Why only six cars started the 2005 US Grand Prix

Today we are taking a look at Formula One’s most infamous races. A perfect storm of events led to the “non-race” to start with only six cars.

The race I’m referring to is the 2005 United States Grand Prix at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on June 19, 2005. This bizarre point in F1’s history not only became one of the biggest controversies in the modern history of the sport, but it also marked a turning point for F1 in the U.S.

Making a mark in America

Back in 2005, Formula One was still trying to establish a presence in the U.S. market, with Indianapolis being a core pillar of that effort. The circuit at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway was an oddity. It featured a road course section with a partial oval section—a high-speed banked final corner leading to the main straight.

At this point in time, F1 was in the middle of a “tyre war” that was being waged between Michelin and Bridgestone. In 2005, most of the grid was sporting tyres from Michelin. This imbalance would prove to be crucial in this race weekend.

A glaring problem

The Michelin teams ran into a serious issue during practice, involving their tyres and the banked Turn 13. The loads it generated were simply too much for their tyres to withstand. It became clear that failures would be inevitable over a full race distance. This issue wasn’t just a performance concern, but also a safety one.

The risk of blowouts was too high and thus left teams in an impossible position heading into Sunday’s race.

Proposed fixes for race day

Michelin and its teams proposed a number of solutions for the tyre problem:

• Installing a temporary chicane before the banked corner to reduce speed
• Allowing teams to use a different tyre specification flown in overnight
• Permitting more frequent tyre changes during the race

The FIA rejected all of these proposals. They claimed that changing the track or rules at the last minute would compromise the integrity of the competition. Of course, all of the Bridgestone teams had little to no incentive to push for these changes, since that would work against their advantage.

The “non-race” begins

Following the FIA’s decision to not change the track or rules to accommodate the Michelin teams, tensions remained unresolved on race day. Despite all 20 cars completing the formation lap, all 14 Michelin-equipped cars pulled into the pits to retire ahead of the race start.

The crowd was undoubtedly left confused, and likely angry that they were not going to see the full F1 race they had paid to see.

The remaining six cars—two from each of the remaining teams, Ferrari, Jordan, and Minardi—cruised through the race with little action to write home about. Michael Schumacher took the win for Ferrari. This left a sour taste in the mouths of fans who were expecting a day of fierce competition.

Fallout and backlash

The response to the underwhelming race weekend was immediate and intense. Fans booed from the stands, demanded refunds, and in some cases threw beer bottles and other debris onto the track. For a race that was supposed to help cement F1’s presence in the U.S., this was a disastrous outcome.

Following the race weekend, fans and press agreed the blame wasn’t on a single party:

• The FIA was criticized for its rigid stance
• Michelin was faulted for bringing a tyre that wasn’t suitable for the track
• Teams were blamed for not finding a compromise

How is this relevant today?

The 2005 United States Grand Prix has become one of Formula One’s most infamous moments, not because of everything that happened on track, but because of everything that didn’t happen. F1 eventually left Indianapolis two years later. It would take over a decade and multiple new races for F1 to rebuild its presence in the United States.

The event exposed the risks and flaws associated with the tyre war era, and the massive disparities that teams were subject to because of it. One could draw similarities with the recent rule changes from the current 2026 season, where clear tensions exist between upholding the integrity of the sport, and maintaining safety for the drivers.

This event serves as a cautionary tale for how poor engineering, and poor governance can put a sport’s safety and reputation at risk. It highlights the ever-delicate balance that F1 must strike when changes come to the sport in order to keep fans, and sponsors, coming back for more.