F1 » Former champs back Mosley's claim.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Alan - Unregistered

January 03, 2008 7:38 AM

It wasn't only turn 13 that was resurfaced but the whole track except for that brick strip at the start finish line. But i don't see how a new surface contributes to lateral forces that caused the Michelin tire walls to fail. And as i posted earlier, the Indycars that ran on the new surface found the new track to be easier on tire wear. It was simply a design flaw on the Michelin tires.

I still don't get your point.
You're saying that FIA make the playing field level by how? Give data to those that you perceive that do not have it? And then what, give 50 pts to rookie & sophomore drivers?
And about durable tires... I'd rather be slower and finish the race than crash or get a DNF.

Bobby_ - Unregistered

January 03, 2008 12:26 AM

Alan, as much as I do not like scuderia, I have never said that they were in any way to blame for Indy '05, what I have said is the Bridgestones had raced on the recurfaced track, but michelins did not have a single test run...
Everybody wants to gain advantage and spend $$ to get it, but it is FIA who have to make sure that playing field as level for everybody.
I'm talking from the point that performance v. reliability margins are so minimal that under normal condition bringing more durable tire was equivalent of losing the race, Should they have test data, they would realise that Bridges would have the same problem, and drop in performance would be the same as competitors.

Chris Britton - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 11:32 PM

Michelin were at fault yes, but the corner was changed. As much as i hate to defend Bobby because of his ridiculous name calling after he was "proven wrong" i just have to sah:

"For 2005 Indy has been re-surfaced as well. The new top is a rough asphalt with a diamond-shaped cut, the characteristics of which were unknown to Michelin."

A) Proves the corner was changed
B) Proved Michelin made a MASSIVE mistake.

Kevin - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 7:38 PM

Of course Max is excited about F1 being front and foremost in the world press, they have to have something to write about and it certainly won''t be about the actual racing. Formula 1 has become mostly an engineering exercise and the only real intrigue is in the pits these days. Who is sleeping with who, who is slagging off his teammate to the press, and who is cheating is much more important than actually racing wheel to wheel. As a race fan I certainly enjoy the "handbags at dawn" scenarios that make up 99% of F1''s excitement these days instead of just racing. [sigh]

Observer - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 6:04 PM

Sorry to go on, but in fairness to Michelin, they did fly out a back-up tyre. However, when tested on a rig it failed.

Then Michelin and their seven teams went wrong. They convinced themselves that if they demanded a chicane and refused to race if there wasn't one, the FIA would give in.

But the only possible course for the FIA was to start the race on the agreed, homologated, circuit. This had nothing to do with Ferrari or the other two teams. It was all the FIA could do from a sporting point of view and to protect itself if there was an accident. It could not risk a race on an unhomologated circuit.

Sadly, in properly run sport, rules must take precedence over entertainment.

Observer - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 5:44 PM

Oh dear! What a lot of confusion.

Fact 1. Turn 13 was flat in 2004 and in 2005.

Fact 2. There was no noticeable increase in speed thru the corner in 2005. This is because engines were only marginally more poweful in 2005.

Fact 3. If speeds don't increase, nor do stresses.

Fact 4. Michelin brought a new construction in 2005, hoping for more grip elsewhere on the circuit (they did not need it in Turn 13 because it was already flat).

Fact 5. In Turn 13, the new construction experienced standing waves in the sidewalls causing them to fail.

Fact 6. Michelin failed to bring a back-up with the old construction, prefering to have two variants of the new.

Conclusion: Michelin screwed up.

Alan - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 1:51 AM

I've never come across that but, if it was true, then it would have been a concern for tire and car design.
Also, if it was there then it would have been common knowledge and thus, the tire makers would have been aware of it and taken that into consideration.

Alan - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 1:33 AM

Grow up boy... it's called competition and everyone wants to gain an advantage over the other. They joined F1 to compete and any advantage will be exploited. It wasn't like they were dragged into it and forced to play.It doesn't matter if Bridgestone had an advantage in data over Michelin. The point is they were expected to come to every race with competitive and safe tires. They clearly failed to do just that and it's nobody's fault but theirs. You can't blame Ferrari, Bridgestone or the FIA.
Are you suggesting that the FIA change the rules just to suit Michelin because of your perceived "disadvantage"? What's your point?

Alan - Unregistered

January 02, 2008 1:19 AM

59 names 1 month
I agree that the fans were robbed of a race that day. The sticking point is that there are fanboys out here who blame it on Ferrari. It wasn't Ferrari's fault that Michelin showed up with tires unsuitable for the track.
At some point, Michelin guaranteed that the tires, as it was, can perform at maximum speeds for only 10 laps. Which means that the teams could have raced and pitted every 10 laps... now why didn't they do that? Atleast they would have gone out and truly raced. That, IMHO, would have been a sporting gesture. The teams had to deal with what they had... not insist on changing the course because they had the wrong equipment. That was not a viable solution.

Trevor Taylor

January 02, 2008 12:40 AM

Well guys, I must say this is how a forum should work, what a joy. When this debacle was at its height just before the race, a reason for the problem was put forward that the surface was lightly grooved to facilitate drainage. I never got any replies at the time as to the outcome of the experimental surface, did any of you tech guys out there see any data comebacks from this?

Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 4 5  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.