Gotta respect Michelin for having the balls to say no when they felt their tires werent safe. Also that they made honest attempts to figure out a way of doing it safely.
I was there. To this day I still cuss every time a Michelin commercial comes on TV. Michelin is to blame, the track had been used for a century and Michelin had shit tires the prior year and didn't fix it.
@@natureboy99 Michelin even had to amend their tyre design for the last 3 races of 2003, because he FiA deemed them too unpredictable on banking corners. Michelin was always cutting corners to get ahead of Bridgestone, and that lead to this shit show in 2005 and ultimately convinced the FiA to switch to a single supplier system.
That stupid 2005 rule of only using 1 set of tyres for both qualifying AND the race was so obviously put there to stop Schumacher and Ferrari from winning an 8th title.
yeah, all season Bridgestone (Ferrari basically) struggle with tyres - nobody cares. One race Michelin has issues - "put chickane there, please". That USA GP was only race of that season I could smile.
The issue was that Bridgestone supplied only 3 teams on 3 power levels. So when the Michelin teams couldn't compete you just had the 2 Ferraris, then the 2 Jordans and finally the 2 Minardis. With the Bridgestone teams uncompetitive you had still a real competition with Renault, McLaren and Toyota at least consistently competing for the podium.
can you explain that statement?. Bridgestone tyres were better in durability and had one more race than the rest... So how can that rule go against Ferrari?? No Logic.
Well that’s not true at all. There’s still plenty of scope for strategy within those regulations. Examples: Use a tyre for qualifying and the race. Go soft to get a good grid slot, or hard for better race tyre? Fuel management and tyre management are part of the strategy. Do you push at the start, or wait until the end? How quickly will Bottas jump out of the way for Hamilton? Yeah, the races would suck.
If there were no fuel stops and no pit stops, and plenty of fuel and durable tires, all you would have left is racing! Strategy makes things interesting & sometimes suspenseful, but I want to see engineers designing the fastest machines and drivers pushing them to their limits. :D Homologation/BOP punishes innovation. On the race tracks where I live, the winner is required to sell his engine to the 2nd place finisher for a super-cheap price ($100, but that was 15 years ago), if the 2nd place guy wants it. There's your homologation! Let the runner-up buy the Mercedes engine and hybrid technology for a token price, and suddenly the big players have much less of an advantage. Money can buy the research and development, and even a few wins, but this scheme distributes that technology - eventually, and I think excitingly, and you don't have to beat Mercedes, just finish 2nd. It's not perfect, of course, because the crews and drivers would be unfamiliar with the technology and need lots of time to become proficient with it, but maybe that training could be part of the deal? This video shows what teams are willing to do to give fans a decent race. Mercedes likes to hide their technology, but imagine a world... open-source F1 :D
@AlwaysRM_ You seem to be implying that F1 was worthless without pitstops. But these have only been part of strategy for very few of all years 1950 till the 2000s.
the funny thing is that the new Indianapolis GP Circuit deleted the last corner putting pretty much a chicane in the infield of the corner to avoid this thing to happen again in other events in the future
Duffman15000 I was going to make the exact same remark, glad to know I wasn't wrong and I'm not the only one who understands how centripetal(fugal) force works ahah
actually it's not just the graphic that's wrong. At 3:02 he says that if a car wishes to stay to the right the contact patches are pulled to the left which is obviously not the case.
Also don't forget the fiasco at the Spanish GP of Montjuich Park. The teams all protested about the track's terrible shape but the FIA stone cold wouldn't budge and told them they were obligated under contract to race. Emerson Fittipaldi did several very slow laps with his McLaren as a protest and pulled into the pits. He absolutely refused to rejoin the race. German Rolf Stommelen led half the race. Then, a wing on his car snapped causing the car to fly out of control. It crashed through the barriers that everyone was worrying about and killed several spectators. Stommelen got lucky and escaped with a broken leg. The race shamefully continued before it was finally halted. I forgot who won but he so outraged by the avoidable accident that he refused to accept the winner's trophy.
@@dentistguba There is no law or rule that states that names should be pronounced as they do in their language of origin, so it's dependant on your tongue. Michelin as in Mishel-inn is a correct way for me to say it. Otherwise you would not be able to name any Russian company ;)
The author got the picture backwards and thus ended up missing what is really happening. It is true that banked turns reduce side loading for a given speed and turn radius by converting a good amount of the load into vertical loading. But remember that the extra vertical loading actually allows higher corner speeds because it provides another form of "downforce" with no drag penalty. That is what is missing from the other circuits; the higher vertical load itself increases stress on the tire, but the addition of the higher side loading resulting from that extra "downforce" is what killed the Michelins.
Increased vertical load will affect tire load sensitivity, but I fail to see why would it increase side loading. Unless I am understanding you wrong: The extra available downforce provided by the banked turn's higher speed allowed the pilots to obtain higher amounts of grip (and therefore lateral loads) during that turn, higher than the ones anticipated by Michelin.
Thank you. Everyone is explaining that the illustrations are wrong, but I know that. I was looking for an explanation why the tires actually (might have) failed.
Your description of how downforce leads to increased grip is the relationship I am talking about. It’s the vertical load that allows the tires to react lateral loading (the relationship is generally proportional). As to the latter part of your response, yes, the higher speeds produce higher aerodynamic downforce, but remember that the geometry of the banking itself produces yet another form of inertial downforce on top of everything else. When you drive around the banking at Daytona, you experience the sensation of being pushed into your seat, much like in an aircraft undergoing a banked turn.
Dead right, xbird22. The higher vertical loading from the banking gives more grip (just like higher aero downforce, but without the added drag.) Since there's more grip and less drag, this lets the cars take the corner even faster - which increases the side load and adds a little more to the downward force on the tyre (both from aero, and the effect of the banking.) For me, the telling part in your original post is "for a given speed" - and that speed through the corner will obviously increase as they have more grip to make use of, since the point of racing is to ideally have the car on the absolute edge of adhesion at all times (if possible.) With enough banking, you don't need aero downforce at all - just think about how "wall of death" motorcycles stay up, and how much force that puts on the tyres IMS has much less steep banking, with a proportionally smaller effect - but that effect is still valid and can become an issue when you're already close to the limits of the vehicle.
aussiebloke609, that was a nice condensation of the phenomenon. A banking of 9 degrees doesn't intuitively seem like much, but it's clearly substantial when you see indycars taking those corners at 230 mph/370 kph. Based on a rough conservative estimate of 3g peak lateral acceleration, a 9 degree banking would provide something close to 850 lb of additional vertical load over an equivalent uncambered turn. With downforce on the 2017 cars well-documented to be just a touch above 2000 lb in quali trim, it’s not unreasonable to say that the banking itself provides close to a third of the total downforce, which is eye-opening.
Man I was THERE when I was 5. My family always went, and this race was strange, because no one started. It's so strange to have been part of something so historical, like I watched Schumacher crashed in practice.
I'm so glad this has been done! A few months ago I was looking for a video like this because I remember this weekend but not clearly. Thanks for this! Learned more than the Wikipedia article has ✌🏽
What a fantastic video! I can’t say enough about the style, technique, visuals, and correct pronunciation of Michelin! I’m 65 and have been following motor racing all my life, and I learned several things from this video. I remember watching this race, and being astonished at what happened. Thank you for such a detailed analysis! New subscriber!
It’s kind of funny the FIA refuses a chicane at this track but in 1994 were chicane happy at all the fast corners including Eau Rouge, not to mention forcing a lot of car modifications on teams at the last minute. If Ferrari had been on Michelin tires the chicane would have been used I bet.
blimeyification oh they gave a damn, I just checked out the season results since it was before my F1 viewing time, and would you believe that was the only race the great Ferrari and Michael Schumacher won that year?? From what the book “the mechanic” said Bridgestone were having issues that year keeping pace with Michelin and the no pit stop rule. So what better way to make sure Ferrari and their Bridgestone tires get a win than not do anything to help the Michelin teams compete.
It's not that they wouldn't want a chicane there, it's that they didn't want a temporary, hodge podge, slapped together from whatever was laying around chicane. They had done that in the past with sometimes lethal results.
@blimeyification yeah but two days notice? Ehhh I guess, idk, it would be sketchy though. Especially with the entry and if it will be overtaking zone. Can you go two or even 3 wide. Is it a fast chicane or slow? Gotta take these things into account before just slapping one and track and a driver dies because of the chicane.
I remember David Coulthard pleading to be able to race for McLaren I think on the formation lap. It was a rubbish race with only 6 cars but at least if one were really taking safety seriously
You missed one fact. Toyota were running the tyres outside specification, almost 0.7 bar under pressure. This is what caused the failure. Only Toyota had any kind of failure that weekend, with all the other teams running the tyres in specification. This is why in the end it was Toyota, not Michelin, who repaid the fans ticket costs by refunding Michelin. What you have told here is the originally reported history as told by Toyota. It was not long after this event that tyre pressure rules were overhauled. When Pirelli became the only tyre manufacturer, the F1 teams started playing with tyre pressures again as the rules had specifically named Bridgestone and Michelin. After a number of tyre failures due to running under pressure, the rules were changed to make minimum manufacturer mandated pressures enforceable regardless of the tyre origin. The same rule was quickly adopted across all FIA sanctioned race series. This entire fiasco was yet another example of Toyota cheating on track.
You have a point here. That could explain the Trulli pole position (even though for pole there were different rules - combination of times from friday + one single lap on saturday and so on). I was eager to see if Kimi can continue to cut off from the points deficit from Alonso. I was highly dissapointed as Kimi was at his peak during that season and in that period of the year.
That's an Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory right there. As someone who was a tire mechanic, I can guarantee you that running a set of tires slightly under pressure will not compromise the safety of that tire. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and just admit for you that you have never heard of races like the Paris-Dakar Rally, or any kind of rally or off-road race. It's not uncommon for a set of tires to only have 0.7 bar of pressure in them in total. Yet they're pounding rocks, sand, holes, gulleys, ditches, cactus, scrub brush, you name it. Rarely do they have a blowout, but yes, it's possible. Just like you'll see tire carcuses up and down any highway in the USA from tires that were properly inflated yet blew out anyways.
@@indyalts020 Yes, some were still messing about when Pirelli came in as the ruling was written actually referencing Bridgestone and Michelin. The updated rules now just use the word "manufacturer" to prevent the loophole.
Bristol Motor Speedway was resurfaces to 30º banking in the corners. Imagine F1 at Talladega, a 2.66 mile tri-oval with 33º banking in the corners...before NASCAR implemented restrictor plates in 1988, Bill Elliott's 1987 Winston 500 pole speed was 212.809 MPH (342.483 km/h)) at a 44.998 second lap time. That speed was close to Mario Andretti's 215.390 MPH (346.636 km/h) pole speed at the 1987 Indianapolis 500 (granted, IMS isn't a high-banked track like Daytona or Talladega). What would an F1 car top out at on the tri-oval going into turn 1 (the fastest part of the track)?
Also remember, the relation FIA-Michelin eas broken since 2003 when Michelin was forced to change the front tyres well into the season without testing. And the anouncement of the exit of WRC don't help. Sorry for my english.
That is not how banked corners work. banking a corner indeed adds a sideway component to the force of the cars weight, but it does not increase the stress on the tires it decreases it, because it is pointed in the exact opposite direction. That is the whole point of banking a corner. You bank it so you could go faster around it, but why is that? The limiting force in going around a normal corner is the adhesion of the tires on the surface of the road, when the centrifugal force becomes greater than the adhesion (by going faster or through a tighter radius) the car slides towards the outside of the corner. To counter this a corner can be banked on the outside. This means that a part of the cars weight pulls it to the inside and that force can be added to the adhesion and therefor allows one to go faster through a corner.
NeoDerGrosse Thank you. The problem didn't make much sense to me. I understand now (if I have it right) that lateral g-forces over time must be the destructive force.
@@louf7178 Yes, that's right. The question that remains is, what made it different from the other tracks. I have a theory, but I'm not sure. The banked corner turns part of the lateral force into down force towards the surface. This increases the adhesion and the drivers use that to go faster around the corners. This increases the stress on the tires and might have been what wore them out so fast.
NeoDerGrosse Yes. That is exactly what I'd say. The additional downforce would add to the outside sidewall also - it all must be significantly greater than in flat turns. I guess an idea of mine to incorporate a corkscrew style track segment (to really boost the sport's spectator wow-factor) had another hidden disaster - maybe, still, a loop though 😳🤔. Too crazy?
I think a banked corner involves similar forces to any other long, high-speed corner, something which is difficult but quite possible for the tyres to manage. What caused the tyre failures at the 2005 US GP was the combination of this high-stress corner and the diamond grinding of the track producing higher stresses on parts of the tyre.
@@BULLDOZOR Yes, the stress should be on the last syllable, but it is a lot better than how most English speakers pronounce it: mish-uh-lin, and stressing the first syllable.
omfg people get the fuck over yourselves. We've heard it pronounced "MISH-uh-lin" our whole lives. It sounds funny to hear it pronounced the "right way".
What a lot of people don't know is that is was very close to being just a 2 car race, but Eddie Jordan decided to race at the last minute. Paul Stoddart and Minardi only raced because Jordan raced.
My parents do that when their soccer team is garbage early in the championship. Methods of coping... They just pick a random smaller team and convert for a year XD
I was seated in Turn 1. Foster's Lager was selling their oil cans at the track, and pissed off fans were throwing full unopened Foster's oil cans over the fence at Schumacher. We packed up and left by lap 10, that was the last F1 race I've ever attended to date.
@5:45 We've got a problem with car safety in turn 13, well let's just tell the drivers with Michelin tires to slow down during turn 13. This is the worst solution mentioned except the one actually implemented. How is it possible the FIA, and other governing bodies of F1 be that out of touch with the realities of their own flagship sport? It reminds me of the NCAA, and how far off into space they are when it comes to the sports they regulate. Really good video Chain Bear, liked, subbed, and all that.
What lead to the Indianapolis 2005 incident? 2005 in Spain : Schumacher's tires snapped twice during the weekend. Bridgestone asked Michelin for a circuit modification. Michelin's answer was simple : "No!" Don't look further. Michelin created the problem and refused every FIA's propositions.
@Laika24102007 Charlie Whiting wasn't blamed at all for that debacle. Michelin miscalculated the information given by the FIA and the Indianapolis Speedway (forces applied to the tires).
I said that all of those years ago, its the same spec wheel just rim it and balance... sorted lower points for their teams in the finish, fans get tomsee how good an operation the three teams would have been on the other tyre manufacturer... that would have been awesome and a race talked about for years for the right reasons.... i think for the regulation changes there should be two tyre manufacturers and have to use 2/3 mandatory pit stops using both companies... this would aid in the development of the tyres and provide much needed practice to ferrari to work on strategy
The main reason why on-cambers allow such fast speeds is not the effects of gravity., considering it's only a tiny fraction of gravity(0.17g at 10 degree camber). It's that on-cambers create a dip effect which allows cars to demand much more grip due to the extra centrifugal force and the corner being actually of bigger radius than it seems.
There was another option available, for Bernie Eccleston to use if he'd wanted to save face (watch the qualifying session for that race). Specifically, the race could have been postponed if fewer than 12 cars would be taking the start. Putting it simply, there were more options available for all parties, but everyone concerned missed the most important people they serve, the fans, the paying public sitting in the stands to watch their cars and drivers race
"everyone concerned" Surely you don't think the teams were at fault here. They clearly just wanted to race; it's just that the FIA were being absolutely impossible.
@@Reydriel indeed, the teams weren't entirely at fault, however, allegedly, all the teams agreed to have a chicane installed before turn 13 (bearing in mind that in the outside world the majority of a vote would be the route that would be taken) except one, Ferrari. Failing to see the big picture in the shape of the impending PR disaster for both the sport and the company in the United States, they were like, "why should we be punished for a Michelin error?" Like I said, if everyone wanted to avoid that situation then they would have found a way to avoid it. It was a technical problem with Michelin that became an all consuming political problem that backed the Michelin supplied teams into a no win situation
The chicane couldn't happen because that would alter the FIA-approved course in a way they hadn't tested. I actually agree with that. Too many racers have died because of unexpected consequences of decisions that seemed safe. Chicanes reduce speeds, but they also put different loads on the tires. Bridgestone hadn't tested with a chicane. Would the repeated change of direction have an unexpected twisting effect on the tire as it repeatedly sliced across the grooves, left and right, under lateral load? I'm not smart enough to think up a realistic what-if, but I know unintended consequences happen with untested technology (or applications), and people die. But what happened??? Surely Michelin had access to the track specs and it's diamond cutting and grooves when the work was done. That seems irresponsible in the extreme.
@@beenaplumber8379 Like was stated in the video, Bridgestone were not affected by the chicane in any way because they need not go through them. They'd run the exact same track they would have anyway. The chicane was only there for the Michelin teams
I was there that weekend and Toyota was the only Michelin team that suffered tire failures. Why was that? Was it because Toyota was running their tires below recommended pressures? Asking for a friend.
Always love those technical explanations and thank you very much! But here the story is really simple. Michelin didn't do the job right and had to take the responsibilities. Schumi explained it very well but everybody tried to bring on the "show-business" reasons to take advantages and put the chicane.
1) Precisely why FIA shouldn't over legislate tyres. If the team selects a bad tyre, it's the teams fault. Maybe they have to do 10 pitstops. If the FIA selects a bad tyre (c.f. Silverstone & Pirelli delaminations twice) there's nothing the team can do to avoid it. Mandating on whether and number of stops is annoying. Should be up to the team. 2) The correct solution was for the Michelin teams to just buy Bridgestones for the weekend.
I was watching it with my grandfather... both of us noticing the spectators throwing bottles on the tracks as a protest and... both of us blaming FIA or Michelin (I don't remember this haha) for having retired almost all the cars, making just SIX cars race on the track! That was probably the day I understood F1 was about to die!
The bank does NOT increase the forces unless the car is static. A banked corner REDUCES the force (this is why you bank corners for higher speeds). There are more things going on for the tire in that banked corner when the car gets up to high speed though. Tires at higher speeds are also having the sidewalls stretched with centripetal force, the heat from the greater rolled resistance at very high speeds, the length of time the tire is stressed to its max during the extended high speed corner as opposed to the shorter infield corners that peak the stress and get back out of it quickly.....
At that time the SAFER barrier was only on the sides of the track with the spectators. IIRC, Ralf's crashes were on the pit side, which was concrete. It wasn't until several years later, after bad NASCAR crashes that every wall at every American Oval Track had a SAFER barrier.
oh look kids.....another race that Kimi should have won but lose due to a mechanical issue. I once counted the # of races that Kimi should have won and I stopped at 30 which would put him at 51 GP wins
Kimi flatspotted his tires by braking too late. And decided to stay out on those destroyed tires instead of coming in and change it. He lost that race because of driver error, nothing else.
I was at this race. I remember reading about the tire controversy leading up to race day so nobody knew what to expect. My sister and I went to the race as we lived about a mile from the track. I remember all the fan uproar as the only 6 cars to run set up on the starting line. Some fans were nearly going into full on riot mode and I recall seeing the long line of Indiana State police vehicles pouring into the track. In the end there was a lot of protesting, chanting, and unhappy race fans. When the contract between the F1 and the Indianapolis motor speedway ended that also was the end of F1 racing here in Indy. From my recollection FiA demanded the track put more money into marketing the race, and was accustomed to this as most of their tracks were owned and operated by the government. IMS was, and still is, a private organization that had to make a profit so they weren't going to put the kind of resources into the race that FiA demanded. As a life long resident of central Indiana I can say we do not miss the F1 organization nor its stuck up attitude.
I’m feeling pedantic today, so I’ll point out that coal tar hasn’t been used in asphalt concrete for over 30 years as it’s a carcinogenic. The binder is made from bitumen sometimes known as asphalt, hence asphalt concrete (“Tarmac”) is often contracted to just “asphalt”.
Why not mention the fact that there was a resolution presented under the stipulation that all teams must agree, However Ferrari decided to screw the race and vote no.
Indeed the video seems to present an atypically edited version of what happened. I remember at the time that Todt, then Ferrari Team Principal, could have sided with the other teams but let self-interest win the day. And he's now running the FIA, bemoaning the fact that the teams won't work together. Oh the irony!
Advantage? The Michelin teams weren't going to get any points, they were prepared to race for the show and the thousands of people who had paid a lot of money to attend. Don't you think under the circumstances that would have been the right thing to do?
@@tinchote I agree. That is fucking stupid, they have to completely drop out of that race and get zero points. Heck they would have taken street cars at that point. And those fans, they paid all that money to waste there time. It's bs, I would not be happy if I went to Road American indy car race and watched 2-5 drivers go around because someone f'ed the tire design. Or the FIA just released a new rule like hours before the race would start so literately no-one could prepare for it. It's just fucked. And it's not even like they were trying to get an advantage after they knew there tire was shit, they even said they will let the fast tires go by if only they can race. The drivers just wanted to race. Don't you think that is a little bs? Like even a little? You can't agree with the FIA on this one. They were just being jack asses.
If someone wants to do something with all there team and the team agrees that they should race. That is stupid, you risk the entire champion chip to someone who probably didn't deserve it. It's not even the drivers fault it's the tire company that made the tire. SO at least give something to the teams so they can at least TRY to get points you know. There could have been way better solutions then just "oo sorry can't race because we said so" THEN they become even more of a jackass when the teams are like "okay w/e FIA, we will just fill the positions needed in the race so we can still at least race this one." and FIA is like "Nope I don't think so buds, we will take all of our boys outta every race for the rest of the season" That is a little dumb don't you think?
I don't understand why a new race exactly like F1 is created without the FiA. Maybe a race without restrictions but a massive fixed budget for all teams and enormous penalty (like 3 year ban and 50 million dollar fine) for driver deaths.
8:32 my conspiracy sense is tingling . This basicaly allowed Bridgestone to have monopoly over F1 tires. The circuit that causes so much problem was carefully crafted to cause such problem and then, when michelin was out: got removed ?
Thinking is a little backwards here with regards to the tyre direction. I had to think about it long and hard to make sure. I think the issue has come from thinking the car moves right and the tyre wants to continue forward, thus the car moves right and the tyre gets pulled left. When in reality the contact patch moves right and the car wants to continue forwards thus meaning the tyre is stretched the other direction for a right hand turn shown around the 3minute mark, with the bottom moving to the right and the top moving left. Actually infact the center moves left and the top and bottom move right as the car's weight is transfered to the tyre through the rim.
The first thing I would have thought is, "is there any way we can put Firestone's Indy tire on these cars? We know they work on this track, and we know Firestone has enough of them in stock to mandate Firestones across the grid." The second thought is, "does Bridgestone have 32 extra sets of tires of this compound?" With proper security - requiring Bridgestone employees to handle the tires and only installing them on Michelin cars before the cars go to the track - they could have cut down on espionage to the level it normally is at anyway. The third thought is obvious: why the hell didn't the FIA tell the two camps long before the race, "the racing surface at Indianapolis is completely different than it was. Get two cars and a stack of tires and get your butts over there to figure the track out...Bridgestone go on this date, Michelin go a week later."
I was there that day as a kid. Ihad no clue this happened. But I miss this event dearly because I lived 2 hours away, Austin Texas is too far for me to attend.
DON JOHNSON How well can you even see the cars while they go through the road course? I often prefer oval racing cuz ou can see whats going on all over the track, even at larger tracks like pocono. IMS may be a bit too big to see the whole track anyway, not sure
Alex ill use Road America for example, some areas of the track you may have a short window to see them go past but a few popular corners have big ass tv screens with live feed of the race, you can get pretty close to the track in some areas, you can walk & watch the race in any spot you want, you can walk in the pit area and check out the cars when their not racing, you can bring your own food & drinks as well. A lot of people rent the golf carts just to cruse around & get drunk all day
That season was a farce in itself. Bridgestone made durabe tires in compliance with the rules. Michelin made softer and riskier tires and their teams had a walkover of a season. They humiliated Schumacher and Ferrari. Everybody were very happy. I hated that season. Thet did everything to stop Schumacher in those years and finally he has had enough. Nowadays Mercedes and Hamilton have a free reign. And everybody thinks Hamilton is better than Schumacher and Senna. There is no competition. Even McLaren at their peak with Prost and Senna as teammates, they let them compete freely and they gave a hell of a show to us. Mercedes never let their drivers race freely. Not even at the beginning of the hybrid era when they were capable of starting from the pit lane and lap everybody. They are murderes of competition and I don't bother to watch races any more. I watch the highlights and don't get any pleasure.
It's possible...Bernie was at indy last year for a track inspection, and gave it his blessing. The GP track is modified and no longer uses the banked turns. Personally if the $$$ is there it would happen. I think cota has to be successful for about 3-4 years for f1 to think about a US expansion
With the hulman family finally gone and dead its possible but i still think the fia has a stick shoved way to far up their ass to ever come back here even with the changes in management.
The no tyre change rule is the stupidest rule ever in all sports. A 8 year old kid would have imagined it would endanger drivers lives. FIA either hired some extremely stupid people or moron in charge of making the rules back then.
I mean fair enough to Ferrari. I would do the same tbh in their shoes. We have had a shit year so this was a good way to gain points and its not our fault the Michelin tyres were not adequate to race in these conditions. I personally think the best solution was to reschedule the race to a later point in the calendar and everyone who bought tickets now can bring these tickets to the rescheduled event and if you can't make it (which is a shame) you can give the tickets back and get a full refund. At that moment in time there was no way they would have a safe solution.
Just imagine the logistics of rescheduling a formula one race though, especially a fly-in race where the teams would have transported the bulk of their garages and tools via tanker ships. By the time they would want to reschedule all of the necessary mechanical items would be halfway around the world and no one is going to float the bill to bring them back.
Should have gone into more depth about the consequences of the race. The fans were throwing trash on the track during the race, Michael Schumacher was basically given a free race win since he had no real competition, and Michelin paid to have ticket costs refunded to fans, including buying 20,000 tickets for the next year's race. Also, left out that at one point all of the teams, except Ferrari led by Jean Todt, agreed to cancel the race altogether. The race only ran when Jordan and Minardi agreed to run the race.
In fairness to the latter two Paul Stoddart and Eddie Jordan had no way out. They were underfunded and had to race to keep the sponsors happy so it was kinda like being "blackmailed" into racing.
Funny thing is - with NASCAR'S new car in 2008, a similar event with Goodyear tires happened. While all cars started the race, with several blowouts and several competition cautions throughout the day, the race was an absolute failure and Goodyear lost a lot of credibility with a lot of NASCAR drivers
NASA figured this was tyre issue out in the 70s when making the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center. They had grooves for water drainage on the runway but it was shown during testing in the lab to be extremely hard on the tires.
That was a sad day in F1 for sure. The Indy track was never a great idea other than the nostalgia and history of the track -- putting an F1 car on a banked track, even just a single corner, was a brain dead idea from the get-go. It is fortunate the Ralph and others didn't die, and it was a great embarrassment for the USA that our race was a laughing stock.
Indeed, I've great respect for anyone involved in racing but different racing machines are built for different types of race. Myself, I grew up watching motorcycle road racing, the Isle of Mann TT, Ulster GP and NW200. The bikes used in these races are very similar to British Superbike / World Superbike machines but there are key differences that make one suitable for the road and one for a track. It's the same with oval racing, it puts different stresses on the car's, ones an F1 machine wasn't designed for.
@@gerardmontgomery280 Putting a car with high levels of downforce on a high speed banked turn is asking for trouble. Years ago CART was testing at one of the high bank tracks that NASCAR uses but the driver were seeing something like 7 g's in the turns and that is not something that is safe, particularly over a 3 hours race.
+Raptorman0909 This one's completely on Michelin, who, seemingly typical of French manufacturers * cough * Renault * cough * bring inferior products to the track.
You're aware that Shanghai has a turn with just as much banking as Indy, right? You're aware that Indy, at only 9 degrees is considered "flat" by oval track standards, right?
I wouldn't say Ralf was fortunate. Hundreds of drivers have hit that very spot as it is normally turn 1 with no issue. Then again, those are Indy cars that hit that spot and they're built to shrug off a hit like that as it were nothing. F1 cars are not... So having that part of the oval layout Exposing cars not built to withstand oval accidents was really dumb.
Well I have a somewhat different remembrance of the event. 1) It was my understanding that ONLY Toyotas (Ralph's team) were having bad tire problems. 2) It was Michelin, NOT the teams, the FORBID the teams to run. I also disagree with the analysis that says "No fault with the tyres (sic)" and "Tyres manufactured correctly". The FACT that Michelin had underestimated the loads and Michelin had NOT designed the tires correctly make the other two statements false. Bottom line, it was ALL MICHELIN'S FAULT and I, for one, will never buy another Michelin tire.
It wouldn't; the car's momentum pulls the car to the outside, and the tires consequently need to pull the car to the inside. That's also why corners are banked the way they are; banking a corner *reduces* the lateral load on the tires, since part of the weight of the car is now pulling the car towards the inside. In short, the graphic is backwards; banking reduces lateral load on tires.
Max Moseley is a slimebag. He was trying to blame Michelin and the seven teams running those tyres for the fact that Bridgestone had access to data that Michelin did not have. I think the design error was made in good faith, and, if anyone is at fault, it's the FIA for not ensuring that information about the diamond-cut surface was communicated to Michelin in time for them to make tyres that would work.
Okay, then why did Michelin's engineers NOT mention this to fans when they got plenty of angry e-mails and phone calls the day after the race? I heard NOTHING about the diamond cutting of the track surface or its detrimental effects on the tires.
@@largol33t1 - it was mentioned in the BBC commentary during both Qualifying and in the build-up to the "race" itself. Maybe you were listening to different commentary?
@@penalozaur - Don't assume, because you make an ass of yourself. You know nothing about me except that which I posted above. All of which was information publicly available at the time, and all of which could have been mentioned by any F1 fan. Or do you think that the Ferrari fans had a great time watching their cars repeatedly lap the two slower teams that ran Bridgestone tyres?
Great video bear!! I was seconds away from buying my tickets for that race after spotting some sweet deals($150/weekend pass)on the wall of a porta pot while relieving myself at the Road America IndyCar race. I'm quite glad I didn't pull the trigger on that one as I had a rather prestigious hockey tournament I simply COULD NOT MISS. Seems it worked out since we finished 2nd in the tourney and the race ended up being more a lesson than a spectacle. Whew😁
Bridgestone offered to supply all teams for the weekend. The FIA refused the compromise. If I were a cynic, I'd suggest that it had something to do with Mosley wanting Michelin out of the sport.
Thank you so much for your explanation , even though brazil didn't broadcasted that full race because any U.S race times always clashed with the brazilian football and up until this day that still happens here , but never mind that , I wondered so much until I saw your video what did those problems were , so thank you so much .
No it's not. This fool chain bear is the only person I've ever heard say it that way, including Michelins own commercials. I think they'd know the secret right way, and use it.
This race summed up; firstly the shortcomings of the one tyre for the whole race rule, secondly an unintended consequence of 2 competing tyre manufacturers, thirdly the failure of the FIA to find common ground and fourthly the ability of Ferrari management to veto any measure that was "against them". When the no tyre changes (unless for punctures or tyre failures) rule was implemented, it was only a matter of time before the problems with it became clear. Ferrari influenced Bridgestone to exclusively develop tyres for them, leaving only Jordan and Minardi with whatever tyres Bridgestone gave them, leaving them the only "front running team" with the Japanese rubber. This left them doing all the tyre development, when Michelin were spreading the load over seven teams. Worse still, when the tyre failures for Michelin started happening at Indianapolis, it would become clear that unless common sense prevailed, there would be only six cars starting the race. The FIA had plenty of options available to enable a race to take place, and even if it didn't allowed for ways to postpone the race to a later date if fewer than 12 cars were able to start the race. Ferrari may well be a charismatic team with a history that's second to none, but vetoing all compromises just because they knew about the problems that the resurfaced banking posed and Michelin didn't, was a step too far. Yes it wasn't their fault that Michelin were caught out, but it was certainly their fault for not helping to find a solution that saved face for everyone in the sport in front of the audience at their biggest shop window, the United States of America and those around the world who tuned in expecting to see an entertaining race. It must not be allowed to happen again
Something else you didn't mention? That Bridgestone had an unfair advantage by having the month of May at the Track to collect data, since Firestone, their American Subsidiary, as stated in the video, was the exclusive tire ran during the Indy 500, while Michelin couldn't do any testing at all.
@@ElFuego35 I agree that it was unfair, having said that, Bridgestone probably felt that it was unfair that they were getting a kicking pretty much everywhere else. Motorsport is all about reading regulations to see what's illegal and then read them again to find gaps in the wording. There was nothing in the regulations that said that Bridgestone engineers couldn't collect data about the tyre behaviour on the then new diamond cut surface. In fact, Bridgestone had tyre failures at the Spanish Grand Prix earlier that season and asked for the tyre regulations to be altered, to which Michelin refused. The whole thing at Indy that weekend was a real mess and could have been handled much better of everyone had had their minds focused on their most important customers, notably the fans and the sponsors, particularly in their biggest market place, the United States of America
The FIA did nothing wrong. Michelin is 100% at fault for what happened. They brought the wrong tire for the track and that’s the end of it. I’m 2008, NASCAR had a similar issue at the same track. Indy had just been resurfaced and Goodyear, the ONLY tire manufacture in NASCAR, decided condoms would work over tires. The race was an unmitigated disaster. All 43 cars ran, but every 10 or so laps one of them either blew a tire or NASCAR called a caution in the name of safety. Granted NASCAR and Goodyear brought a different compound (specifically tires marked for Pocono the following weekend) but those harder tires still were failing within 10 laps. Goodyear bore the brunt of that debacle when it happened. Michelin needs to here. Credit to the FIA and F1 teams for trying to find a solution, but at the end of the day it all could have been avoided had Michelin brought the right tire.
Michelin had no way of knowing what they would need, they bought tyres according to testing held earlier in the year, but Indianapolis did their resurfacing work, which left the tyre wear massively higher. They were told tyre wear would be higher but were left to guess how much higher it would be. If I remember right Bridgestone were supplying another series which raced at the resurfaced track and so were able to get the relevant data. Any which way, the priority should have been the fans, not the letter of the law.
@@Chilukar I agree. How were they supposed to know what the resurfacing did to tire wear? It's like someone has decided to hate on Michelin no matter what the facts are.
Not FIA. Negotiate were boycotted by Jean Todt. Thanks to the Ferrari team for the awful US Grand Prix 2005. It is strange that everyone has "forgotten" about this.
FIA prevented the teams from racing on their own terms by using essentially blackmail. That move had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with politics.
I was there, turn 5 stands. I couldn't believe the amount of attention this got in the US, where the media ignores racing. It was strange to hear radio sports talk shows discussing this all day, as if it were a baseball game. Chaos...so frustrating to know that there was a chance that this would happen, but when those cars pulled off into the pits...what a horrible scene in the stands. About a third left immediately, then another third during the race. People were throwing things ,but no one could hit the track, and nothing was thrown during the race. At least they got The Commodores to play before the race the following year.
@3:02 ... what? Are you sure about that? Usually when an F1 car makes a right turn the entire car slides slightly to the left and almost rips the tires of the rims. So it should be the opposite direction of what you are explaining...
The fact that the teams went "lmfao fuck it, lets just replace the FIA with our own guys and have a race literally just for fun" was funny as fuck.
Imagine if that happened lol
F1 Teams: Our tyres can't take the stress of Turn 13
FiA: Drive slowly through that turn...🤣🤣🤣
@Miroslav Kašpar Which puts a higher chance of the race to be red-flagged and permanently stopped had if they accepted that suggestion.
The reason they made such stance just to finish the race
Then walk the fuck out there
Don't get it twisted now.
Gotta respect Michelin for having the balls to say no when they felt their tires werent safe. Also that they made honest attempts to figure out a way of doing it safely.
I was there. To this day I still cuss every time a Michelin commercial comes on TV. Michelin is to blame, the track had been used for a century and Michelin had shit tires the prior year and didn't fix it.
@@natureboy99 Michelin even had to amend their tyre design for the last 3 races of 2003, because he FiA deemed them too unpredictable on banking corners. Michelin was always cutting corners to get ahead of Bridgestone, and that lead to this shit show in 2005 and ultimately convinced the FiA to switch to a single supplier system.
Jordan and Minardi fighting for a podium place, maybe this was the most epic race in the F1 history.
And Minardi had an awesome livery that year.
That stupid 2005 rule of only using 1 set of tyres for both qualifying AND the race was so obviously put there to stop Schumacher and Ferrari from winning an 8th title.
Basically yeah. And then everyone tries to blame Ferrari for not playing ball at Indy.
Ferrari since has been a joke
yeah, all season Bridgestone (Ferrari basically) struggle with tyres - nobody cares. One race Michelin has issues - "put chickane there, please". That USA GP was only race of that season I could smile.
The issue was that Bridgestone supplied only 3 teams on 3 power levels. So when the Michelin teams couldn't compete you just had the 2 Ferraris, then the 2 Jordans and finally the 2 Minardis. With the Bridgestone teams uncompetitive you had still a real competition with Renault, McLaren and Toyota at least consistently competing for the podium.
can you explain that statement?. Bridgestone tyres were better in durability and had one more race than the rest... So how can that rule go against Ferrari?? No Logic.
Just think about that: No tyre Change rule.
And the Current No Refueling Rule.
Combine them.
All Stratagy is gone :(
Having a Tyre war in F1 would be a great way of mixing up the strategy and give us more on track racing too.
Well that’s not true at all. There’s still plenty of scope for strategy within those regulations. Examples:
Use a tyre for qualifying and the race. Go soft to get a good grid slot, or hard for better race tyre?
Fuel management and tyre management are part of the strategy. Do you push at the start, or wait until the end?
How quickly will Bottas jump out of the way for Hamilton?
Yeah, the races would suck.
Those rules ruin the racing along with hybrid engines and push to pass systems Aerodynamic and mechanical assist!
If there were no fuel stops and no pit stops, and plenty of fuel and durable tires, all you would have left is racing! Strategy makes things interesting & sometimes suspenseful, but I want to see engineers designing the fastest machines and drivers pushing them to their limits. :D Homologation/BOP punishes innovation.
On the race tracks where I live, the winner is required to sell his engine to the 2nd place finisher for a super-cheap price ($100, but that was 15 years ago), if the 2nd place guy wants it. There's your homologation! Let the runner-up buy the Mercedes engine and hybrid technology for a token price, and suddenly the big players have much less of an advantage. Money can buy the research and development, and even a few wins, but this scheme distributes that technology - eventually, and I think excitingly, and you don't have to beat Mercedes, just finish 2nd. It's not perfect, of course, because the crews and drivers would be unfamiliar with the technology and need lots of time to become proficient with it, but maybe that training could be part of the deal? This video shows what teams are willing to do to give fans a decent race. Mercedes likes to hide their technology, but imagine a world... open-source F1 :D
@AlwaysRM_ You seem to be implying that F1 was worthless without pitstops. But these have only been part of strategy for very few of all years 1950 till the 2000s.
the funny thing is that the new Indianapolis GP Circuit deleted the last corner putting pretty much a chicane in the infield of the corner to avoid this thing to happen again in other events in the future
Me FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
@@mr.speed..6368 what?
And they changed some turns to go one turn and straight
isnt this only for motorcycles?
@@karelpipa Indycar uses it as well
Your graphic is wrong. The car would be pulling outward, up the banking. Your tires would be pulling inwards, towards the turn.
Duffman15000 I was going to make the exact same remark, glad to know I wasn't wrong and I'm not the only one who understands how centripetal(fugal) force works ahah
actually it's not just the graphic that's wrong. At 3:02 he says that if a car wishes to stay to the right the contact patches are pulled to the left which is obviously not the case.
Dr. Christian Rätsch yes I guess he got totally bamboozled ahah
I was thoroughly confused for a moment and had to play it out in my head to make sure what i was seeing was bs.
Dr. Christian Rätsch
Why not? i dont get it
*FIA Whines* You can't put a chicane in there, it'll ruin the whole track pace!!
*Michelin Teams point to La Sarthe circuit*
*FIA whines even harder*
Also don't forget the fiasco at the Spanish GP of Montjuich Park. The teams all protested about the track's terrible shape but the FIA stone cold wouldn't budge and told them they were obligated under contract to race. Emerson Fittipaldi did several very slow laps with his McLaren as a protest and pulled into the pits. He absolutely refused to rejoin the race. German Rolf Stommelen led half the race. Then, a wing on his car snapped causing the car to fly out of control. It crashed through the barriers that everyone was worrying about and killed several spectators. Stommelen got lucky and escaped with a broken leg. The race shamefully continued before it was finally halted. I forgot who won but he so outraged by the avoidable accident that he refused to accept the winner's trophy.
@@largol33t1 the winner of that GP was German driver Jochen Mass, btw
Starting to really get into F1 recently. One common thing I'm noticing is how the FIA are a bunch of spoiled childs
Yes they are
Check out where all the new circuits are.
Now see where most of their new money comes in...
Arab oil money, and the Netflix Americans
The tyre deflection is the wrong way. It should the other way.
Yeah exactly. How could he get something so basic, wrong!?
At least he can pronounce Michelin correctly unlike most commenters.
@@dentistguba There is no law or rule that states that names should be pronounced as they do in their language of origin, so it's dependant on your tongue. Michelin as in Mishel-inn is a correct way for me to say it. Otherwise you would not be able to name any Russian company ;)
Difference is I don't go comment on people using the Cyrillic alphabet to passive aggressively tell them they are wrong and stupid.
@@dentistguba kinda offensive, but ok... :D
The author got the picture backwards and thus ended up missing what is really happening. It is true that banked turns reduce side loading for a given speed and turn radius by converting a good amount of the load into vertical loading. But remember that the extra vertical loading actually allows higher corner speeds because it provides another form of "downforce" with no drag penalty. That is what is missing from the other circuits; the higher vertical load itself increases stress on the tire, but the addition of the higher side loading resulting from that extra "downforce" is what killed the Michelins.
Increased vertical load will affect tire load sensitivity, but I fail to see why would it increase side loading. Unless I am understanding you wrong: The extra available downforce provided by the banked turn's higher speed allowed the pilots to obtain higher amounts of grip (and therefore lateral loads) during that turn, higher than the ones anticipated by Michelin.
Thank you. Everyone is explaining that the illustrations are wrong, but I know that.
I was looking for an explanation why the tires actually (might have) failed.
Your description of how downforce leads to increased grip is the relationship I am talking about. It’s the vertical load that allows the tires to react lateral loading (the relationship is generally proportional). As to the latter part of your response, yes, the higher speeds produce higher aerodynamic downforce, but remember that the geometry of the banking itself produces yet another form of inertial downforce on top of everything else. When you drive around the banking at Daytona, you experience the sensation of being pushed into your seat, much like in an aircraft undergoing a banked turn.
Dead right, xbird22. The higher vertical loading from the banking gives more grip (just like higher aero downforce, but without the added drag.) Since there's more grip and less drag, this lets the cars take the corner even faster - which increases the side load and adds a little more to the downward force on the tyre (both from aero, and the effect of the banking.) For me, the telling part in your original post is "for a given speed" - and that speed through the corner will obviously increase as they have more grip to make use of, since the point of racing is to ideally have the car on the absolute edge of adhesion at all times (if possible.)
With enough banking, you don't need aero downforce at all - just think about how "wall of death" motorcycles stay up, and how much force that puts on the tyres IMS has much less steep banking, with a proportionally smaller effect - but that effect is still valid and can become an issue when you're already close to the limits of the vehicle.
aussiebloke609, that was a nice condensation of the phenomenon. A banking of 9 degrees doesn't intuitively seem like much, but it's clearly substantial when you see indycars taking those corners at 230 mph/370 kph.
Based on a rough conservative estimate of 3g peak lateral acceleration, a 9 degree banking would provide something close to 850 lb of additional vertical load over an equivalent uncambered turn. With downforce on the 2017 cars well-documented to be just a touch above 2000 lb in quali trim, it’s not unreasonable to say that the banking itself provides close to a third of the total downforce, which is eye-opening.
I didnt realize this wasnt chainbear's channel until the end
SAMEEEEE
Even me, I liked it even until I realized it was Autosport. Went back and unliked it.
@@dreade_docSA I always like anything to do with chainbear lol. Hope he gets money from this video
@@dreade_docSA why would you unlike it? he has a deal with autosport, im sure the gets something from it
@@dreade_docSA go back and like it, we have to show autosport that their investment into chain bear is worth it.
Man I was THERE when I was 5. My family always went, and this race was strange, because no one started. It's so strange to have been part of something so historical, like I watched Schumacher crashed in practice.
I'm so glad this has been done! A few months ago I was looking for a video like this because I remember this weekend but not clearly. Thanks for this! Learned more than the Wikipedia article has ✌🏽
What a fantastic video! I can’t say enough about the style, technique, visuals, and correct pronunciation of Michelin!
I’m 65 and have been following motor racing all my life, and I learned several things from this video. I remember watching this race, and being astonished at what happened. Thank you for such a detailed analysis! New subscriber!
It’s kind of funny the FIA refuses a chicane at this track but in 1994 were chicane happy at all the fast corners including Eau Rouge, not to mention forcing a lot of car modifications on teams at the last minute. If Ferrari had been on Michelin tires the chicane would have been used I bet.
blimeyification oh they gave a damn, I just checked out the season results since it was before my F1 viewing time, and would you believe that was the only race the great Ferrari and Michael Schumacher won that year?? From what the book “the mechanic” said Bridgestone were having issues that year keeping pace with Michelin and the no pit stop rule. So what better way to make sure Ferrari and their Bridgestone tires get a win than not do anything to help the Michelin teams compete.
Why do you Always have to bash Ferrari? It wasnt there fault that Michelin Mest Up
It's not that they wouldn't want a chicane there, it's that they didn't want a temporary, hodge podge, slapped together from whatever was laying around chicane. They had done that in the past with sometimes lethal results.
@@driver8703 don't blame Ferrari and Bridgestone for Michelin and their shit tyres.
@blimeyification yeah but two days notice? Ehhh I guess, idk, it would be sketchy though. Especially with the entry and if it will be overtaking zone. Can you go two or even 3 wide. Is it a fast chicane or slow? Gotta take these things into account before just slapping one and track and a driver dies because of the chicane.
I remember David Coulthard pleading to be able to race for McLaren I think on the formation lap. It was a rubbish race with only 6 cars but at least if one were really taking safety seriously
Steve H2488 Do you mean Red Bull?
I wouldn't know or care, I was spitting chips. Turned it off and went for a walk to cool down if I remember right.
@@jordanblair4077 I think you maybe right.
@@Chilukar the how thing was a joke. It was not much of a sense all together. Not sure why the fia did not let people change the supplier for 1 race.
@@dyslexiksteve2488 Bridgestone did not have the capacity to create that many tyres in time. Plain simple.
You missed one fact. Toyota were running the tyres outside specification, almost 0.7 bar under pressure. This is what caused the failure. Only Toyota had any kind of failure that weekend, with all the other teams running the tyres in specification. This is why in the end it was Toyota, not Michelin, who repaid the fans ticket costs by refunding Michelin. What you have told here is the originally reported history as told by Toyota.
It was not long after this event that tyre pressure rules were overhauled. When Pirelli became the only tyre manufacturer, the F1 teams started playing with tyre pressures again as the rules had specifically named Bridgestone and Michelin. After a number of tyre failures due to running under pressure, the rules were changed to make minimum manufacturer mandated pressures enforceable regardless of the tyre origin. The same rule was quickly adopted across all FIA sanctioned race series.
This entire fiasco was yet another example of Toyota cheating on track.
You have a point here. That could explain the Trulli pole position (even though for pole there were different rules - combination of times from friday + one single lap on saturday and so on). I was eager to see if Kimi can continue to cut off from the points deficit from Alonso. I was highly dissapointed as Kimi was at his peak during that season and in that period of the year.
That's an Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory right there. As someone who was a tire mechanic, I can guarantee you that running a set of tires slightly under pressure will not compromise the safety of that tire. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and just admit for you that you have never heard of races like the Paris-Dakar Rally, or any kind of rally or off-road race. It's not uncommon for a set of tires to only have 0.7 bar of pressure in them in total. Yet they're pounding rocks, sand, holes, gulleys, ditches, cactus, scrub brush, you name it. Rarely do they have a blowout, but yes, it's possible. Just like you'll see tire carcuses up and down any highway in the USA from tires that were properly inflated yet blew out anyways.
In Spa some years ago Vettel had tire problems related to low pressure. Ferrari was not following the recommended pressure.
@@indyalts020 Yes, some were still messing about when Pirelli came in as the ruling was written actually referencing Bridgestone and Michelin. The updated rules now just use the word "manufacturer" to prevent the loophole.
I was at the race. My refund check came from Michelin. Not Toyota.
This was my first ever race in person!!!! I didn't race that it was only 6 cars racing, I was so impressed with the performance
"High Banking"
"9.8°"
Thank goodness they don't run bristol
bristol would be no problem since its so slow.
Bristol Motor Speedway was resurfaces to 30º banking in the corners.
Imagine F1 at Talladega, a 2.66 mile tri-oval with 33º banking in the corners...before NASCAR implemented restrictor plates in 1988, Bill Elliott's 1987 Winston 500 pole speed was 212.809 MPH (342.483 km/h)) at a 44.998 second lap time. That speed was close to Mario Andretti's 215.390 MPH (346.636 km/h) pole speed at the 1987 Indianapolis 500 (granted, IMS isn't a high-banked track like Daytona or Talladega). What would an F1 car top out at on the tri-oval going into turn 1 (the fastest part of the track)?
@@Kylora2112 I'd love to see that happen. Though it would probably be insane.
@@sulphurous2656 The drivers would probably black out like they were doing at Texas in Indy (Texas isn't as fast as unrestricted Talladega).
Probably one of the most comprehensive and concise videos I've ever watched.
Million thanks, I now completely understand why that race was a fiasco.
Also remember, the relation FIA-Michelin eas broken since 2003 when Michelin was forced to change the front tyres well into the season without testing. And the anouncement of the exit of WRC don't help.
Sorry for my english.
Your English is pretty good, better than a lot of English people I know.
3:40 I know I'm being pedantic, but the tires would actually be stretched in the opposite direction than shown
An F1 history topic that Aidan Millward has already done a video on BUT explained by Chain Bear? This is awesome!!!
That is not how banked corners work. banking a corner indeed adds a sideway component to the force of the cars weight, but it does not increase the stress on the tires it decreases it, because it is pointed in the exact opposite direction. That is the whole point of banking a corner. You bank it so you could go faster around it, but why is that? The limiting force in going around a normal corner is the adhesion of the tires on the surface of the road, when the centrifugal force becomes greater than the adhesion (by going faster or through a tighter radius) the car slides towards the outside of the corner. To counter this a corner can be banked on the outside. This means that a part of the cars weight pulls it to the inside and that force can be added to the adhesion and therefor allows one to go faster through a corner.
NeoDerGrosse Thank you. The problem didn't make much sense to me. I understand now (if I have it right) that lateral g-forces over time must be the destructive force.
@@louf7178 Yes, that's right. The question that remains is, what made it different from the other tracks. I have a theory, but I'm not sure. The banked corner turns part of the lateral force into down force towards the surface. This increases the adhesion and the drivers use that to go faster around the corners. This increases the stress on the tires and might have been what wore them out so fast.
NeoDerGrosse Yes. That is exactly what I'd say. The additional downforce would add to the outside sidewall also - it all must be significantly greater than in flat turns.
I guess an idea of mine to incorporate a corkscrew style track segment (to really boost the sport's spectator wow-factor) had another hidden disaster - maybe, still, a loop though 😳🤔. Too crazy?
I think a banked corner involves similar forces to any other long, high-speed corner, something which is difficult but quite possible for the tyres to manage. What caused the tyre failures at the 2005 US GP was the combination of this high-stress corner and the diamond grinding of the track producing higher stresses on parts of the tyre.
Michelan.
The egg's on your face, that is how it's pronounced. French company.
@@osirisgolad i'm french and Michelin isn't pronounced "mIcHlAn" at all.
@@BULLDOZOR Yes, the stress should be on the last syllable, but it is a lot better than how most English speakers pronounce it: mish-uh-lin, and stressing the first syllable.
Rick de Maaijer Or worse yet, mitch-uh-lin, which I hear in every UK TV advert by the company.
omfg people get the fuck over yourselves. We've heard it pronounced "MISH-uh-lin" our whole lives. It sounds funny to hear it pronounced the "right way".
What a lot of people don't know is that is was very close to being just a 2 car race, but Eddie Jordan decided to race at the last minute. Paul Stoddart and Minardi only raced because Jordan raced.
Tht one race when u were a proud jordan fan 😂😂😂
i dont even know jordan fans exist
My parents do that when their soccer team is garbage early in the championship. Methods of coping... They just pick a random smaller team and convert for a year XD
Ahh the days when u had either bridgestone or michellin....and only dry and wets...simpler times...now u have a rainbow of colors compound 😂😂😂😂
Colours? The tires are all black
Look at the sides of them Trilo
Dano10101
OH! I get it now thanks mate
Which only 3 are used at each race. Why can't we have all of them!
Extinct comment but just a random mention, I also miss the crazy amount of sponsor decals!
I was seated in Turn 1. Foster's Lager was selling their oil cans at the track, and pissed off fans were throwing full unopened Foster's oil cans over the fence at Schumacher. We packed up and left by lap 10, that was the last F1 race I've ever attended to date.
@5:45 We've got a problem with car safety in turn 13, well let's just tell the drivers with Michelin tires to slow down during turn 13. This is the worst solution mentioned except the one actually implemented. How is it possible the FIA, and other governing bodies of F1 be that out of touch with the realities of their own flagship sport? It reminds me of the NCAA, and how far off into space they are when it comes to the sports they regulate. Really good video Chain Bear, liked, subbed, and all that.
You missed a trick by not calling the negotiations chicanery.
Nice one. Congratulations on your command of English
@@persilious81 As world-renowned-in-my-head stand-up-and-sit-down-comedian Jestin' Iestyn, you could say it's almost my job...
What lead to the Indianapolis 2005 incident?
2005 in Spain : Schumacher's tires snapped twice during the weekend. Bridgestone asked Michelin for a circuit modification. Michelin's answer was simple : "No!"
Don't look further. Michelin created the problem and refused every FIA's propositions.
@Laika24102007
Charlie Whiting wasn't blamed at all for that debacle.
Michelin miscalculated the information given by the FIA and the Indianapolis Speedway (forces applied to the tires).
I would of suggested to let then run on Bridgestones but I guess they wouldn’t of had enough either.
I said that all of those years ago, its the same spec wheel just rim it and balance... sorted lower points for their teams in the finish, fans get tomsee how good an operation the three teams would have been on the other tyre manufacturer... that would have been awesome and a race talked about for years for the right reasons.... i think for the regulation changes there should be two tyre manufacturers and have to use 2/3 mandatory pit stops using both companies... this would aid in the development of the tyres and provide much needed practice to ferrari to work on strategy
Michelin had actually allowed their teams to run on the Bridgestones, but the FIA, of course, said no
The main reason why on-cambers allow such fast speeds is not the effects of gravity., considering it's only a tiny fraction of gravity(0.17g at 10 degree camber). It's that on-cambers create a dip effect which allows cars to demand much more grip due to the extra centrifugal force and the corner being actually of bigger radius than it seems.
There was another option available, for Bernie Eccleston to use if he'd wanted to save face (watch the qualifying session for that race). Specifically, the race could have been postponed if fewer than 12 cars would be taking the start.
Putting it simply, there were more options available for all parties, but everyone concerned missed the most important people they serve, the fans, the paying public sitting in the stands to watch their cars and drivers race
"everyone concerned"
Surely you don't think the teams were at fault here. They clearly just wanted to race; it's just that the FIA were being absolutely impossible.
@@Reydriel indeed, the teams weren't entirely at fault, however, allegedly, all the teams agreed to have a chicane installed before turn 13 (bearing in mind that in the outside world the majority of a vote would be the route that would be taken) except one, Ferrari. Failing to see the big picture in the shape of the impending PR disaster for both the sport and the company in the United States, they were like, "why should we be punished for a Michelin error?"
Like I said, if everyone wanted to avoid that situation then they would have found a way to avoid it. It was a technical problem with Michelin that became an all consuming political problem that backed the Michelin supplied teams into a no win situation
Why the fuck did Ferrari think they were being punished? lmao, they would still win the race easily...
The chicane couldn't happen because that would alter the FIA-approved course in a way they hadn't tested. I actually agree with that. Too many racers have died because of unexpected consequences of decisions that seemed safe. Chicanes reduce speeds, but they also put different loads on the tires. Bridgestone hadn't tested with a chicane. Would the repeated change of direction have an unexpected twisting effect on the tire as it repeatedly sliced across the grooves, left and right, under lateral load? I'm not smart enough to think up a realistic what-if, but I know unintended consequences happen with untested technology (or applications), and people die.
But what happened??? Surely Michelin had access to the track specs and it's diamond cutting and grooves when the work was done. That seems irresponsible in the extreme.
@@beenaplumber8379
Like was stated in the video, Bridgestone were not affected by the chicane in any way because they need not go through them. They'd run the exact same track they would have anyway. The chicane was only there for the Michelin teams
I started watching F1 in 2006 so I missed all the details of this debacle. Thanks Chain Bear F1 for posting this.
I was there that weekend and Toyota was the only Michelin team that suffered tire failures. Why was that? Was it because Toyota was running their tires below recommended pressures? Asking for a friend.
yes
@Laika24102007 Well, they were not captured on camera, but mentioned on Brundle's commentary later before the race.
Always love those technical explanations and thank you very much! But here the story is really simple. Michelin didn't do the job right and had to take the responsibilities. Schumi explained it very well but everybody tried to bring on the "show-business" reasons to take advantages and put the chicane.
Best thing in this race was the Paul Stobbart interview.
1) Precisely why FIA shouldn't over legislate tyres.
If the team selects a bad tyre, it's the teams fault. Maybe they have to do 10 pitstops.
If the FIA selects a bad tyre (c.f. Silverstone & Pirelli delaminations twice) there's nothing the team can do to avoid it.
Mandating on whether and number of stops is annoying. Should be up to the team.
2) The correct solution was for the Michelin teams to just buy Bridgestones for the weekend.
If you remember this race you're qualified for a veteran's discount
So if you're at least 17 or 18 years old you get a Veteran's discount? How about we make it 18 and older and you get an adult discount.
I was at the 1987 British GP what discount do I get?
I was watching it with my grandfather... both of us noticing the spectators throwing bottles on the tracks as a protest and... both of us blaming FIA or Michelin (I don't remember this haha) for having retired almost all the cars, making just SIX cars race on the track!
That was probably the day I understood F1 was about to die!
Stop boasting, you lot! Otherwise I'll set my pet dinosaurs onto you all. 🦖🦖🦖🦕🦕🐊🐊🐊🐊
Putting the wrong graphic aside, its a great video.
Max Mosley.
End of.
That's what'll be written on his gravestone 🤔
Duly corrected ...
I thought the end was when he was caught hiring prostitutes dressed as Nazis.
The day F1 got a "spanking."
Nope. Negotiate were boycotted by Jean Todt. Thanks to the Ferrari team for the awful US Grand Prix 2005
The bank does NOT increase the forces unless the car is static. A banked corner REDUCES the force (this is why you bank corners for higher speeds). There are more things going on for the tire in that banked corner when the car gets up to high speed though. Tires at higher speeds are also having the sidewalls stretched with centripetal force, the heat from the greater rolled resistance at very high speeds, the length of time the tire is stressed to its max during the extended high speed corner as opposed to the shorter infield corners that peak the stress and get back out of it quickly.....
1:45 and 5:27 - IMS already had the SAFER barrier installed by then, so the cars weren't spearing straight into a concrete wall.
Pfft. The Euros by now probably think SAFER barriers are an invention by the ACO for Le Mans now that they use them in the Porsche curves.
At that time the SAFER barrier was only on the sides of the track with the spectators. IIRC, Ralf's crashes were on the pit side, which was concrete.
It wasn't until several years later, after bad NASCAR crashes that every wall at every American Oval Track had a SAFER barrier.
I appreciate Chainbear's appropriate illustration of the f1 car at that time with narrow front and wide rear wings.
oh look kids.....another race that Kimi should have won but lose due to a mechanical issue. I once counted the # of races that Kimi should have won and I stopped at 30 which would put him at 51 GP wins
Who had a tyre failure in 2007 in China? Kimi would be 0 time world champion now but for that one bad strategy error.
Kimi flatspotted his tires by braking too late. And decided to stay out on those destroyed tires instead of coming in and change it. He lost that race because of driver error, nothing else.
@@hmkls2542 "Decided to stay out"... Because the rules disallowed him from changing them.
@@BrianBell4073 no one had.
@@dyr_glpsn4209 - Driving on canvas when you think the WDC is in the bag counts as a tyre failure. It only delaminated on his in lap
I was at this race. I remember reading about the tire controversy leading up to race day so nobody knew what to expect. My sister and I went to the race as we lived about a mile from the track. I remember all the fan uproar as the only 6 cars to run set up on the starting line. Some fans were nearly going into full on riot mode and I recall seeing the long line of Indiana State police vehicles pouring into the track. In the end there was a lot of protesting, chanting, and unhappy race fans. When the contract between the F1 and the Indianapolis motor speedway ended that also was the end of F1 racing here in Indy. From my recollection FiA demanded the track put more money into marketing the race, and was accustomed to this as most of their tracks were owned and operated by the government. IMS was, and still is, a private organization that had to make a profit so they weren't going to put the kind of resources into the race that FiA demanded. As a life long resident of central Indiana I can say we do not miss the F1 organization nor its stuck up attitude.
Last time I was this early, vettel already had a grid penalty
Amit Kumar lead in the championship*
was spinning on the first lap*
who's vettel?
In 2006 XD
This was posted 7 months ago. And im posting this in June, after Canadian gp when Vettel got 5 secs penalty lol
I’m feeling pedantic today, so I’ll point out that coal tar hasn’t been used in asphalt concrete for over 30 years as it’s a carcinogenic. The binder is made from bitumen sometimes known as asphalt, hence asphalt concrete (“Tarmac”) is often contracted to just “asphalt”.
3:39 isnt that picture wrong? The banked corner was a right hander and it looks like the tyres are doing a left corner? Or am i wrong? 🤔
kukuc96 Yep that is what i noticed to.
you are right the car is not going right. Instead it is going left beacuse the details of this part of the video seem to have been left unchecked.
Sping Bay it looks like it is doing a left, off banking corner in the picture.
All I see is the front of a car turning right and it's tyres properly deforming into the opposite direction.
The tyre is doing a right turn. Are you aware that you're looking at the front of the car, not the rear?
I love how the FIA will sometimes be super by the books and not compromise at all and then sometimes just sort of make things up
Why not mention the fact that there was a resolution presented under the stipulation that all teams must agree, However Ferrari decided to screw the race and vote no.
Indeed the video seems to present an atypically edited version of what happened. I remember at the time that Todt, then Ferrari Team Principal, could have sided with the other teams but let self-interest win the day. And he's now running the FIA, bemoaning the fact that the teams won't work together. Oh the irony!
So you think that if a team screws up with equipment, the others have to give them some advantage to compensate?
Advantage? The Michelin teams weren't going to get any points, they were prepared to race for the show and the thousands of people who had paid a lot of money to attend. Don't you think under the circumstances that would have been the right thing to do?
@@tinchote I agree. That is fucking stupid, they have to completely drop out of that race and get zero points. Heck they would have taken street cars at that point. And those fans, they paid all that money to waste there time. It's bs, I would not be happy if I went to Road American indy car race and watched 2-5 drivers go around because someone f'ed the tire design. Or the FIA just released a new rule like hours before the race would start so literately no-one could prepare for it. It's just fucked. And it's not even like they were trying to get an advantage after they knew there tire was shit, they even said they will let the fast tires go by if only they can race. The drivers just wanted to race. Don't you think that is a little bs? Like even a little? You can't agree with the FIA on this one. They were just being jack asses.
If someone wants to do something with all there team and the team agrees that they should race. That is stupid, you risk the entire champion chip to someone who probably didn't deserve it. It's not even the drivers fault it's the tire company that made the tire. SO at least give something to the teams so they can at least TRY to get points you know. There could have been way better solutions then just "oo sorry can't race because we said so" THEN they become even more of a jackass when the teams are like "okay w/e FIA, we will just fill the positions needed in the race so we can still at least race this one." and FIA is like "Nope I don't think so buds, we will take all of our boys outta every race for the rest of the season" That is a little dumb don't you think?
I don't understand why a new race exactly like F1 is created without the FiA. Maybe a race without restrictions but a massive fixed budget for all teams and enormous penalty (like 3 year ban and 50 million dollar fine) for driver deaths.
8:32 my conspiracy sense is tingling . This basicaly allowed Bridgestone to have monopoly over F1 tires. The circuit that causes so much problem was carefully crafted to cause such problem and then, when michelin was out: got removed ?
LOL, Indianapolis Speedway is old as fuck. It wasn't carefully crafted for ANYTHING.
Thinking is a little backwards here with regards to the tyre direction. I had to think about it long and hard to make sure. I think the issue has come from thinking the car moves right and the tyre wants to continue forward, thus the car moves right and the tyre gets pulled left. When in reality the contact patch moves right and the car wants to continue forwards thus meaning the tyre is stretched the other direction for a right hand turn shown around the 3minute mark, with the bottom moving to the right and the top moving left. Actually infact the center moves left and the top and bottom move right as the car's weight is transfered to the tyre through the rim.
The first thing I would have thought is, "is there any way we can put Firestone's Indy tire on these cars? We know they work on this track, and we know Firestone has enough of them in stock to mandate Firestones across the grid."
The second thought is, "does Bridgestone have 32 extra sets of tires of this compound?" With proper security - requiring Bridgestone employees to handle the tires and only installing them on Michelin cars before the cars go to the track - they could have cut down on espionage to the level it normally is at anyway.
The third thought is obvious: why the hell didn't the FIA tell the two camps long before the race, "the racing surface at Indianapolis is completely different than it was. Get two cars and a stack of tires and get your butts over there to figure the track out...Bridgestone go on this date, Michelin go a week later."
Third: Because FIA has really asinine policies restricting testing across the board.
As John McEnroe would say: "You cannot be serious!"
Great analysis bar one massive detail. It was Bernie Ecclestone that kept derailing the discussions and suggested solutions.
13 years ago...
Jonathan Straetman Quick maths
Sir Jeheebus i still got it 😀👍
Still a joke!
yep im getting old... haha
Oh jezus, I'm old
Part of this race's fallout:
I will never buy another Michelin tire again so long as I breathe air.
You should do a similar video for the NASCAR tire Debacle in 2008 also at Indianapolis.
That was the most F***** UP race I have ever seen.
EXCELLENT graphics to explain it. This video is very well done.
You could say the weekend was a FIAsko....lol
I like how the thumbnail was incorrect basic physics. Literally just clicked on this video to point that out.
Don't you have the tyres deforming on your car graphic going the wrong way?
I was there that day as a kid. Ihad no clue this happened. But I miss this event dearly because I lived 2 hours away, Austin Texas is too far for me to attend.
Id love to see f1 race at indy again though
I went to a F1 race there & found it kinda boring, sound of the cars was awesome tho. Road America is my fav track to watch racing
Being the only Grade 1 circuit in the US besides COTA, it's possible.
DON JOHNSON How well can you even see the cars while they go through the road course? I often prefer oval racing cuz ou can see whats going on all over the track, even at larger tracks like pocono.
IMS may be a bit too big to see the whole track anyway, not sure
Alex ill use Road America for example, some areas of the track you may have a short window to see them go past but a few popular corners have big ass tv screens with live feed of the race, you can get pretty close to the track in some areas, you can walk & watch the race in any spot you want, you can walk in the pit area and check out the cars when their not racing, you can bring your own food & drinks as well. A lot of people rent the golf carts just to cruse around & get drunk all day
I would as well!
That season was a farce in itself. Bridgestone made durabe tires in compliance with the rules. Michelin made softer and riskier tires and their teams had a walkover of a season. They humiliated Schumacher and Ferrari. Everybody were very happy. I hated that season. Thet did everything to stop Schumacher in those years and finally he has had enough.
Nowadays Mercedes and Hamilton have a free reign. And everybody thinks Hamilton is better than Schumacher and Senna. There is no competition. Even McLaren at their peak with Prost and Senna as teammates, they let them compete freely and they gave a hell of a show to us.
Mercedes never let their drivers race freely. Not even at the beginning of the hybrid era when they were capable of starting from the pit lane and lap everybody. They are murderes of competition and I don't bother to watch races any more. I watch the highlights and don't get any pleasure.
So like, can F1 come back to Indy? I live here, so it’s a nice convenient place for a race to happen
It's possible...Bernie was at indy last year for a track inspection, and gave it his blessing. The GP track is modified and no longer uses the banked turns. Personally if the $$$ is there it would happen. I think cota has to be successful for about 3-4 years for f1 to think about a US expansion
With the hulman family finally gone and dead its possible but i still think the fia has a stick shoved way to far up their ass to ever come back here even with the changes in management.
the new surface they put on the brickyard was hell on tires. I went to the brickyard 400 that year and drivers were shedding tires left and right
Don't care, Monteiro became 1st portuguese on a F1 podium.
The no tyre change rule is the stupidest rule ever in all sports. A 8 year old kid would have imagined it would endanger drivers lives. FIA either hired some extremely stupid people or moron in charge of making the rules back then.
A chicane was the best solution. All the teams voted in favor of it except Ferrari. And this is why we got what we got.
The should just give everyone a set of bridgestones and let them race ruining the track layout would make the race even worse
Manos Frantzas except that wasn’t feasible, good try
As was mentioned in the video it was discussed but rejected as it wasnt possible for Bridgestone to provide enough tires on such short notice.
I mean fair enough to Ferrari. I would do the same tbh in their shoes. We have had a shit year so this was a good way to gain points and its not our fault the Michelin tyres were not adequate to race in these conditions. I personally think the best solution was to reschedule the race to a later point in the calendar and everyone who bought tickets now can bring these tickets to the rescheduled event and if you can't make it (which is a shame) you can give the tickets back and get a full refund. At that moment in time there was no way they would have a safe solution.
Just imagine the logistics of rescheduling a formula one race though, especially a fly-in race where the teams would have transported the bulk of their garages and tools via tanker ships. By the time they would want to reschedule all of the necessary mechanical items would be halfway around the world and no one is going to float the bill to bring them back.
Should have gone into more depth about the consequences of the race. The fans were throwing trash on the track during the race, Michael Schumacher was basically given a free race win since he had no real competition, and Michelin paid to have ticket costs refunded to fans, including buying 20,000 tickets for the next year's race. Also, left out that at one point all of the teams, except Ferrari led by Jean Todt, agreed to cancel the race altogether. The race only ran when Jordan and Minardi agreed to run the race.
In fairness to the latter two Paul Stoddart and Eddie Jordan had no way out. They were underfunded and had to race to keep the sponsors happy so it was kinda like being "blackmailed" into racing.
I want the us Grand Prix back at indianapolis
Funny thing is - with NASCAR'S new car in 2008, a similar event with Goodyear tires happened. While all cars started the race, with several blowouts and several competition cautions throughout the day, the race was an absolute failure and Goodyear lost a lot of credibility with a lot of NASCAR drivers
One set of tires 🤦🏻♂️
This kind of nonsense is why I gave up on F1 nearly twenty years ago.
very interesting to explain this very special past F1 fact.
You must work at Michelin because your graphic is wrong.
NASA figured this was tyre issue out in the 70s when making the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center. They had grooves for water drainage on the runway but it was shown during testing in the lab to be extremely hard on the tires.
That was a sad day in F1 for sure. The Indy track was never a great idea other than the nostalgia and history of the track -- putting an F1 car on a banked track, even just a single corner, was a brain dead idea from the get-go. It is fortunate the Ralph and others didn't die, and it was a great embarrassment for the USA that our race was a laughing stock.
Indeed, I've great respect for anyone involved in racing but different racing machines are built for different types of race. Myself, I grew up watching motorcycle road racing, the Isle of Mann TT, Ulster GP and NW200. The bikes used in these races are very similar to British Superbike / World Superbike machines but there are key differences that make one suitable for the road and one for a track. It's the same with oval racing, it puts different stresses on the car's, ones an F1 machine wasn't designed for.
@@gerardmontgomery280 Putting a car with high levels of downforce on a high speed banked turn is asking for trouble. Years ago CART was testing at one of the high bank tracks that NASCAR uses but the driver were seeing something like 7 g's in the turns and that is not something that is safe, particularly over a 3 hours race.
+Raptorman0909 This one's completely on Michelin, who, seemingly typical of French manufacturers * cough * Renault * cough * bring inferior products to the track.
You're aware that Shanghai has a turn with just as much banking as Indy, right? You're aware that Indy, at only 9 degrees is considered "flat" by oval track standards, right?
I wouldn't say Ralf was fortunate. Hundreds of drivers have hit that very spot as it is normally turn 1 with no issue. Then again, those are Indy cars that hit that spot and they're built to shrug off a hit like that as it were nothing. F1 cars are not... So having that part of the oval layout Exposing cars not built to withstand oval accidents was really dumb.
Well I have a somewhat different remembrance of the event. 1) It was my understanding that ONLY Toyotas (Ralph's team) were having bad tire problems. 2) It was Michelin, NOT the teams, the FORBID the teams to run.
I also disagree with the analysis that says "No fault with the tyres (sic)" and "Tyres manufactured correctly". The FACT that Michelin had underestimated the loads and Michelin had NOT designed the tires correctly make the other two statements false.
Bottom line, it was ALL MICHELIN'S FAULT and I, for one, will never buy another Michelin tire.
I was at this race. Everyone was shouting BULLS**T!!!!!!
got free tickets for the 2006 race and fell in love - boom - new f1 fan was born. its all a cycle
wh-why would the contact patch pull the car in the opposite direction of where it's turning? That makes no sense.
he make mistakes..
It wouldn't; the car's momentum pulls the car to the outside, and the tires consequently need to pull the car to the inside. That's also why corners are banked the way they are; banking a corner *reduces* the lateral load on the tires, since part of the weight of the car is now pulling the car towards the inside.
In short, the graphic is backwards; banking reduces lateral load on tires.
wh-why d-d-d-do you feel th-the need to add s-s-s-stuttering into a comment
Guodlca you don't need a fAke stutter to sound surprised
because of friction and lateral load as he says
I remember watching this debacle on TV back in 2005. I vowed to never put Michelin tires on my cars and I've kept my promise.
Max Moseley is a slimebag. He was trying to blame Michelin and the seven teams running those tyres for the fact that Bridgestone had access to data that Michelin did not have. I think the design error was made in good faith, and, if anyone is at fault, it's the FIA for not ensuring that information about the diamond-cut surface was communicated to Michelin in time for them to make tyres that would work.
Okay, then why did Michelin's engineers NOT mention this to fans when they got plenty of angry e-mails and phone calls the day after the race? I heard NOTHING about the diamond cutting of the track surface or its detrimental effects on the tires.
@@largol33t1 - it was mentioned in the BBC commentary during both Qualifying and in the build-up to the "race" itself. Maybe you were listening to different commentary?
Found the butthurt Hamilton fan...
@@penalozaur - Don't assume, because you make an ass of yourself. You know nothing about me except that which I posted above. All of which was information publicly available at the time, and all of which could have been mentioned by any F1 fan. Or do you think that the Ferrari fans had a great time watching their cars repeatedly lap the two slower teams that ran Bridgestone tyres?
Great video bear!! I was seconds away from buying my tickets for that race after spotting some sweet deals($150/weekend pass)on the wall of a porta pot while relieving myself at the Road America IndyCar race. I'm quite glad I didn't pull the trigger on that one as I had a rather prestigious hockey tournament I simply COULD NOT MISS. Seems it worked out since we finished 2nd in the tourney and the race ended up being more a lesson than a spectacle. Whew😁
why didnt cars under michelin tyres just change to bridgestone tyres and full race can go
Bridgestone only supplied 3 teams that year, they couldn't supply enough tires on short notice.
counterfit5 Also, no way Bridgestone let their rival teams get so up close and personal with their tyres
Bridgestone offered to supply all teams for the weekend. The FIA refused the compromise. If I were a cynic, I'd suggest that it had something to do with Mosley wanting Michelin out of the sport.
Thank you so much for your explanation , even though brazil didn't broadcasted that full race because any U.S race times always clashed with the brazilian football and up until this day that still happens here , but never mind that , I wondered so much until I saw your video what did those problems were , so thank you so much .
I love how Chainbear pronounces Michelin
As a bonus, it *is* the correct way to pronounce it.
No it's not. This fool chain bear is the only person I've ever heard say it that way, including Michelins own commercials. I think they'd know the secret right way, and use it.
@@GNX157 listen to this then: ruclips.net/video/nyxydBl3zmk/видео.html
This race summed up; firstly the shortcomings of the one tyre for the whole race rule, secondly an unintended consequence of 2 competing tyre manufacturers, thirdly the failure of the FIA to find common ground and fourthly the ability of Ferrari management to veto any measure that was "against them". When the no tyre changes (unless for punctures or tyre failures) rule was implemented, it was only a matter of time before the problems with it became clear. Ferrari influenced Bridgestone to exclusively develop tyres for them, leaving only Jordan and Minardi with whatever tyres Bridgestone gave them, leaving them the only "front running team" with the Japanese rubber. This left them doing all the tyre development, when Michelin were spreading the load over seven teams. Worse still, when the tyre failures for Michelin started happening at Indianapolis, it would become clear that unless common sense prevailed, there would be only six cars starting the race. The FIA had plenty of options available to enable a race to take place, and even if it didn't allowed for ways to postpone the race to a later date if fewer than 12 cars were able to start the race. Ferrari may well be a charismatic team with a history that's second to none, but vetoing all compromises just because they knew about the problems that the resurfaced banking posed and Michelin didn't, was a step too far. Yes it wasn't their fault that Michelin were caught out, but it was certainly their fault for not helping to find a solution that saved face for everyone in the sport in front of the audience at their biggest shop window, the United States of America and those around the world who tuned in expecting to see an entertaining race. It must not be allowed to happen again
Something else you didn't mention? That Bridgestone had an unfair advantage by having the month of May at the Track to collect data, since Firestone, their American Subsidiary, as stated in the video, was the exclusive tire ran during the Indy 500, while Michelin couldn't do any testing at all.
@@ElFuego35 I agree that it was unfair, having said that, Bridgestone probably felt that it was unfair that they were getting a kicking pretty much everywhere else. Motorsport is all about reading regulations to see what's illegal and then read them again to find gaps in the wording. There was nothing in the regulations that said that Bridgestone engineers couldn't collect data about the tyre behaviour on the then new diamond cut surface. In fact, Bridgestone had tyre failures at the Spanish Grand Prix earlier that season and asked for the tyre regulations to be altered, to which Michelin refused.
The whole thing at Indy that weekend was a real mess and could have been handled much better of everyone had had their minds focused on their most important customers, notably the fans and the sponsors, particularly in their biggest market place, the United States of America
The FIA did nothing wrong. Michelin is 100% at fault for what happened. They brought the wrong tire for the track and that’s the end of it.
I’m 2008, NASCAR had a similar issue at the same track. Indy had just been resurfaced and Goodyear, the ONLY tire manufacture in NASCAR, decided condoms would work over tires. The race was an unmitigated disaster. All 43 cars ran, but every 10 or so laps one of them either blew a tire or NASCAR called a caution in the name of safety. Granted NASCAR and Goodyear brought a different compound (specifically tires marked for Pocono the following weekend) but those harder tires still were failing within 10 laps.
Goodyear bore the brunt of that debacle when it happened. Michelin needs to here. Credit to the FIA and F1 teams for trying to find a solution, but at the end of the day it all could have been avoided had Michelin brought the right tire.
Your 2008, are you jesus?
They bought the right tyres but they werent good for the job as they couldnt simulate the corner...
I'm just gonna leave that type there for the lulz xD
Michelin had no way of knowing what they would need, they bought tyres according to testing held earlier in the year, but Indianapolis did their resurfacing work, which left the tyre wear massively higher. They were told tyre wear would be higher but were left to guess how much higher it would be. If I remember right Bridgestone were supplying another series which raced at the resurfaced track and so were able to get the relevant data.
Any which way, the priority should have been the fans, not the letter of the law.
@@Chilukar I agree. How were they supposed to know what the resurfacing did to tire wear? It's like someone has decided to hate on Michelin no matter what the facts are.
The chicane idea was actually a really good idea, maybe not the Bridgestone skipping it part, but everything else. The FIA really ruined this one...
Not FIA. Negotiate were boycotted by Jean Todt. Thanks to the Ferrari team for the awful US Grand Prix 2005. It is strange that everyone has "forgotten" about this.
@@bodoratiyypi5864 oh, didnt know that
It never amazes me how bad, any bureaucracy, can screw up things!
That bureaucracy possibly prevented a serious injury or death.
FIA prevented the teams from racing on their own terms by using essentially blackmail. That move had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with politics.
Can you mean does...
I was there, turn 5 stands. I couldn't believe the amount of attention this got in the US, where the media ignores racing. It was strange to hear radio sports talk shows discussing this all day, as if it were a baseball game. Chaos...so frustrating to know that there was a chance that this would happen, but when those cars pulled off into the pits...what a horrible scene in the stands. About a third left immediately, then another third during the race. People were throwing things ,but no one could hit the track, and nothing was thrown during the race. At least they got The Commodores to play before the race the following year.
@3:02 ... what? Are you sure about that? Usually when an F1 car makes a right turn the entire car slides slightly to the left and almost rips the tires of the rims. So it should be the opposite direction of what you are explaining...
Another great well explained video CB. well done and thank you. keep 'em coming please.