why does everyone say michelin is at fault here?

... was as follows:



"Your inferior equipment at the USGP was the primary cause of the fiasco at IMS today. Yes, the one-tire rules are overly restrictive. However, you knew about those rules going in to the event. You also had plenty of data on the conditions at IMS, and I would think, ample budget to prepare a satisfactory tire. (Bridgestone managed to do it).

I hold you responsible for the failure of the 2005 USGP, and think of you as a major contributor to the likely demise of Formula 1 racing the United States.

This failure on your part to properly do your homework, and to only discover the problems *after* a life-threatening crash, makes me question the quality of all your products.

I'm glad my most recent snow tires were Blizzaks, and not Pilot Alpines. I feel much better about my decision, now.

Oh, and I'd like a refund for my 4 tickets at $75 a piece. I don't think IMS should pay it, since they didn't do anything wrong. I think your company should pay it, since your inferior products were the reason all your customers had to exit the race, at your urging. You broke the contract with the FIA, the IMS, and the racing public, and you should refund our money."

 

Can we end this crap?

1) This is the 5th year of the USGP at Indianapolis.

2) Turn 13 has been the same every year.

3) Michelin chose to skip high speed testing, there is a place called Rockingham in England that would have done just fine.

4) The FIA followed their rules.

5) Ferrai followed the rules.

6) IMS did an incredible job of putting on a F-1 event.

7) Michelin really F####D up this one, they are the first to be blamed.

8) 14 teams chose Michelin, those teams chose not to go with the rules, those 14 teams chose to turn their backs on the fans, those 14 teams should receive huge $$$ penalties, along with every one of their drivers losing every point they have earned so far this year.

9) This is auto racing, there is a risk, equipment can fail. This failure goes way beyond that. This failure is a total lack of preparation, and then expecting everyone else to help you get through your brain fade. Ferrari made

How stupid some of you can be to not understand the truth.

 

Can you back off the name calling dude? Like I said elsewhere, of course it is Michelins fault that the tires had a problem. However it is the job of the FIA to put on the event. If there was a problem such as a bad engine casting on the BMW's, only they would have pulled out of the race and while it would have been a shame, it would have been noted and left at that. The only reason this is a huge deal is because a lot of the teams use Michelin. All teams and all manufacturers of parts are pushing the envelope all the time. Problems will happen, just like BAR with their "fuel tank cheat" and Williams with their illegal brake ducts and many other things. It just so happened that THIS TIME it affected a majority of the field. How many teams have to be affected before the manufacturer who created the problem is drawn and quartered? one? two? half of them?

I think it comes back to the FIA. I think there should be allowances for extenuating circumstances. Lets say its so hot that the engine companies all say their engines cant last 2 races... should some accomodation be made? I think it should, IF it allows the spectacle of the race to go on and ALSO penalizes those who weren't prepared for the race. Playing hardball and not allowing the Michelin runners to run safely was a big mistake. SOME kind of accomodation could and should have been made. I am positive there was a solution out there that allowed Ferrari to have a big advantage, and allowed the whole field to run, and preserved the 'show' of an F1 race. Ferrari was stubborn in preserving their advantage at the expense of the spectacle of the race and it will do them no good. The FIA was stubborn in their insistence on strict and exact compliance with the rules. Michelin was stupid in their mistake. But SOME compromise could have been achived that allowed the race to go on, and allowed Ferrari to have a big advantage (as well they should) for getting it right. Ferrari and the FIA were not willing to allow that, and F1 suffered greatly as a result. I think when that kind of thing happens in your (claimed) most important venue, you need to make some allowances. The FIA is all about putting on the show and some way should have been found that allows the show to be put on while preserving the integrity of the points and the championship.

I'd sure as hell rather have Ferrari whining that the rules were bent (after still getting a 1-2 finish) and fans slamming Michelin but having seen a race, than having no USGP next year.

 

First up, failures were not guaranteed. There are rules available to allow changes for dangerous tyres. Plus there were "only" two full failures I think.

But to answer your question, if I were an F1 driver fighting for the championship, yes I would. I'd get into that car every day to test it, and every race weekend to get as many points as possible.

The drivers do this every single weekend, Bridgestone or Michelin equipped.

In the same way I'd keep my foot to the boards going through Eau Rouge, knowing that being a millimetre out could have bad consequences (ask Jacques) and I'd stay out if I flat spotted my tyres and had bad vibrations with a handful of laps to go (ask Kimi). Etc.

The drivers who I saw interviewed all wanted to race. Crap tyres or not. They understand the risk/reward ratio much better than us armchair pundits, and it's their necks on the line.

Unfortunately the teams took the stance that they could not race. I suspect for fear of litigation should a bad accident happen. This, I think, is somewhat telling and does not augur well for the sport either.

 

A very interesting post. Partisan in the true F1 tradition of "win at any cost" which one has to admire given how imminent the demise of the Euro economic system seems to be. The same one supporting much of F1. It seems to me that the argument as to whether the FIA or consensus should manage the business of F1 is the same one that undelines the difference between NASCAR and F1. NASCAR is about the spectacle, the occasion, and then the people that make that happen particularly the drivers and then the crew chiefs and team owners. Lastly the cars and the sponsors. F1 is almost the other way around. The way racing used to be really. So when the Michelin teams asked for a chicane so they could afford to race, they were in effect asking the organisers to recognize that the race was more important than the result. But in the tradition of the F1 pattern of attempting to be a meritocracy (the fastest and most reliable best driven car should win) the FIA had to say that if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. NASCAR would have forced a compromise for the benefit of the performance.

I predict that the NASCAR model will eventually dominate. But it will need some Euro participation in the form of either a different vehicle formula and/or a Euro team. i dont like it more than the next guy but then I also dont like the performance limitations on F1 cars. Either the best car, driver and team should win or else all cars should be the same like NASCAR. This inbetween stuff is just serendipitous rule definition.

 

Turn 13 has NOT been the same every year. The track was recently diamond ground, IRL and NASCAR both have tested the new surface and found it to provide more grip but at the cost of increased tire wear. Jackie Stewart reportedly called F1 to warn them about the new surface conditions. I have no confirmation of that.

I'm not defending Michelin, only adding a point of HOW they may have ended up in this situation. Perhaps Bridgeston got some info from the INDY 500 Firestone teams? Dunno. Perhaps Michelin didn't get a chance to test their tires on the new surface? Dunno.

Regardless, yesterday's race of 6 cars set F1 in the USA back 30 years IMO.

 

http://www.michelinf1.com/
or
http://www.michelin-us.com/ > Motorsports

F1 - Sunday / Dimanche - Publication

Sunday June 19, 2005
Michelin puts the accent on the safety at the United States Grand Prix

Michelin is very disappointed about the way the United States Grand Prix turned out at Indianapolis, Ind., today for the public, the drivers and the teams.

Michelin is sorry that the tires it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions this weekend, but driver safety is always a priority. Michelin will never change its stance on this principle, whether we are talking about tires for competition or any other purpose.

It is regrettable that our pre-race suggestions, agreed in conjunction with our partner teams, were not adopted. Had our ideas been followed, we could have guaranteed driver safety, the participation of our teams and added interest for the public.

Michelin would like to thank its seven partner teams for their close collaboration, for having made propositions to the FIA and for having respected our advice on safety issues.

Michelin will continue to investigate the technical reasons for the tire-related incidents that affected Toyota during Friday’s free practice.
_______________

Dimanche 19 juin 2005
Grand Prix F1 d’Indianapolis

Michelin met l’accent sur la sécurité au Grand Prix des Etats-Unis.

Michelin est tout à fait désolé de la manière dont s’est déroulé le Grand Prix de F1 d’Indianapolis, notamment pour le public, les pilotes et les écuries.

Nous regrettons de ne pas avoir fourni les pneus appropriés, mais pour Michelin la sécurité des pilotes est prioritaire. Michelin ne transige pas sur ce principe, que ce soit pour les pneus de compétition ou pour les autres types de pneus.

Il est regrettable que les solutions proposées en accord avec les partenaires n’aient pas été suivies d’effet, ce qui aurait permis d’assurer à la fois la sécurité des pilotes, la compétition entre les écuries et l’intérêt du public.

Michelin remercie ses écuries partenaires d’avoir collaboré étroitement avec eux pour proposer des solutions à la FIA et d’avoir totalement respecté les consignes de sécurité.

Michelin continuera ses investigations pour trouver les raisons techniques qui ont affecté les pneumatiques des Toyota, au cours des essais du vendredi.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I am not a tire engineer and could be completely off base, but the problems they (indy 500/Nascar) have been having are related to tire wear, which is not the problem Michelin was having. Their tires could not handle the stress of the banking, or at least that is what I think the explanation has been. The whole track was resurfaced not just turn 13. Not to say that Bridgestone did not have some info about lasting the race from Firestone, but still that info is probably more related to wear.

 

My understanding is that the OVAL was re-surfaced (diamond ground) not the infield course sections, so that would put turn 13 as the only turn in the GP course that had the new surface. That might explain the issue, might not. As far as the tire grip/wear/strength - I'm out of my league by several miles on that portion of the topic(s). Would the added grip increase the stress on the tire? Dunno.

 

I suppose none of the hundreds of employees of Michelin and the race teams watched/read about any of the almost month long international coverage of the Indy 500. If they had watched it, they would have heard about the resurfacing, and perhaps their brains would have kicked in and thought, "will this resurfacing affect us like it is the IRL cars"? Then they could have researched the issue and designed a proper tire.

If the Michelin teams had really wanted to run the race with a safe tire come race day, why didn't they ask Bridgestone if Bridgestone had any spares lying about?

btw - I wonder if Michelin's website mentions any new job openings in their race tire research division?