OT: WELL?

by **Darryl Johnso** » Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:07:23

Byron Forbes wrote in

om.au:

>> In other words, it was NOT the compound it was the DESIGN of the
>> tyre that was unable to take the loads from the banking - there
>> is NOTHING that indicates it was the new surface that posed the
>> problem, but THE LOAD EXERTED ON THE TYRE which is precisely what
>> everyone - and his cousin - has been telling you for two weeks
>> now. There are NO NEW LOADS EXERTED ON THE TYRES BECAUSE OF THE
>> CHANGE IN TRACK SURFACE _ THE LOADS, as MICHELIN POINT OUT IN
>> YOUR LINK, are because of the OVAL, and NOT because of the
>> SURFACE - there was and is NOTHING Michelin can do to make a tyre
>> for Indy - they sacrificed this race knowing that they would have
>> an advantage on ALL OTHER tracks.

> I don't know why you harp on about compound Vs construction -
> there is
> no failure to understand this on my part.

> The fact is that the track was resurfaced and is thus slightly
> geometrically different and also some sort of change traction and
> abrasion wise would be expected.

> It could be bumpier which would place more stress as it
> bounced more. More traction would stress the entire tyre more
> as it went thru its
> harmonics
> Ridges/irregularities in the track could create
> shredding/tearing

> All these possibilities an NO TESTING?????????????

It's one of those FIA rules. There are VERY limited number of tracks
at which teams may test. The tire companies cannot test on their own
(because they do not have formula 1 cars to test with, and to test
with any other car would be, at best, a wild approximation -- which
is what got us into this mess in the first place.)

- Show quoted text -

by **Byron Forbe** » Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:06:14

> Byron Forbes wrote in

> om.au:

>> The fact is that the track was resurfaced and is thus slightly
>> geometrically different and also some sort of change traction and
>> abrasion wise would be expected.

>> It could be bumpier which would place more stress as it
>> bounced more. More traction would stress the entire tyre more
>> as it went thru its
>> harmonics
>> Ridges/irregularities in the track could create
>> shredding/tearing

>> All these possibilities an NO TESTING?????????????

> It's one of those FIA rules. There are VERY limited number of tracks
> at which teams may test. The tire companies cannot test on their own
> (because they do not have formula 1 cars to test with, and to test
> with any other car would be, at best, a wild approximation -- which
> is what got us into this mess in the first place.)

Yes.

This is what annoys me with all the finger pointing at Michelin and the
implication that the FIA is blameless.

The FIA has introduced -
1/ 1 Tyre for the entire race + qualifying
2/ Tyre companies may have only 2 options of tyres

Even without the special T13 of the IMS, with the ever changing nature
of the cars, regulations and tracks/surfaces, with these sort of rules it is
just about guaranteed that you will eventually find yourself in a situation
like what we just had at IMS.

Solution

- test at every track. Maybe move the Friday prac to a Monday or Tuesday.
This gives companies a chance to react to a situation like we just had at
IMS
- OR the FIA specifies some sort of super durable tyre that all teams must
have available at any race - a 3rd failsafe. With the present rules, backup
option tyres will not be too different from the bullseye tyre - why should
they think the bullseye will be so off the mark? And this is where the
problem is. As a tyre designer, you don't want a backup that makes McLarens
slower than Jordans!

Now on top of it all, we have the FIA holding the teams and especially
Michelin, to ransom with the suspended penalty - IT STINKS!

by **Helicon_On** » Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:16:14

I don't believe that a hastily knocked together tyre chicane would have
neccessarily been any safer than running flat out on dodgy tyres. It would
have added 73 additional heavy braking zones for each driver, on top of the
amount of braking zones expected when the brake discs had been chosen, hence
increasing the risk of brake failure (for 20 drivers, not just 14).

Should there have been a serious accident at the tyre chicane (either caused
by brake failure or some other factor) which had resulted in an injury or
fatality of any kind, then whoever gave the nod to a chicane would
potentially be liable, as I understand these things.

There weren't the spare tyres available. 1 set per car to last the whole
race, remember? The tyre suppliers don't drag along hundreds of the things
to every race any more. In any case, what was the proper value odf X to
ensure safety? Ralf's tyre failure was reportedly on his FIRST flying lap of
the weekend.

Going through the pitlane every lap would have probably (it'd have been
fairly close) have slowed the Michelin drivers down enough that'd they'd
have not completed 90% of race distance, and hence not have been able to
score any points anyway.

Besides, 14 cars driving through the pits every lap makes for a very crowded
pitlane, and again, wouldn't have neccessarily been any safer (not for the
pit crews, certainly). And would have arguably been just as much of a farce
as a 6 car race.

Yes.

Ah, you believe that particular item of Mosleyist propaganda, then?

There is no requirement for the tyre supplier to bring 1 "fast" tyre
compound and 1 "safe" tyre compound, despite the FIA's revisionist
statements. Tyre suppliers bring _up_to_ 2 compounds, the teams run them on
Friday to find out which suits the driver/ car/ strategy/ track better.
There is no responsibility on the supplier to provide a bullet proof
"backup" tyre in case of a problem with the first choice. As such, both
Michelin tyre constructions happened to suffer from the same flaw.

As I understand it, substitute Michelin's *were* flown out, but got no
further than the airport at Indianapolis, as the FIA, in line with the
rules, prevented any substitute from being fitted to the Michelin cars.

Bridgestone's tyres being slower have little to do with their being tougher
(ask Schumi about his 'sturdy' Bridgestones at Barcelona), and more to do
with their systematic alienation over the past few years of the big teams
other than Ferrari, thus denying them testing data.

This bit, I agree with, up until the day after the race. The behaviour of
the FIA since then in relasing misleading statements and levelling unfair
charges against the teams has been highly damaging in itself.

Tim
--
----------------
I love the smell of vomit in the newsgroup, it smells like...VICTORY!
Jim M - Usenet out-take

If you want to reply by email, replace the asterisks with underscores.

Currently listening to: 'Seal My Fate' - Belly

by **Ronald Stoeh** » Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:43:40

> You all seem to be forgetting that Michelin and their teams agreed to race
> for no points if there was a chicane. Ferrari would still have won their
> points, but the fans could have seen a real race where likely Ferrari
> wouldn't have placed 1st and 2nd on the track. At least a full field "real"
> race would have occurred for the fans and TV audience. Not an optimal
> situation, but a lot better than the alternative. Ferrari was the only team
> that did not agree to that...and then at the last moment Jordan copped-out
> and Minardi reluctantly followed suit.

I don't understand why esp. US racing fans make a big noise about the 6 car
race. If it rains before or during a ChampCar/NASCAR race, there's simply
no race at all...at least on ovals. They should be used to it...

l8er
ronny

by **jason moye** » Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:16:32

> I don't understand why esp. US racing fans make a big noise about the 6 car
> race. If it rains before or during a ChampCar/NASCAR race, there's simply
> no race at all...at least on ovals. They should be used to it...

There's a huge difference between a race being cancelled due to
inclement weather and stupidity on the part of the participants.

by **Byron Forbe** » Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:38:54

>> I don't understand why esp. US racing fans make a big noise about the 6
>> car
>> race. If it rains before or during a ChampCar/NASCAR race, there's simply
>> no race at all...at least on ovals. They should be used to it...

> There's a huge difference between a race being cancelled due to
> inclement weather and stupidity on the part of the participants.

Also, if you're looking at attending one of those you know the risks.
People came hundreds and thousands of miles, set aside the time, forked out
a ton of cash, etc.

The FIA STINKS!