Perhaps someone else knows more - is it possible that Michelin told their teams that Michelin could not guarantee the reliability of the replacement tires? If so, I'm with Larry on this one, I wouldn't send my team out on tires which were likely to fail at high speed.

I am also sure that Firestone shared info with their parent (Bridgestone) regarding the new surface. This allowed Bridgestone to be prepared. Michelin had no such info and probably assumed that conditions at Indy were as they had been in previous years.

I think Chris C nailed it. Michelin was caught flat footed. I doubt Michelin could have determined why their tires failed and then built a safer tire in the time available. We do know that they sent over - or offered to send - tires designed for Barcelona - and I suspect told teams "these may work but we can't guarantee it."

In interviews, Ron Dennis, Flavio Briatore and David Couthard confirmed that the Michelin teams were prepared to race using a chicane and give up all points. I think it is safe to assume this is true. Fact is, doing so would not change anything. It was clear the Ferraris would win and adding points to Jordan and Minardi would not affect the outcome of the championship. At least the fans would have had a race!

FIA took the position that it was a sporting event and that rules come before all. I choke on this because the rules themselves are somewhat open to interpretation and more importantly, FIA acted as if the spectators don't count. That's rather arrogant and as a business decision, bad. Someone made a parallel with Club Racing. I disagree. At a club race the only people who count are the racers themselves. This is not the case with F1. Ecclestone is now a billionaire because a hundred million people watch F1. The TV revenue is what pays for everything. So, unlike a Club Race, the fans do count and the SHOW MUST GO ON.

 

After some thought last night, I think a suitable alternative could have been as follows:

Allow Michelin cars to run the replacement tires.

Allow a chicane to be construicted before turn 13.

Penalize the Michelin teams for the tire change by placing them in qualifying order behind the Bridgestone runners.

Alternatively, hold a special Sunday morning qualifying session with the new track configuration.

Regarding the fans in attendance: They came to see a show that they never got. I think back to when the IRL had to cancel a race at Texas Motor Speedway because the drivers were getting ill from the excessive g-load in the high banking. Those ticketholders did receive refunds as I recall.

The F1 fans yesterday were also deprived of a real race. I think they deserve compensation as a result. What took place yesterday was a farce. Bernie E. and Max M. clearly forgot about racing as entertainment. THe little man with the bad haircut just doesn't get it. Without fans, he of all people connected with F1, is hopelessly damaged.

Bring on the manufacturers to run F1 racing. Anyone could do a better job.

 

I always thought that was a bad wig.

I am glad I did not go or I would really have been pissed. Didn't I hear that the European coverage was switched and they did not even carry the race live after the farce began? If I were a sponsor or big advertiser, I'd dump F1 after that debacle. Those guys are so pompous it sickens me.

 

Well I have read the press releases from the FIA, Michelin, M-shod teams, drivers, etc. and now I have read all of your comments too. Though it is clear that none of us possess all of the information, this is what I have been able to glean/interpret from my reading.

1. Michelin was caught out with a unsafe and poorly constructed tire.
2. Michelin attempted to remedy the problem with new tire, but failed as they were “able to replicate the failure” in their own testing (I can even imagine the equipment and technology that they must possess.)
3. FIA denied the request to add a chicane based on a number of factors, not the least of which being, that it would completely change the type of track which could change the necessary brake setup, aero packages, etc. etc. This change would not only level a playing field to the unfair detriment of the B-shod teams, it could pose additional risks to all teams. Race director Charlie Whiting summed it up like this: “To change the course in order to help some of the teams with a performance problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct tyres.”
4. FIA outlined a few options for the Michelin teams including: slowing through turn 13, using new tires and incurring a penalty, or repeatedly changing tires subject to safety reasons.
5. The Michelin-shod teams chose to pass on all of those options and to withdraw from the race.

Given these details, I find the teams to be the most culpable in this farce. True there were significant mitigating factor that dealt them a poor hand, but it was ultimately their decision, and theirs alone, that prevented them from running, albeit at a competitive disadvantage, but nonetheless running.

There are two additional effects of this debacle: first, the teams now have a better and more public case for withdrawing from the FIA at the end of the Concord Agreement, and, secondly, Bernie can lay the groundwork for moving the USGP to another, more lucrative (for him of course) location. I think that there are larger and more nefarious forces at work here and as is usual with F1, nothing is what it seems. Too bad we all have to suffer through it.

 

Lothar

It was CART (Or whatever they are called now) that had to cancel that race in Texas. The IRL had raced there successfully, it was the CART cars that put too many G's on the drivers.

I just read the Michelin stock lost 1% of it's value today.

I know I will race on my rims before I buy another Michelin. That corner has been at Indy for 96 years, so Michelin should have been prepared.

Bill Seifert

1987 944S Race Car

 

One thing that wasn't mentioned during the fiasco of a race on Sunday is that all the Michelin teams will be running on much fresher engines in France. In the scheme of things it's a relatively minor issue but the Ferrari's will have tired engines compared to the other front runners.

As far as Sunday's "race" goes I think most folks here are saying the same thing...the Michelin teams were unprepared for the race and should all have left Indy with zero points...the Bridgestone guys should have taken the the top six points positions...[so far so good]....the fans should have been given the show they paid for [not so good]. How to accomplish the last item has been speculated on a bit. Could the Michelin teams run < 10 laps and pitted for tires? Maybe. Could they have eased through turn 13 during those laps? Maybe. Seems to still be a risky plan compared to a chicane. They could have given the fans two races in one: the Bridgestone race they saw and a simultaneous Michelin race for qualifying position in France. Ironically had Ferrari agreed to this it would have put them on even footing with regard to engine life in France.

Switching to the Minardi in Australia topic, it was a PR stunt by Stoddard plain and simple. I was in Melbourne that weekend and the next week. He got his name all over the paper during the race weekend and announced OzJet the next week. A shocking coincidence!

 

Interesting posts.

I also understand Michelin did no testing at Indy after the repaving. Shame on them--that is the real problem. F1 doesn't take the USGP very seriously, I guess. As much as I dislike NASCAR in certain respects, they would never, ever, alienate their fans in this manner, and that is why they are the cash machine that they are.

As an owner of an older P-car and a newer Z06, I can say the Le Mans race was excellent. The C6Rs finished 5th and 6th overall, 1st and 2d in GT1, and the GT2 Porsches ran well.

 

Guys,
I just got back from the race. Couple notes.

1) Scott Speed ran what was a near full race distance in Friday Pratice. This was with Michelins on his Red Bull. - He did not crash

2) Teams were concerned on Saturday yet went on with show and practiced and drive fast laps.

3) For those in the crowd we only knew the outsides of the story. I had heard grumblings about Ralf's crash, but last I heard that it was linked to an aggressive toyota set-up.

4) I did hear about replacement tires, When the cars pulled into the pits I figured all would fit those replacement tires and start from pit lane.

5) I as fan was in shock that those teams pack-up shop. Especially in the way it was done. Why even line up on the grid and run a formation lap? Hell all of us though the race was to go on like normal. Nope really badly done IMHO.

6) It took a couple laps before I got over it. Then started wondering why they were booing Ferrari, Jordan and Minadi. Hell these guys were still here to put on what ever show they could. Don't get pissed at them. Get pissed at Michelin, FIA, Bernie, & teams maybe, but not the guys running the race.

7) I was embarrised to see the crap being thrown on track. Not cool at all. Again why endager those folks actually racing.

8) And in the worst incident of all... I a saw bottled water almost hit a corner worker. Where I was in turn 1 we had a couple works in hole in fence. The one guy 5 or 6 times ran out on to the track to retrieve the crap thrown and some real a-hole tried to hit him with water bottle

Anyway...
I was pretty upset to miss the race. I brought a friend from mine (a fellow 944 owner) out to his first F1 race ever (this was my 4th USGP (missed one so far). We enjoyed it all and had blast. Too bad I could not show him a proper race.

I did invite him back next year however. I am season ticket holder and do have plans on renewing for next year.

 

You're correct but was that even possible? I don't know, very curious though.

This resurfacing really seems to play big role on this failure, much more than "it's oval".

Firestone had problems with IRL cars after resurfacing and they had to cancel one test day becasue of tyre failures.
Bridgestone obviously got that data and were able to react accordingly, thus having proper tyres at Indy.

Michelin however didn't have that possibily of gaining information since they had not run there after resurfacing.

And since F1 cars are not allowed to test there, was there a real chance (with IRL or Champ cars) to test what the resurfacing does and what kind of problems Firestone had?

If this kind of testing was not even possible, I'd put pretty big blame on Indy, and on FIA also but not on Michelin since they could've not done proper testing.

If this ind of test chance was in deed possible, then blame is on Michelin.

 

Unlikely that there could be a more lucrative location for Bernie than the at Indy. Under the current deal, all Tony George gets is concession revenue, and a small percentage of the gate; most of the gate goes to Bernie, and that gate is the second largest in all of F1.. ALL the TV money goes to Bernie. Most people in the know don't think Tony George has made a cent on F1. He invested something like 60-80 million to make the F1 mandated changes in the track to hold the US Grand Prix, and paid all the travel expenses (10-15 million per year) to bring the teams to the U.S.

Anyway, I'm not a Tony George apologist, but he was really hosting the race more for the prestige than the money; and I can't imagine Bernie could get a better deal anywhere else in the U.S.

 

I cannot find the article so I will not try to quote specifics, but Steve Wynn's initial offer to host a 2nd GP in Vegas was nothing short of incredible. The most recent updates on this project seam to be shooting for 2008.

 

I completely agree with you here Larry. Stupid, stupid, stupid rule. The person who thought it up should be taken out behind the barn and shot. Stupid rule!

 

Larry and Mike, I agree. I hate the no tire change rule and think the FIA completely blew that ... and therefore indirectly helped cause the current mess. I don't want F1 about tires, and this is what it has become. If you want to slow the cars down, use a range of 50 spec tires and let everyone decide what they want to run and how often they want to change. I love the 2 stop 3 stop debate, and tire changes make that more interesting.

 

The FIA argument against a chicane in turn 13 of an unfair advantagefor under prepared teams is bogus, as all the M-shod teams had already agreed to give up the points to the B-shod teams.

There is certainly more at stake than it meet the eyes. I do not understand why McLaren or Renault wouldn't go out to gain those 2 points (assuming that all cars finished the race... which was not a given before the race) for the Championship.

Also I think a McLaren (Renault) could have made up the time of 4 more pit stops against a Minardi (or even a Jordan) if they stopped every 9 laps.

There is too much at stake in F1 not to fight for every point. Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, BMW, Renault, Honda invest too much money in this sport to see a championship go by 1 point just because they wanted to **** Mosley off (or to move a race from Indy to wherever).

Unless there is much more at stake.... Remeber Ferrari is the only one who has subscribed to the new Concordia pact... We shall see...

 

Matteo: You think finishing behind Menardi and Jordan would have been acceptable to the big teams? Also, they want to stick it to the FIA and did (which I agree with), but not at the expense of the fans. They should not have changed the track as you NEVER do something to harm the good for the wrong doings of the bad or incompetent (this is clasic liberalism - the primary source of evil in the world). Bridgestone should not be negatively affected in any war for Michelin's incompetance. They should have run the race and changes tires as needed. But that would have put them behind Jordan and Menardi and I don't think they could handle that.