Indianapolis Farce - Who is to Blame?

[Krazy-K]

Although Micheal Schumacher did in the win the 2005 U.S GP, and was handed 10 points on a silver plate, Formula 1 as a whole received a hard blow as it seems highly unlikely that the sport will return to the cuircuit next year. Out of the 20 cars, only 6 were on the starting grid, something that has never happened in the history of all of F1. Fans were throwing bottles and other items on to the track, and a whole disappointed, frustrated and angry crowd left in the beginning moments of the race.

Michelin had openly admitted that its tires were not safe enough to be driven on the Indianapolis track, the High speed turns exerting too much pressure on them. And although this became clear almost two entire days before the race, it is remarkable how the FIA, along with all the teams as well as the Cuircuit Organizers did not manage to find an alternate solution to the problem and provide racefans all over the world and at the race itself, with what they had tuned in and come for. It was definetly a race where Michelin, the FIA and the race organisers simple refusal to find a compromise and help the sport as a whole damaged everything Formula 1 stands for. None of the participants can say anything productive about it in the end, its all just degrees of blame and shame.

Who do you feel should take the blame?

[JoStream]

Well, I think it is primarily the fault of Michelin. They brought the wrong tires and they caused the whole fiasco. :shock:

[Krazy-K]

It would've been quite simple to solve the problem if there would've been some cooperation between the teams and the organizers. It's absolutely ridiculous that a race is held with 6 cars. And Michelin might have gotten the wrong tires but they announced it and said it clear and straight forward that they have tires that are not able to withstand the pressures of the Indianapolis Cuircuit. So why on earth is the FIA so incompetent and so powerless to achieve an understanding so that a race can be held? I blame Michelin for making a mistake but surely not for the race turning out the way it did.

[lugergo2work]

Anything can happen in Formula1, and uasually does. I, unlike the Nascar loving fans that streamed out at the start, had an incredible weekend. Its not just the race, its the whole experience!

[Darcy]

Michelin, no doubt. If they hadnt bought the faulty tires, no one else would have had to do any sort of decision making, you cant blame it on anyone else, it wasnt their fault that Michelin screwed up big time.

[Carlis]

I will have to go with Michelin. They did EVERYTHING wrong that weekend. They were supposed to have a back-up tyre with them... they didn't have it. The teams were supposed to request Michelin for that backup tyre; Michelin never told them that they would not take it. The USGP was the only race in 2005 on which Michelin arrive with only TWO compounds for all their teams... is it a coincidence that they didn't build more? When they "ordered" the Barcelona spec-tyres; it was Ron Dennis from McLaren who told them that those tyres would have the same structural failure than the "Indy-specs"; the FIA told them to use them under the penalty; Michelin claimed that the FIA ordered them NOT to use them (although the document from the FIA was already known by that time).

Michelin claimed that they couldn't make the tyre because Ferrari tested more than their teams; although they forgot that, up to that point, Michelin had more than 3 times the number of miles under its belt than Bridgestone had... Michelin sent a press statement claiming that "no more than 10 laps with the same set of tyres". On just the second session of the friday, they were Michelin drivers with about 36 laps... half the distance; with the FIA authorizing pit-stops (because they DID authorize pit stops, but Michelin decided not to take that option and still, insisted with an ILLEGAL chicane) they should have been able to go through the race.

Only ONE team had problems: Toyota; and (coincidence?) Jarno Trulli took the pole with, supposedly, just 3 laps of fuel on-board... there were teams like Williams, BAR and Red-Bull that DIDN'T had a problem during the weekend. A few weeks later after the USGP, Bridgestone claimed that Michelin would have been able to race, had the teams decided to increase the air pressure on their tyres... The only solution that Michelin proposed was to add a chicane. The problems, under the US legislation were obvious: A formula 1 race would be held on a circuit WITHOUT the safety requirements of the category. A chicane would be used WITHOUT the previous consent and verification from the FIA. Had an accident happened during the race (regardless of if it was on the chicane or not), the FIA would not have excuse for allowing a race that violated their own safety standards... it was a door way open to receive any single lawsuit people can probably think of (and, let's face it, people is VERY GOOD creating excuses for lawsuits in the US...) Even, had no accident happened, the FIA would have had to respond to "reckless endangerement" charges. Michelin for sure knew that, and play their card.

Now, why did they wanted to make a fool of themselves on the USGP? After Kimi Raikkonen's accident at the Nurburgring, the FIA sent a letter to the teams (and tyre manufacturers) remembering them that safety issues for NOT changing flat-spotted tyres would be entirely THEIR responsability (although, the FIA didn't allowed McLaren to change the flat-spotted tyres of Juan Pablo Montoya in Malaysia. The colombian complained, after the race, of stiffness in his hands because of the vibrations). Michelin sent then a letter to the FIA (the letter is on the FIA website) and they were claiming that, unless *something* was changed with the regulations, they would not be able to do the distance at Spa. The FIA response was that the tyre manufacturers had the responsability to ENSURE their tyres would do the distance. The USGP was, IMO, Michelin's response to Mosley's position.

Was the USGP avoidable? hell yeah!!! most of the non-toyota drivers did more than half a race on Friday... They want us to believe that they just had 10 laps without blowing up? Bull!!!!

What did happened in Turkey? Williams decided to run with low air-pressure on their tyres (as Toyota in the USGP). Williams did have problems THROUGHOUT the whole weekend, to the point of having several sidewall failures (as in the USGP) in the corner 8 (which is slightly banked), but they NEVER hinted to cancel the event because a single team was running below the air-pressure specifications... That day, in my opinion, they did show the FIA that THEY (the tyre manufacturers) were in control of the situation; that THEY decided if you have a race or not, not the FIA...

The FIA mentioned some of the "insolit" tyre blow-ups of Michelin in the past few years (the most remarkable accident was the side-wall failure (which Michelin claimed was caused by debris) of Ralf Schumacher at Indy 2004, and the SEVERAL sidewall failures they had in Spa, also in that year). Michelin claimed it was not true, but never provided any proof. Then, despite of claiming that they would stay in F1 as long as there would be at least two tyre manufacturers, Michelin announces that they would withdraw one year before the single tyre manufacturer regulation becomes effective... The FIA never mentioned anything again about the safety concerns on Michelin rubber (althoug we saw on michelin rubber flying away at the Oz GP last weekend...) and then, they wanted us to believe that it was all an accident...

Yeah, sure

:evil:

[tysoe]

I think it was max mosley's fault because if they were allowed to put new tyres on then it would of been alrite but he wouldent let them do that.
The only reason he didnt because he knew that ferrari would of won that race.

[Carlis]

I think it was max mosley's fault because if they were allowed to put new tyres on then it would of been alrite but he wouldent let them do that.
The only reason he didnt because he knew that ferrari would of won that race.
Sorry, but I disagree. All that Mosley did that weekend was not to comply with Michelin's blackmailing policy.

They were allowed to change tyres during the race, but that wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the track modified, without any safety procedure, in a few hours before the race. In the US, that would have mean a door wide open for legal actions against the FIA for "reckless endangerment" of the fans (and the drivers). Mosley, being a lawyer, knew that that option was a no-option; and Michelin knew that as well, but it served them to their purpose: a smoke cloud and the blame for everyone else.

They (i.e. Michelin teams) were allowed to use the Barcelona-Spec tyres, that were shipped overnight on Friday, but McLaren said that those tyres had the same problems and that it would make no difference (McLaren, not the FIA).

And, to make it even better, if you count the number of laps that the Michelin drivers copleted on Friday, you will see that some of them did about 90% of the race distance, or more, so by changing tyres the Michelin teams should have been able to complete the race-distance... Michelin, nonetheless, said "NO WAY", even though the only incident they had was with Toyota, who were running with ultra-low air pressure, even below the standards suggested by the French Manufacturer... Have you wonder why Michelin was so critical of "Turn 13" when Ricardo Zonta had his accident, actually, before turn 5? The tyres had a problem, true, but was not as big of a deal as Michelin tried to make it look like. Furthermore, Ralf lost the car BEFORE arriving to turn 13, when re-entering the oval part, so any changes on turn 13 would have been useless because the problems with the tyres were presented IN OTHER parts of the circuit, despite their efforts to make it look like an issue with the banking corner...

And, have you wonder why Michelin didn't pull off at Turkey, when Williams had THE SAME problem than Toyota at Indianapolis (very low air pressure, hence the tyrewall makes contact with the sides of the rear wing, and can't stand the stress until it blows up)? Some cynicals claim that is because the legal system in Turkey would not have prosecuted them...