Michelin offers refunds after the Indianapolis tyre fiasco

Advertisement

28 June 2005

On 28 June 2005, Michelin announced that it would refund fans who had bought tickets for the 2005 United States Grand Prix at Indianapolis. It also offered to buy thousands of tickets for the following year’s race. The gesture came after one of Formula 1’s most damaging modern weekends, when tyre safety concerns reduced the Grand Prix to a six-car procession.

The problem had appeared during practice at Indianapolis, where Michelin-shod cars suffered tyre failures through the banked final corner. Michelin could not guarantee the safety of its tyres over a race distance without changes. The proposed fixes, including a chicane before the banking, were rejected or could not be agreed. On race day, the Michelin teams completed the formation lap and returned to the pits.

Six cars and a full crowd

Only the Bridgestone runners started the race: Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi. Michael Schumacher won from Rubens Barrichello, Tiago Monteiro, Narain Karthikeyan, Christijan Albers and Patrick Friesacher. The result counted, the points counted, and the boos from the grandstands counted in a different way.

For the spectators, the damage was simple. They had paid to watch a Formula 1 race and received a field smaller than a private test with bad catering. Michelin’s refund plan was an attempt to repair a relationship it did not fully control. The FIA, the teams, the promoter and Formula 1’s commercial structure were all part of the mess, but Michelin’s name was the one printed on the absent cars’ tyres.

The aftermath included hearings, blame and a long argument about responsibility. The episode also strengthened the case for a single-tyre supplier, which Formula 1 later adopted. Indianapolis remained on the calendar for 2006 and 2007, but the 2005 race left a deep mark on F1’s already fragile American project.

Refunding tickets could not make the Grand Prix happen again. It did, however, acknowledge the obvious: a world championship event had produced a valid result and an invalid spectacle at the same time.

Join the discussion

Comments are open to FlatSpot members. Log in or become a member to share your take.