Indy shame (25+ threads merged into 1)

[eatapc]

Originally Posted by GP Racer

They should have absolutely known about the turn 13 "loading"....No excuse IMO.

Damn right! I knew we'd agree about something, someday.

[GP Racer]

Originally Posted by eatapc

Damn right! I knew we'd agree about something, someday.

As long as we stay out of politics!

The whole side-flex issue is a joke. Zonta spins on the infield, and Ralf does his usual spin in 13 and the race is cancelled? Give me a break! Have any of you ever seen any race, let alone an F1 race, cancelled due to something remotely close to this? And now Michelin is back at practice in France, like nothing has happened, and any penalties to the teams will be delayed till Sept., which is conveniently after the European races? What kind of message does this send to the USGP fan? We were used, and we were robbed.

F1 still has alot of explaining to do...

[Not Rated]

Today Ron Dennis said that the reason was legal. According to Indiana state law, once Michelin could not guarantee the safety of the tyre, the teams could have been sued for putting people's lives in danger even if no accident had actually happenned during the race.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by GP Racer

It all seem's like garbage to me. Michelin has been here before, many times! They should have absolutely known about the turn 13 "loading". The best heads in motorsports should have been able to set their cars up to handle that turn. No excuse IMO.

Speed announcers said that Trulli won the pole at Indy with almost zero fuel on-board. It sounds as though Toyota knew by Friday night that they weren't going to race. There is alot more to this than meets the eye IMO. This is a battle for power in F1, and the fans at Indy were expendable...

I agree that Michelin screwed up badly but this issue of turn 13 has been discussed on this thread and others in detail. I thought that it had been agreed that the surface at that turn had been changed since Michelin had last been there, causing substantially increased loadings. I have also been given to understand, again from many other postings, that Bridgestone had access to data from their sister company, Firestone, which enabled them to address this change in the surface.

I also agree that the the fans were treated abysmally, but I struggle with the idea that Michelin and/or the Michelin teams engineered this, as you imply, as part of the power struggle within F1.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

The whole side-flex issue is a joke. Zonta spins on the infield, and Ralf does his usual spin in 13 and the race is cancelled? Give me a break! Have any of you ever seen any race, let alone an F1 race, cancelled due to something remotely close to this? And now Michelin is back at practice in France, like nothing has happened, and any penalties to the teams will be delayed till Sept., which is conveniently after the European races? What kind of message does this send to the USGP fan? We were used, and we were robbed.

F1 still has alot of explaining to do...

Too many throw away lines here, which may have been acceptable at the beginning of the discussion but are pretty irrelevant now, unless of course, you think that it was Ralf's fault that his tyre blew and that Michelin didn't have a tyre safety issue at all. Also, is it your wish that French fans suffer the same fate that US fans did, because that would be the result of Michelin not being allowed to race there? Why compound the damage? What purpose would it serve? Yes, you were robbed, outrageously so, but you weren't used; you were not even given sufficient consideration in the outcome, which is even worse, and why I have such a big issue with the FIA. I agree that F1 does have a lot of explaining to do but it's unlikely to occur unless all participants in the F1 circus get their heads together to address it.

[R59]

Originally Posted by GP Racer

It all seem's like garbage to me. Michelin has been here before, many times! They should have absolutely known about the turn 13 "loading". The best heads in motorsports should have been able to set their cars up to handle that turn. No excuse IMO.

Since Michelin's last visit to Indy - last year's GP - the track has been resurfaced. The new blacktop wasn't very good with IRL drivers complaining about a lack of grip, so it was diamond cut.

F1 does not test at Indy, it's not a nominated testing venue.

Strangely enough, IRL runs on Flintstones, who are owed, oddly enough, buy Bridgestone. And just by some freak of technology, tyre/grip/loading data would have changed hands.

Michelin would be working on their old 2004 data, plus a finger in the air guess based on the reports in the press, and taking the new F1 rules into consideration where downforce has been reduced.

In my opinion, the FIA decision smacked of favouring cars painted red from Italy *again*.

Talking about F1 becoming a single tyre formula - Bridgestone don't want it, Michelin don't want it, there was talk about Goodyear returning, and wasn't there something about Kumho tyres entering the fray?

Perhaps a way forward for next year would be to test at Indy before the Canadian GP, then by the time they head south over the border again, both/all tyre manufacturers would have tyres that satisfied the requirements.

Still, come 2008, there will probably only be one team in F1, and the rest will be in the GPWC.

Like Stoddy said - it was a farcer.

Let the mud slinging (in the courts) begin.

[Kicking-back]

We've had qualifying for the next race now, so much intrigue to look forward to - and people are still torturing themselves over history! Amazing!

[IL LEONE]

As long as it all gets sorted and measures are put into place to stop this from happening again is all that matters. (as well as the refunds taking place).

[eatapc]

Originally Posted by racing59

In my opinion, the FIA decision smacked of favouring cars painted red from Italy *again*.

Here we go with the Ferrari-hating paranoia again, as if the reasoned discussion that had taken place over the last 69 pages didn't exist. As has been pointed out, Michelin had similar failures previously and Ralf's tires failed in the same spot last year. This year qualifying speeds at the Indy 500 were 5 mph higher than last year with the same spec cars and tires -- widely attributed to the increased grip. Michelin knew this, but screwed up and admitted it. I'll defend Michelin's honesty and their wise PR move to compensate the fans, but there is no defending the engineering.

It's possible that Firestone and Bridgestone shared data after the month-long Indy 500 events, but Firestone didn't change the spec of their tire from last year, and there's no evidence that Bridgestone changed the construction of their tires to suit the Indy Speedway. Both Michelin and Bridgestone were worried about compounds, not basic construction. Any advantage Bridgestone had would have been in achieving a better compromise between tire wear and grip -- something not related to the separation of sidewall and tread.

Michelin could have asked Kevin Forbes, Indy's director of engineering and track construction, to provide some data about the increased grip of the new surface, but apparently Michelin just wasn't worried about it. Michelin remains mum about how they came up with their seriously flawed computer simulations.

Those simulations were so far off base that the Michelin engineers were not willing to come up with a safe maximum speed through Turn 13 on the morning of the race. At that point, using the pit lane was the only option available from a legal standpoint -- and it was a pretty bad option.

Edit: Sorry K-B, just saw your post. You're right. That's why you get the big bucks.

[alfasud]

Thanks for the pics eatapc and for the link to those scanned pics from Autosprint magazine Ted. Great to see something new on the subject after 1000 posts.

Originally Posted by racing59

Since Michelin's last visit to Indy - last year's GP - the track has been resurfaced. The new blacktop wasn't very good with IRL drivers complaining about a lack of grip, so it was diamond cut.

F1 does not test at Indy, it's not a nominated testing venue.

Strangely enough, IRL runs on Flintstones, who are owed, oddly enough, buy Bridgestone. And just by some freak of technology, tyre/grip/loading data would have changed hands.

Michelin would be working on their old 2004 data, plus a finger in the air guess based on the reports in the press, and taking the new F1 rules into consideration where downforce has been reduced.

In my opinion, the FIA decision smacked of favouring cars painted red from Italy *again*.

It might be an interesting theory... for some anyway, but certainly not a theory supported by either Michelin and Bridgestone. From the FIA Friday press conference - France:

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3254/741.html

The following was questions and answers with Pierre DUPASQUIER (Michelin), Hiroshi YASUKAWA (Bridgestone):

Q: But how did you take a tyre that would only last 10 laps to a race that was 73-laps long?
PD: Because we screwed up in evaluating the constraint that the tyre walls were with in particularly Indianapolis. We just misunderstood the problem. It is a very combined situation – not only one factor is involved. A lot of different factors, like longitudinal force, you have third gear, you push very hard on the tyre including the ‘diffs’ and the traction control and everything, then you have an overload on the left side of the car particularly the rear depending on the set up of the car and then you have the banking with cars which are bouncing more or less for aerodynamic purposes and then we just mis-evaluated that particular assembly of factors that at the end of the day was too hard for the new construction that we designed for safe reason for doing the whole race since last year.

No blame placed on the new surface by Michelin then.... maybe it could be one factor among many, but no one is saying that this is the reason a tyre that should have run over 73 laps could only run 10 (or less?).

So what about the Firestone data then?

Q: (Dominic Fugère – Le Journal de Montreal) Question for Hiroshi-san, what was the input of Firestone, who knew very well the Indianapolis track, as they have been there for almost 100 years and they are one of your companies. How much if an input did they have into the construction of the tyres for Indy?
HY: Actually, now, Pierre mentioned that Indycars and Formula One cars are two totally different cars. And also tyres – one on the one side is a totally slick tyre, one side is grooved tyres. Angles for one side are 13 inches in diameter and on the other 15 inches. Then angles, for down force, are also totally different. It is very difficult to transfer to them our technologies. When we go to Firestone producing our Indycar tyre, their concerned just about the Indy 500 or just oval course race tyres, but Formula One technical people are just concerned about Formula One tyres. But of course sometimes we discuss it, but basically not.

In other words none.... no suggestion by either tyre maker that the Firestone data was critical. The other thing that was interesting was the comment by Jean Todd:

Well I heard that it was not only turn 13 that was difficult for the competitors, but also I heard about turn five as well, as some of you may have overheard, or that in this situation you should have taken different tyres or you should have gone through the pit lane, that for me were the two solutions but definitely the race was compromised due to the situation and I mean a chicane would have raised many other problems that were uncovered.

I had my doubts about this statement, so I had a look at the circuit layout:
http://www.formula1.com/race/circuitmap/740.html

Turn 13 - 2.9g
Turn 5 - 3.3g

Could this have been true... a tyre that way having difficulties lasting 10 laps through a 2.9g corner, might have had problems with 73 laps through a 3.3g corner?

[paul-collins]

A couple of things:

People continue to harp on Firestone not changing their tire from last year. I have to point out that as a spec tire in the series, there's no impetus for Firestone to optimize design, and so what this situation says to me is that Firestone's IRL tires were overdesigned last year.

alfasud, the point may be valid about corner loads, but remember that the instantaneous g-loading is only part of the picture: speed (hence heat buildup) and duration of loading also factor in.

[eatapc]

Originally Posted by alfasud

Turn 13 - 2.9g
Turn 5 - 3.3g
... a tyre that way having difficulties lasting 10 laps through a 2.9g corner, might have had problems with 73 laps through a 3.3g corner?

Good post, alfasud!

I've stood at Turn 5 during practice sessions, and it really is amazing to see the cars turning into that corner. Impossibly quick. Surreal. In real life it looks fake, like a post-production special effect. However, the speed is much lower there than in Turn 13, and the g-forces are not sustained for very long. As you know, the Michelin tire failures were due to combination of circumstances, not merely lateral loads.

The rippling wave on the Michelin tires in Turn 13 might be due to some sort of resonance that was not predicted by the Michelin computer simulations. If that's the case, a minor change in a couple of factors (tire pressure and speed) would be the difference between utter failure and perfect safety. Unfortunately, Michelin didn't have the time to figure out why the computer model was so wrong; thus, they declared the tires unsafe without guessing at the speed and conditions that would make them safe -- a cover your ar$s move.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by eatapc

Unfortunately, Michelin didn't have the time to figure out why the computer model was so wrong; thus, they declared the tires unsafe without guessing at the speed and conditions that would make them safe -- a cover your ar$s move.

Yes, but just as importantly, a sensible and safe move! It certainly would be good to know why the computer model was so far out. As for k-b's post, well, a new race is no reason to stop discussion especially as we won't even know the full outcome until the FIA does us the honour of telling us what penalties they intend to impose on the Michelin teams until September.

[Gt_R]

If Michelin refunded and sponsored next year's events for the fans, i'm pretty sure FIA would let the 7 teams off the hook.

[Adam43]

Thread closed.

Please start a new thread when new aspects crop up. This has already started happening.

I'd like to thank everyone for keeping it clean and civil. this is a discussion forum not a place to shout abuse, throw your weight around or start bar room brawls.

When something like this happens it gives us something to get our teeth into. Something a discussion forum should be in its element in!