Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests No US Grand Prix?

I think mich. was exagerating there problems. Only the toyota's had prob. correct? And ralf has proven that he cant drive a f1 car at Indy. Yes they werent prepared as they should have been, but i think people should be pointing there fingers at the teams. I have hard time believing it was that dangerous when david c. is practitacly begging his team on the radio during the warm up lap to let them race. As posted before i think this was more politicaly charged than safety.
Just my 2 cents

I don't see what's wrong with Michelin asking their drivers to "take it easy" in one turn of a 13 turn track. It's called adapting to certain race conditions. Nascar Cup and Truck drivers have had to do it all year. Granted they are not limited to one set of tires after practice, to run a whole race (which I find to be really stupid), but Goodyear has seen alot of different problems this year.

Mostly all season, at every track, these guys have been blowing right side tires like there was no tomorrow. The teams new it was because of the soft compounds that they asked Goodyear to use when making the tires for this season. So the teams have told their drivers to hold back a little. Dodges have really had a had time this year, because they cannot seem to find a good balance for their cars. So, the Dodge teams cannot run with most the others. Or when they do, they cannot stay with them for long.

So right side tires, for the Cup cars, has been all the rage this year. Then, along comes Pocono, which just took everybody by surprise. Ricky Rudd, who drives a Ford, blew 5 left fronts. After the first two or three, they figured out that it was the rumble strips in the corners that was killing the sidewalls of the tires. Other teams had similar problems with this as well. It was because they were running so much positive camber in the left front, the tires were overheating down the straightaways. When the tires would hit the rumble strips at this temp, the cords would snap at the sidewall of the tire. So, every had to back off and stay off the rumble strips. After it was all said and done, 20 left fronts were blowen!

Then there was this weeks race, at MIS. The fastest lap of the race was almost 3 seconds slower than the pole. These guys knew that their tires will not hold up for long, so they back off and take it easy. That way, the tires will at least last for 30 or 40 laps and not end up in the wall.

So I don't see how there is a problem with teams holding back, alittle, for the sake of safety. I understand that these teams new they would not have a chance against any other car running the Bridgestones, but still.

Oh well, I guess it's the NASCAR mentality that I have that keeps me from understanding this whole thing. NASCAR mentality being, "Run the best you can with what you have and never give up!" Because at the end of the day, if it was the tires that keep any of those teams from being compitive, all they had to do was respond, "Yes, we gave it all we had, but were limited because of the tire choice Michelin made for this years race. We will get them next year!", when they were asked if that were the case.

And as for the throwing of things onto the track... sure, noone likes to see stuff like that. But all I have to say is that the FIA and Indy better be glad they don't serve bottles at the race track.

Do you tell ALL the drivers to slow down? Even the ones not on Michelin tires? What happens when a Bridgestone-shod car comes through that corner 50-100mph faster than a Michelin car? Who moves? That'd create a very dangerous situation.

If memory serves, drivers in one the Daytona 500's from the late 80's were faced with this exact situation. Hoosier had supplied a tire that enabled most of their teams to qualify up front and even put one on pole. It was subsequently found to be too dangerous for the race and NASCAR allowed those Hoosier teams to use Goodyear's IIRC.


Michelin is completely to blame for not supplying a tire suitable for competition. However, the FIA is to blame for not reaching a compromise so that there still might have been a race.

The way this was conveyed to us in England was it just wasnt worth the risk of a car crashing,killing someone in the crowd or a marshal and then to end up i a big lawsuit As for would stuff only get thrown onto the track in the USA? VERY doubtful-if that was the British GP there would have been a riot!!!

The best coverage going with (arguably) the least bias is:

http://www.itv-f1.com/Home.aspx

Whoever you fault for this fiasco, it could have been avioded. there were, as already pointed out, multiple options. Not the least of which was a choice to not stock a second set of 'reliable' tires. It would be interesting to see if the Bridgestone teams had that second set.

For once Bernie is not the center of F1 drama, but, love him or hate him, he is going to suffer greatly. As will F1 as a whole.

For the sake of the fans, all involved could have made concessions to put on a show that so many (~110,000) invested so much to see.

The US Grand Prix will go on, but you will see some significant changes in the politics, contracts and obligations. Read through the ITV site articles or the Indianapolis press; the economic impact will be huge. They, if no one else, will do what it takes to insure a 2006 race.

In the mean time let's hope the recently announced Porsche/Penske LMP2 car is really a mule for LMP1 during the 75th running at Le Sarthe.