Comments on: Ingram: The Fall Of The House Of Hulman? http://www.racintoday.com/archives/8206 Go With The Pros Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:34:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Ingram http://www.racintoday.com/archives/8206/comment-page-1#comment-5894 Jonathan Ingram Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:00:18 +0000 http://www.racintoday.com/?p=8206#comment-5894 Moose, Thanks for your comment. The diamond grinding has presented problems for every tire company that has raced cars at Indy. If you asked Tony George if he could do it over again and not have to diamond grind the surface after a proper re-paving job, I suspect he'd like to have avoided that route. It's not about blame, it's about what happened and the degree of difficulty of running a major superspeedway. The Firestones had problems with transitions over the patches --even without slipping. The Michelins had problems with lower than recommended tire pressures used by teams including Toyota and no control tire -- hence no options once the problem arose. But the transition from the diamond ground surface to the infield surface constituted the same problem Firestone encountered with the patches and Indy cars. Somehow Michelins worked everywhere but Indianapolis that year -- and the year before the diamond grinding they worked at Indy. The one thing missing from Pierre Dupasquier's arsenal was the knowledge the Firestone engineers passed on to Bridgestone. In NASCAR, if you asked a tire engineer off the record (as I have) if he would rather have raced on the smooth surfaces produced in the days of Clarence Cagle or a diamond ground track, the answer is obvious. The diamond grinding presents unique and unnecessary problems, compounded by the fact the NASCAR crew chiefs chose not to test at Indy in 2008 after NASCAR limited all testing. If the diamond grinding was not a key issue, why did Goodyear use a laser machine to carefully define the surface it was dealing with at Indy prior to this year's race, equipment used for the first time by the racing department? Recall, too, that in 2005 the Charlotte track surface was diamond ground and tires popped left and right and so did angry drivers. No COT, etc., etc. Blame the tire companies or blame the writer, but don't insist diamond grinding is a good thing. It was done under the pressure of a rapidly approaching Indy 500 and because Firestone couldn't figure out any other solution. There's a certain terror that looms if the Indy 500 has major issues, perhaps one Poe himself might sympthaize with, so any solution was a good one at the time. Especially in the middle of a conflict with a rival sanctioning group. I grant you that Speedway representatives laud the diamond grinding as creating an excellent racing surface. But it was not the original plan. Please tell me all the other superspeedways that have used this method since 2005, excepting Charlotte, of course. Regards, Jonathan Moose,

Thanks for your comment.

The diamond grinding has presented problems for every tire company that has raced cars at Indy.

If you asked Tony George if he could do it over again and not have to diamond grind the surface after a proper re-paving job, I suspect he’d like to have avoided that route. It’s not about blame, it’s about what happened and the degree of difficulty of running a major superspeedway.

The Firestones had problems with transitions over the patches –even without slipping.

The Michelins had problems with lower than recommended tire pressures used by teams including Toyota and no control tire — hence no options once the problem arose.

But the transition from the diamond ground surface to the infield surface constituted the same problem Firestone
encountered with the patches and Indy cars. Somehow Michelins worked everywhere but Indianapolis that year — and the year before the diamond grinding they worked at Indy. The one thing
missing from Pierre Dupasquier’s arsenal was the knowledge
the Firestone engineers passed on to Bridgestone.

In NASCAR, if you asked a tire engineer off the record (as I have) if he would rather have raced on the smooth surfaces
produced in the days of Clarence Cagle or a diamond ground track, the answer is obvious. The diamond grinding presents unique and unnecessary problems, compounded by the fact the NASCAR crew chiefs chose not to test at Indy in 2008 after NASCAR limited all testing.

If the diamond grinding was not a key issue, why did Goodyear use a laser machine to carefully define the surface it was dealing with at Indy prior to this year’s race, equipment used for the first time by the racing department?

Recall, too, that in 2005 the Charlotte track surface was diamond ground and tires popped left and right and so did angry drivers. No COT, etc., etc.

Blame the tire companies or blame the writer, but don’t insist diamond grinding is a good thing. It was done under the pressure of a rapidly approaching Indy 500 and because Firestone couldn’t figure out any other solution. There’s a certain terror that looms if the Indy 500 has major issues, perhaps one Poe himself might sympthaize with, so any solution was a good one at the time. Especially in the middle of a conflict with a rival sanctioning group.

I grant you that Speedway representatives laud the diamond grinding as creating an excellent racing surface. But it was not the original plan. Please tell me all the other superspeedways that have used this method since 2005, excepting Charlotte, of course.

Regards,

Jonathan

]]> By: Moose http://www.racintoday.com/archives/8206/comment-page-1#comment-5891 Moose Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:47:46 +0000 http://www.racintoday.com/?p=8206#comment-5891 The F1 problem was not due to diamond grinding. The F1 problem was due to the light construction of the Michelin tires---the tire's side walls gave out. Note that Bridgestone had no troubles. They are, of course, the parent company of Firestone, so they had all the experience they needed to build a tire that could survive. The reason open wheel race cars don't have problems with the diamond grinding, is because they don't slide like a tin top does. The truth is that in qualifying setup, when the cars do in fact slide, an Indy car will wear out its tires on the rough surface in short order. If the track is clean, the tires won't last substantially longer than NASCAR's Goodyears did during the race from hell. NASCAR's troubles were compounded (ha!) by the fact that the Goodyear tires had such a hard compound that the track didn't rubber-in. So, anyway, you should double check those diamond grinding facts (don't just take my word), and then correct your article. I realize that you're trying to maximize the doom and gloom for your own reasons, but you still gotta get the facts straight. It's simply wrong to say that the diamond grinding was the start of any more trouble than that one NASCAR race. The F1 problem was not due to diamond grinding. The F1 problem was due to the light construction of the Michelin tires—the tire’s side walls gave out. Note that Bridgestone had no troubles. They are, of course, the parent company of Firestone, so they had all the experience they needed to build a tire that could survive.

The reason open wheel race cars don’t have problems with the diamond grinding, is because they don’t slide like a tin top does. The truth is that in qualifying setup, when the cars do in fact slide, an Indy car will wear out its tires on the rough surface in short order. If the track is clean, the tires won’t last substantially longer than NASCAR’s Goodyears did during the race from hell. NASCAR’s troubles were compounded (ha!) by the fact that the Goodyear tires had such a hard compound that the track didn’t rubber-in.

So, anyway, you should double check those diamond grinding facts (don’t just take my word), and then correct your article. I realize that you’re trying to maximize the doom and gloom for your own reasons, but you still gotta get the facts straight. It’s simply wrong to say that the diamond grinding was the start of any more trouble than that one NASCAR race.

]]>