2005 United States Grand Prix

rpstewart · 20 Jun 2005 at 14:59

I've just read the official FIA press release about the GP. The solution, in the eyes of the governing body, was that the Michelin runners should have raced but gone through turn 13 at a reduced speed. The FIA claim that this would have meant that there would still have been a race. How is this possible? 6 cars running at 200mph and 14 at 120mph - not much of a race in my opinion.

No mention, of course, of the potential dangers of this and I would also assume that the Michelin teams would not have been given the opportunity to change their setups or gearing to take account of this.

At the end of the day there's no doubting that Michelin are the party at fault but I can't help feeling that no one has come out of this in a good light and that there were plenty of opportunities to do something which would have left a better taste in the mouths of the fans both at the track and on TV.

D4VE · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:14

Problem is, the lack of downforce at a reduced speed means the grip would be poor. They are nothing like normal cars, they must go round quickly or very slowly.

I suppose they could have imposed a very low speed limit round the bend for ALL cars.
Surely that would have been better than what they did in the end...

MTA99 · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:15

The regulations are here:

http://formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/13/995.html

Can't find any clear indication of what the parade lap is. Seems to suggest that it isn't part of the race but doesn't explictally say it.

Cheers

Dutch Guy · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:18

rpstewart said:
I've just read the official FIA press release about the GP. The solution, in the eyes of the governing body, was that the Michelin runners should have raced but gone through turn 13 at a reduced speed.

That is just stupid, without a chicane you know they will not reduce speed, when someone is chasing a Ferrari thru turn 13 he isn't going to slow down every lap :confused:

MTA99 · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:18

This makes interesting reading:

Q: (Joe Saward – F1 Grand Prix Special) Can I ask all three of you, if your tyre manufacturer said to you that your tire couldn't make it more than ten laps, would you race?
MS: No, there's no point.
TM: No, you can't take the risk and probably anyway your team owners wouldn't let you race anyway. It's a big responsibility.
RB: There was only one solution. If the problem was on 13, just come into the pits every lap.
MS: Yeah.
RB: And then they would finish seventh and eighth.
MS: Honestly I understood from talking to one of the drivers that despite turn 13, they would have had the problem anyway, with chicane or without chicane.

From here: http://formula1.com/race/news/3206/740.html

Can you imagine 14 cars running thru the pit lane every lap! :eek:

With suggestions like these its no wonder they didn't reach an agreement.

Cheers

Dutch Guy · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:30

MTA99 said:
Can you imagine 14 cars running thru the pit lane every lap!

They should just race with the speed limiters on, kinda like the truck races

Richard T · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:33

or just raced the paddock scooters!!

Gregeff · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:46

ashtray_head said:
or just raced the paddock scooters!!

hehe, i said that in the race. All the michelin runners should have got their scooters and started their own little race in the carpark

Richard T · 20 Jun 2005 at 15:54

would have been a lot more interesting

Richard T · 20 Jun 2005 at 16:10

FIA SLAMS MICHELIN FOR "DAMAGING THE SPORT"

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33201

How can the FIA think that 14 cars going through turn 13 slower that the rest is safe? :confused:

This just goes to show that Max mosley has got his head up his ass and has no clue. The FIA and Max failed to see the BIGGER picture and they are that cause of the farce (that could have been avoided) at the weekend.

Shame on you...grrr :mad:

Peg · 20 Jun 2005 at 16:20

SC04 said:
I think Bridgestone turning up for Brazil 2003 without a proper rain tyre is a better example than your FA cup one.
In 2003 the FIA were happy to help an ill prepared Bridgestone, but not Michelin yesterday.

I think you will find that is the other way round. Michelin had only just come back to formula 1 and had no suitable wet tyres so did not bring any.

Bash · 20 Jun 2005 at 16:30

Peg said:
I think you will find that is the other way round. Michelin had only just come back to formula 1 and had no suitable wet tyres so did not bring any.

Source:- http://www.usgpindy.com/news/story.php?story_id=1118

"Tire dispute: To save costs, the rules this year allow Bridgestone and Michelin to each bring only one specification of wet-weather tire to each Grand Prix. Both companies brought tires ideally suited for light rain and damp track conditions, and the tires simply could not cope the heavy rain that fell during Friday’s morning’s practice.

Several drivers circulated a letter saying that Friday afternoon’s qualifying should be postponed if it was raining too heavily. Not all the drivers saw the letter, and not all of them agreed to sign it.

“Everybody thought it was too wet at the beginning,” Juan Pablo Montoya said. “We were a bit concerned with the tires we had that it was going to be recklessly dangerous. But it dried enough to run.”

Jacques Villeneuve took the position that the show must go on. 1995 Indianapolis 500 winner Villeneuve maintained that the danger level was greatly reduced because the cars run one at a time during qualifying.

“I heard about it (the letter), and my comment was, ‘Don’t even bother me with that,’” he said. “We are here to give a show. F1 has been hurting, so not going out in qualifying would not have helped F1. People would think we’re just a bunch of sissies. We’re paid a whole lot of money, and it would be an insult to the fans.

“If it’s dangerous, then just drive slowly. There is only one car on the track at the time. What’s dangerous about that?”

It is a different matter in the race, Villeneuve said, because then a stalled car could be hidden in all the spray thrown up by the cars.

Many drivers said the rules should be changed to allow two types of wet-weather tires: one for heavy rain and one for light rain.

Reacting to all the talk about rain tires, the FIA put out a statement that said: “In October, 2002, the F1 teams unanimously voted to change the rules to limit wet tires to one type. Given the wet-weather conditions commonly experienced in Brazil, it is perhaps surprising that the teams decided to bring intermediate rather than wet tires.”

The FIA is unlikely to change the rules to permit two types of rain tires, but it may specify a minimum tread depth for rain tires in the future. "

Peg · 20 Jun 2005 at 17:51

Michelin did not have competitive wet weather tyres for that season so used the rules of only having one wet tyre to there advantage. They knew that if it rained heavily the the safety car would come out and slow the race for safety reasons. Bridgestone had no choice but to follow suit because they were never going to get the chance to use there full wet. The safety car was not bought out for Bridgestones benefit over Michelin as suuggested in earlier posts in this thread.

vanpeebles · 20 Jun 2005 at 18:11

i was thinking about this and the whole affair was badly handled which we all know. michelin had a fault which was their problem but it was also potentially fatal flaw. they held up there hands 48 hours before the race, and i said look we just cant assure people about these tires people could get hurt. the whole mixup that followed was amazing.

now what i was thinking was this, if your another company making parts for a number of F1 cars and you discover theres a possible flaw in your part which could lead to an accident, do you keep hush and hope for the best or dare to warn people and suffer with all the crazy goings on.

mmj_uk · 20 Jun 2005 at 18:41

They should have just given the Bridgestone runners points for positions 1-6 and Michelin points for positions 7-20 based on their qualifying times. Then they should have had a chicane installed and held a non-championship race.

With this you get virtually the same outcome for the drivers/constructors championship tables, EXCEPT THE FANS GET TO WATCH THE GRAND PRIX THEY PAYED FOR.

It was Michelins fault but the handling of this whole affair is simply farcicle and it as good as says they don't give a flying fig about the travelling fans.

I would like to see all the cars of similar spec (capped engine) so we can actually find out who is the best driver and not who had the best car any given year, then bring back all the good things that have been eradicated over the years such as choice of 4-5 tyre compounds, 1hr/12 lap qualifying, get rid of driver aids, bring back slick tyres (the grooves are supposed to slow cars down but this year they are faster than ever, so GIVE DRIVERS SOME GRIP BACK SO THEY CAN OVERTAKE WITHOUT SLAMMING INTO SOMETHING FFS). I'm sure there is so much more about F1 that has turned bad in recent times, ITV's pants coverage being another.

There are just too many morons running F1 unfortunately.

Gregeff · 20 Jun 2005 at 19:06

^^somone who speaks some sense!!^^

rpstewart · 20 Jun 2005 at 19:19

I've just read the latest from Ferrari and the FIA but I'm struggling to understand the wording of the statements.

FIA said:
Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race.

Jean Todt said:
I would say three options. One, they could have changed their tyres. Two, they would have to compromise in this specific corner.
And three, they could have used the pitlane. If these cars cannot take this corner, what can I do? You would have had a race.

Can someone please explain to me how you have a race when 14 of the cars are running at a reduced speed.

How was this meant to put on a show for the crowd at the track who had no idea what was going on? At least when the Michelin teams didn't take the start it was clear they weren't going to race. What would the crowd reaction have been if they all drove slowly through turn 13 for 73 laps then running at full speed for the rest of the lap?

[ASSE]Hinchy · 20 Jun 2005 at 20:06

The Michelin cars, making up the majority of the race, would have been competing against each other as they would all have had to slow down for that corner.

The Bridgestones would have been able to carry on as usual since they didn't get anything wrong.

As has been said, it would have been dangerous as drivers wouldn't like sticking to their limit.

I'd thought about the scenario presented above by mmj_uk yesterday and it would clearly have been the best approach. However, there would still have been a danger as drivers would not have driven much with the chicane before and the Bridgestone cars might be compromised due to not being tuned for such a track...

goreblast · 20 Jun 2005 at 20:38

the turn 13 thing - you could have a two lanes so to speak - a right hand slow lane for the Michelin cars who must go through it every lap and stay below a certain speed which if they exceeded they would be black flagged on safety grounds. Then you would have the outer racing line lane for all the bridgestone cars to drive as normal.
Discuss

KnightStalker · 20 Jun 2005 at 21:02

goreblast said:
the turn 13 thing - you could have a two lanes so to speak - a right hand slow lane for the Michelin cars who must go through it every lap and stay below a certain speed which if they exceeded they would be black flagged on safety grounds. Then you would have the outer racing line lane for all the bridgestone cars to drive as normal.
Discuss

How would the marshals and officals make sure they got the speed correct, it just wouldnt have worked, they would have needed a seperate speed gun for each car or something to make sure they had the speed correct...plus what happens when you have 2 or more cars very close, how would they know the correct speed for each car. in theory it would work, but in reality it just wouldnt.