The US Grand Prix

[PSH]

Originally Posted by Stew

But what actually changes in a tyre? Compound? I understand this to some extent, but how can a tyre change so much between each race?

The reason the Michelin tyres were deemed unsafe was because of the thickness of the tyre wall around the side of the tyre, Michelin have gone for a thinner tyre wall all season giving them greater strait line speed but reduced reliability compared to the Bridgestone's and the tyres couldn't handle the extra g-force generated by the banked corner.

I don't know how anyone can blame Ferrari they were out there at the start of the race for the same reason that the Michelin runners were, any car that fails to start the race incurs a $250,000 fine (thats per car), if I were at the race more of my rage would be aimed at the cars that gave fans false hope of seeing a full roster for the race by taking part in the warm up lap then heading for the pits. Ferrari have been at a disadvantage all season in the tyre war and to think that any team would pull out of a race over a rival team/suppliers incompetence is just naive, they have done their job and only carried out what they have intended to do since the beginning, take part in the race and get the maximum points possible.

All the alternatives offered by Michelin and Michelin users were not practical and would put them unfairly on a level playing field with the Bridgestone runners. A makeshift chicane would have been illegal because any change to the track would need to be put through the modern safety procedures and there simply wasn't enough time, if the chicane was found to be the cause an accident they would be liable for not following their own safety standards so that was out of the question from the start.

Michelin have had 4 years of track data to use in designing a suitable tyre and they failed so the buck stops there IMO.

[JC]

Originally Posted by PSH

Michelin have had 4 years of track data to use in designing a suitable tyre and they failed so the buck stops there IMO.

They havent raced on the new diamond cut surface thingymabob that they put down recently.

[PSH]

Originally Posted by JC

They havent raced on the new diamond cut surface thingymabob that they put down recently.

Neither had Bridgestone.

[Rikard]

this race was special in other ways tho.
can you remember the time when no car broke down during the race?
friesacher actually finished! and thats special aswell

[KoeN]

speshal more like.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by PSH

Neither had Bridgestone.

Bridgestone have been much more conservative and uncompetitive than michelin, im sure most teams when faced with the choice of a competitive tyre manufacturer that agressively develops their products in the spirit of F1 and one that tends to take a more middle of the road approach would choose the former (and they have).

[Stew]

Originally Posted by PSH

Neither had Bridgestone.

As have been mentioned though, Firestone (I think) had and were thus able to pass on knowledge.

[PSH]

Good point, I didn't see that.

I just googled for more info on the resurfacing and came across this:

All the problems occurred on the rear left tyre during the two long 90 degree corners leading onto the main straight. The nine degree banking and grooves cut into the surface of the track compounded problems.

It is believed that Michelin may not have properly accounted for the grooves cut into the Indianapolis track to improve grip for Indy cars after the track was resurfaced. Indy cars have smaller down-force generating wings so need more grip from their tyres than Formula One cars.

Bridgestone, the other tyre manufacturer currently in Formula One, did not have similar problems. It is possible that their US subsidary, Firestone, who supplied tyres for an Indy car race after the resurfacing, may have sent information back to their Formula One tyres department in Japan. The three teams running Bridgestone tyres - Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi - were therefore able to compete without any safety concerns.

Judging by what is said here it looks like the Michelin teams could have ran with reduced down force for the race reducing their speeds and increasing the life of the tyres but they were only interested in proposing solutions that would hamper the Bridgestone runners as well.

I still think Michelin will have to shoulder some of the blame for their lack of preparation but maybe the Michelin users could have been more flexible and accepted the Bridgestone teams didn't deserve to be handicapped.

I would like the FIA, Mosely and whoever else has their hand in the rule changes over the last 10 years to wake up or step aside, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport with the latest cutting edge technology but it is being dummed down year after year. Knight Theamion wasn't far of the mark when he said bring back the 1994 rules if they want to recapture the dwindling audiences.

[JC]

Originally Posted by PSH

Judging by what is said here it looks like the Michelin teams could have ran with reduced down force for the race reducing their speeds and increasing the life of the tyres but they were only interested in proposing solutions that would hamper the Bridgestone runners as well.

That would have been a lot of guess work. How slow do you have to go to reduce the tyre wear enough? What are your breaking distances going to be for all the other corners? It would have caused huge problems. Having 6 cars going around those corners at full speed and the rest going at 70% pace would have probably led to a big accident too.

Originally Posted by PSH

the Michelin users could have been more flexible and accepted the Bridgestone teams didn't deserve to be handicapped

They were willing to let the Bridgestone teams start at the front of the grid and have all the points with Michellin runners getting none (i believe).

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by JC

They were willing to let the Bridgestone teams start at the front of the grid and have all the points with Michellin runners getting none (i believe).

True, but they got points anyway

[NEWSBOT3]

SHENANNIGANS!

[wakey]

Originally Posted by JC

They were willing to let the Bridgestone teams start at the front of the grid and have all the points with Michellin runners getting none (i believe).

Even then the bridgestone teams would have been taking a major risk. They would have abided by the rules and brought the right tyres yet would have found themselves in a position where they were racing with drivers who had nothing ti lose and infact could have 'gained' by forcing rivals out of the race. After all to be classified you have to complete 90% of the race and im not sure if you get points if your outside this. Also theres arule that if the race is 'abandoned' with less than 75% done then points awarded are half the normal amount. If the Michellin teams ended up being the only cars on the track at before the 75% mark surely the race would have been considered abandoned and hence reduced points awarded