Ask The Apex

[Slyboogy]

Do Santander still sponsor McLaren?

They don't seem to be on the car for the past few years, you would expect them if they did, they would increase their sponsorship space once Alonso arrived back again.

Button's been in the adverts for them for several years even though their logo isn't visible anywhere on the car, he was in one of them last year too, although he doesn't seem to be in the current one that has the usual Rory McIlroy and Jessica Ennis.

 

[teabagyokel]

He is in it, he's pulling up in a petrol station.

Hilarously, I saw one poster with something like "Winners bank with Santander" with a picture of the aforementioned Somersetian. As do those that finish a lap down, apparently...

 

[Mephistopheles]

Good question and the fact is I have no idea and the only time I used Head and Shoulders It gave me dandruff...

 

[cider_and_toast]

Any sponsorship they would get would cover up those wonderful sparkles on their sidepods

 

[Bill Boddy]

As a Yorkshire man I hate Lancastrians, I much prefer New Zealanders Mephistopheles.

 

[soccerman17]

He is in it, he's pulling up in a petrol station.

Hilarously, I saw one poster with something like "Winners bank with Santander" with a picture of the aforementioned Somersetian. As do those that finish a lap down, apparently...

Looks like a winner to me.

 

[teabagyokel]

In a broader sense, soccerman17, he is forever a winner. However, it is my current stated aim to extract urinary fluids from McLaren.

 

[LifeW12]

I'm watching that infamous Indianapolis race from 2005 and I always wonder what was the actual issue with the tyres. I have heard that it was actually a tyre pressure issue? It might explain why only the Toyota cars had problems.

 

[Bushi]

It had something to do with the banking corner, grooves cut into the track and Michelin's tyre design which led to massive tyre to explode. It wasn't only Toyota that had problems, but they were the only ones that had an actual tyre fail on track.

 

[Incubus]

If I remember correctly the Michelin teams had proposed the overnight instaallation of a makeshift temporary chichane in the middle of the banking before the main straight "for the good of the race" but the Bridgestone teams vetoed it, on the grounds it would unfairly negate heir advantage on that corner. Quite apart from anythin else it was disastrous PR for F1 in the states, as Indy cars and tyres had no problem running for three hours on the full oval configuration at far greater speeds...

 

[Mephistopheles]

I thought it was the FIA who vetoed the temporary chicane on the grounds that there had been not running on that track configuration..

 

[cider_and_toast]

The proposed solution from the FIA was "Don't drive so quickly through that corner then." 10 years on and I think it still remains the biggest and most damaging balls up in F1 history. No one came out of it with any credit.

 

[Incubus]

Incidentally what kind of compensation did those who attended ever get? I seem to recall they'd offered spectators free admission to the followiing year's race, which was obviously no great deal to those who'd spent way more money on travel and accommodation expenses?...

 

[Mephistopheles]

They got to throw beer cans and beer bottles on to the track...

 

[teabagyokel]

I did rather get the feeling that Paul Stoddart was ready to punch everyone on that day.

 

[soccerman17]

The proposed solution from the FIA was "Don't drive so quickly through that corner then." 10 years on and I think it still remains the biggest and most damaging balls up in F1 history. No one came out of it with any credit.

The only people to come out of that with any credit is Firestone. The surface at IMS is very unique, and Goodyear's NASCAR tires have been horrible there for a while now, one year they lasted about 10-15 laps of the oval. Combine that with Michelin's struggles and it becomes pretty impressive that the Firestone tires are always so incredible at Indianapolis, fuel always drives pit stops in the Indy 500, never tire wear.

 

[Dash Racing]

What that suggests to me is that Firestone approaches tires from the point of view that they should be able to take a pounding at Indianapolis. If they can do that, they're ready for anything.

 

[LifeW12]

I know they re-laid the track and had a diamond cut surface, making it heaps abrasive. But it still doesn't explain the reason behind the Toyota failures? Was the sidewall heating up under lateral load (banking) or was it camber like Spa 2013?

The Michelin tyres never had any problems before, when the tyres were even softer.

I still can't believe a solution wasn't found.

 

[RasputinLives]

The whole thing was about Ferrari proving a point on how much power they had in F1. Thet were not happy with all the rule changes made to stop them winning (which had worked by 05) or the growing group of teams he seemed unionised against them so they decided to hold their ground on this issue and watch the FIA flounder on getting a conclusion without their support.

Basically it was a very costly way of Ferrari sending a message to the FIA to say 'keep us on side or we'll make life difficult for you'.

 

[FB]

Just having a poke around on the net and most of the stories seem to suggest there was a manufacturing problem with the Michelin tyres bought to the race. Running at higher pressures reduced the problem but didn't solve it and, as Raspy points out, Ferrari saw the chance for a win so grabbed it with both hands.

Strange that the man who nearly killed F1 in the USA is now President of the organisation who's job it is to promote the sport globally.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/world-class-formula-1-fiasco-at-indianapolis-feature

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2005/06/19/united-states-grand-prix-2005-review/

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the teams should not and cannot be allowed to run F1 and this demonstrates my point perfectly