvy to info about the track. He talks about the track's resurfacing/diamond ground and he then claims there is no differenrce which is absurd. Bridgestone have an obvious reason to claim that - to deceive Michelin. Hisao Suganuma might be like a U.S. president not told about Area 51 - plausible deniability.

Nice one!
thanks, now we know a bit about Al Speyer...

The Qualiflyer wrote:So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

Yeah, I read it too. Now can everyone just get over the resurfacing thing. Please.

rah wrote:

The Qualiflyer wrote:So Michelin's official statement has put the track surface issues to bed - They did not mention it!!

Just said their computer got it wrong.

Yeah, I read it too. Now can everyone just get over the resurfacing thing. Please.

It will resurface

Rah, as to your question concerning diamond-grinding of the turn 13 section of the USGP road course....It was, ironically, a topic of concern prior to this year's Indianapolis 500, noted by the abrupt cancelling of a tire-test back in April due to "highly irregular" degradation of the Firestone Firehawk slicks being used for the test. They went back, reworked the track surface(the diamond-grinding) and when the 500 was run, there were absolutely no problems of note w/the tires; in fact, some of the teams were only pitting for fuel on their pit-stops, opting to keep the tires on until the next pit-stop(every other pit-stop, that is).

As to Byron's point...Speyer's been playing both sides of the open-wheel street here in the States'(as I said in the posting, he coordinates the tire mgmt. and upkeep for both series) and knows what kind of tire compounds one would need for any particular surface, and so on...As to whether Bridgestone should've provided Michelin w/its' tire info--if they had gleaned any info, that information's proprietary to Bridgestone; thus, they're under no obligation to provide that info to em'. Also, as the F1 regs go(and if I'm wrong on this, someone let me know), as a competing tire supplier, why should they provide that information at all? Michelin, as I said in the earlier posting, was stupid to send tires to Indy that couldn't meet the track specs. especially as to turn 13. If any one group gets the lion's share of the blame, it should defintely be Michelin, not the seven teams(although they're not blameless), as they could've asked Bridgestone for emergency assistance that day--anything to keep the USGP from becoming the farce that it became.