2005 United States Grand Prix

Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Oh hell - it wasn't the durability of the tyre that was the problem!

There was a fault in the sidewall construction of the carcass of the tyre - BOTH tyres used had the same carcass under the tyre.

Thus both were potentially unsafe.

It was a construction problem not a wear problem.

If there was no fault with the sidewall there would have not been a problem with the race.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2004
Posts
7,606
Dutch Guy said:
All that tells me is that Bridgestone did their homework and Michelin did not, Michelin focused too much on being faster than Bridgestone that they didn't think about the fact the tyres were not hard enough, to me this is just stupid, they just made two compounds that wer both unsafe instead of doing the safe thing and make the hardest of the two a bit harder.

no because bridgestone knew from firestone and in effect had testing data about that track. no F1 team tests at that circuit i believe
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,560
Location
Amsterdam,The Netherlands
Flibster said:
Oh hell - it wasn't the durability of the tyre that was the problem!

There was a fault in the sidewall construction of the carcass of the tyre - BOTH tyres used had the same carcass under the tyre.

Thus both were potentially unsafe.

It was a construction problem not a wear problem.
Fair enough, I said I didn't know the excact situation with the tyres :o

Has the circuit changed so much since last year that it became a problem now?
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Bridgestone and Firestone are 1 company near enough.
Firestone produces tyres for the IRL...

Michelin do not. They had not seen the new surface.

Bridgestone used Firestones data on the new surface.

As for using Indy for testin - it's not a test curcuit as it has to be specially modified for F1 to go there and would cost a fortune to get it done for a test. As it is - Indy GP has never made a profit.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
vanpeebles said:
it had been relaid with some kind of diamond cut surface :)

The track was resurfaced - but the Indy drivers complained at a lack of grip.

So they cut grooves into the surface to make the surface rougher and grippier. Not the best idea tbh.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,152
Location
West Lancashire
Dutch Guy said:
.....One of the reasons overtaking is so difficult in F1 is the fact that if they go 1 meter off the racing line the car understeers off the track when braking, perhaps that is because the tyres are just too sticky and if they go "over the edge" a little they immediately spin out or overshoot the corner by several meters.

The reason they can't over take is the fact that in their quest for a safer, slower but "entertaining" F1, Max and his FIA muppets removed a large amount or mechanical grip (by adding grooves in the tires) forcing to teams to try and re-coup the lost grip using aero-dynamics. The cars rely so heavily on the airflow over them that when they come close to a car in front to overtake it, the smooth airflow is destroyed and the aero parts work much less efficiently. As a result they have less downforce, meaning less grip and reducing their ability to out brake an opponent.

The FIA realised that this reliance on aerodynamics was causing problems and instead of bringing back full slicks, reducing the aero area permitted and increasing the minimum ride height they decided to keep the grooves and reduce the aero area. Course everyone goes off and hires out wind tunnels for increasingly long periods of time, some teams build their our (in Ferraris case, 2). Soon the safety/speed reducing changes haven't made the slightest bit of difference to the speeds (in fact the cars get faster) but the increasing role of the aerodynamicist has killed the overtaking.

Its a ridiculous situation whereby we now have cost reducing measures in place to curb the costs which the FIA are in part responsible for.

There is less grip off the racing line due to dirt, marbles, oil etc. but if the car could actually run closer and take overtaking opportunities then these areas wouldn't be so bad as they would experience more traffic. Other forms of motorsport venture off-line all the time without (too much) problem.

Furthermore, the single lap/2 session qualifying which no one likes or can agree on how to run was introduced to avoid the situation whereby we have 40minutes of looking at cars in the pits then 20mins for frantic action with the pole lap usually going right down to the wire because they wanting to improve the entertainment value. Where was the entertainment on Sunday?!

@Flibster: Top post!

@Dutch Guy: With the utmost respect most of your posts in the thread have been slightly misinformed and add little to the debate. Perhaps you work for the FIA?! ;) :D sorry!

Cheers
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,560
Location
Amsterdam,The Netherlands
MTA99 said:
@Dutch Guy: With the utmost respect most of your posts in the thread have been slightly misinformed and add little to the debate. Perhaps you work for the FIA?! ;) :D sorry!
Sorry for that, it's just that everyone seems to like to blame the FIA when it was Michelin who didn't have a tyre suitable to race with.

If they resurfaced the track and diamond cut it surely a multi million dollar company like Michelin should know this and someone in R&D should have thought about the effect on the tyres?

And weren't there also tyre problems last year at the same track?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,152
Location
West Lancashire
Dutch Guy said:
Sorry for that, it's just that everyone seems to like to blame the FIA when it was Michelin who didn't have a tyre suitable to race with.

If they resurfaced the track and diamond cut it surely a multi million dollar company like Michelin should know this and someone in R&D should have thought about the effect on the tyres?

And weren't there also tyre problems last year at the same track?

I have quoted two of Flibsters posts below

Flibster said:
Oh hell - it wasn't the durability of the tyre that was the problem!

There was a fault in the sidewall construction of the carcass of the tyre - BOTH tyres used had the same carcass under the tyre.

Thus both were potentially unsafe.

It was a construction problem not a wear problem.

If there was no fault with the sidewall there would have not been a problem with the race.

Simon/~Flibster

Flibster said:
Bridgestone and Firestone are 1 company near enough.
Firestone produces tyres for the IRL...

Michelin do not. They had not seen the new surface.

Bridgestone used Firestones data on the new surface.

As for using Indy for testin - it's not a test curcuit as it has to be specially modified for F1 to go there and would cost a fortune to get it done for a test. As it is - Indy GP has never made a profit.

Simon/~Flibster

I have this to add....

Do you think that a mutli-million pound company like Michelin would not have back-ups, standard compounds, some kind of contingency plan and the most detailed knowledge available? I believe the Michelin error to be a genuine manufacturing defect which forced them into requesting that the FIA make changes to the circuit. The FIA refused and left Michelin with no choice but to withdraw. I think that's why most people are pointing the finger at the FIA (combined with their history of crazy ideas).

As for their problems last year, there were problems at almost every circuit, be they lack of grip, phases of poor grip, blistering etc. Perhaps the problems were only relative to Bridgestone who, through Firestone, have much more data about the circuit.

Cheers
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Dutch Guy said:
Sorry for that, it's just that everyone seems to like to blame the FIA when it was Michelin who didn't have a tyre suitable to race with.

If they resurfaced the track and diamond cut it surely a multi million dollar company like Michelin should know this and someone in R&D should have thought about the effect on the tyres?

And weren't there also tyre problems last year at the same track?

AARRRGGGGHHH!!!

They did have a suitable race tyre!!

There was a normally undetectable fault during the manafacturing process that rendered the internal carcass of BOTH the tyres supplied potentially dangerous.

If that fault was not present then they would have races - it was NOT a wear problem.

On a personal note - I do feel that Indy is a terrible place for a GP. There are many more suitable circuits that would be better.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,560
Location
Amsterdam,The Netherlands
Ok, just leave it at that, you either believe Michelin when they say they had a manufacturing error (don't they test their tyres before sending them?) or you don't believe them.

I'm leaning towards the fact that in their quest to make a faster tyre than Bridgestone they cut corners on safety/quality but I seem to be alone in that, so I will not mention that anymore.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
The information I have did not come from Michelin or a Michelin team...It came from a Bridgestone runner...

Make it any better for you?

Bridgestone were more worried about wear than Michelin - thus the use of a much harder compound tyre than they would normally use on a medium temperature track.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2003
Posts
8,899
Location
Hampshire, UK
Flibster said:
On a personal note - I do feel that Indy is a terrible place for a GP. There are many more suitable circuits that would be better.

Simon/~Flibster

Yes its awful for F1. If there wasnt so much money in America I doubt F1 would race there anyway.

Let's not forget what happened to Ralf Schumachers back last year when he crashed, a product of car and track not really being compatible.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
D4VE said:
Yes its awful for F1. If there wasnt so much money in America I doubt F1 would race there anyway.

Let's not forget what happened to Ralf Schumachers back last year when he crashed, a product of car and track not really being compatible.

Yup.

Personally I think that Laguna Seca could be good for a race - the corkscrew could be interesting for a F1 car.

There's so many tracks around the US that they could move it around easily.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2004
Posts
7,606
Dutch Guy said:
Ok, just leave it at that, you either believe Michelin when they say they had a manufacturing error (don't they test their tyres before sending them?) or you don't believe them.

I'm leaning towards the fact that in their quest to make a faster tyre than Bridgestone they cut corners on safety/quality but I seem to be alone in that, so I will not mention that anymore.

your still saying the same things but in a different way :p
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,560
Location
Amsterdam,The Netherlands
vanpeebles said:
your still saying the same things but in a different way :p
Yes, because for me it's almost inconceivable that they had a manufacturing error, but if it is it's a major blunder.

Even if they can't test on the real track, don't they have a way to simulate the track on a testbench and wouldn't that reveal the fault with the tyres?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
11,038
Location
Romford/Hornchurch, Essex
Flibster said:
Yup.

Personally I think that Laguna Seca could be good for a race - the corkscrew could be interesting for a F1 car.

There's so many tracks around the US that they could move it around easily.

Simon/~Flibster


yup, or road america (forgot its name, its the american Spa tbh....) or long beach or........(i could go on all day)
 
Back
Top Bottom