| Dussander | 06-22-2005 02:42 PM |
So, how do they order for Qualy in France? Will last to first out be The winners, and then how they qualified for Indy or maybe the winners and the order from the Canada race?
| Snowphun | 06-22-2005 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE=rallynutdon]
The BIG difference is the tire issue was a saftey issue. An oiling problem is NOT a saftey issue (I guess it could be if a motor seizes and locks the rear sending the car into the wall, but . . .).[/QUOTE]
I've come around to the FIA's thinking on this: safety issue is mitigated if you have your guys come in and the tires inspected a few times over the race. Or you drive more conseravtively.
Biggest problem I have here is Kimi (or fill in your favorite Bridgestone driver)could have gotten 6 points for 3rd, as they would likely have been able to stay ahead of the Jordans and Minardis that were one and two laps down by race end (a race that was run at a very leisurely pace). That was a bad move, one that could really burn them later in the season.
The BIG difference is the tire issue was a saftey issue. An oiling problem is NOT a saftey issue (I guess it could be if a motor seizes and locks the rear sending the car into the wall, but . . .).[/QUOTE]
I've come around to the FIA's thinking on this: safety issue is mitigated if you have your guys come in and the tires inspected a few times over the race. Or you drive more conseravtively.
Biggest problem I have here is Kimi (or fill in your favorite Bridgestone driver)could have gotten 6 points for 3rd, as they would likely have been able to stay ahead of the Jordans and Minardis that were one and two laps down by race end (a race that was run at a very leisurely pace). That was a bad move, one that could really burn them later in the season.
| DrBiggly | 06-22-2005 03:00 PM |
I'm with Gary Sheehan and Jon K:
This whole thing went down the way it should have. Folks who didn't come to the race properly prepared did not race. They chose to pull into the pits rather than to lift in Turn 13, or take a penalty from new tires flown in (which Michelin screwed up there too) or drive through the pit lane on each lap.
The FIA did the right thing by not budging on the circuit for liability reasons. Michelin is doing a fabulous job of trying to duck liability by labeling it a "safety concern" and try to point the blame towards anyone but themselves.
If I brought the wrong tires to an autox that were a safety concern, I promise the course wouldn't be altered so that I could run with the rest of the folks who showed up with their act together.
Furthermore, both tire companies were sent letters June 1st about tire concerns and not only did both receive them, both companies agreed on the circuit's condition and layout ahead of time. Michelin simply made a gross error by not bringing a tire that was conservative enough for the circuit. In no way do I see how they are not the root cause of this problem as they admitted as much.
The largest part of the debate is in how it was handled once Michelin started whining about how they miscalculated. As it was put in the link above, "It is a sport that is entertaining, not entertainment disguised as a sport."
I think that this will certainly draw more attention to Formula One. Folks watch NASCAR in part for the drama and excitement. Not for repetition, but for the unknown. Now that Formula One seems to have itself mired in controversy there will surely be some good to come from all of this, although it may be years before anyone truly knows the full ramifications of the Michelin teams' actions.
"There is no great loss without some small gain."
-Biggly
This whole thing went down the way it should have. Folks who didn't come to the race properly prepared did not race. They chose to pull into the pits rather than to lift in Turn 13, or take a penalty from new tires flown in (which Michelin screwed up there too) or drive through the pit lane on each lap.
The FIA did the right thing by not budging on the circuit for liability reasons. Michelin is doing a fabulous job of trying to duck liability by labeling it a "safety concern" and try to point the blame towards anyone but themselves.
If I brought the wrong tires to an autox that were a safety concern, I promise the course wouldn't be altered so that I could run with the rest of the folks who showed up with their act together.
Furthermore, both tire companies were sent letters June 1st about tire concerns and not only did both receive them, both companies agreed on the circuit's condition and layout ahead of time. Michelin simply made a gross error by not bringing a tire that was conservative enough for the circuit. In no way do I see how they are not the root cause of this problem as they admitted as much.
The largest part of the debate is in how it was handled once Michelin started whining about how they miscalculated. As it was put in the link above, "It is a sport that is entertaining, not entertainment disguised as a sport."
I think that this will certainly draw more attention to Formula One. Folks watch NASCAR in part for the drama and excitement. Not for repetition, but for the unknown. Now that Formula One seems to have itself mired in controversy there will surely be some good to come from all of this, although it may be years before anyone truly knows the full ramifications of the Michelin teams' actions.
"There is no great loss without some small gain."
-Biggly
| KAX | 06-22-2005 03:48 PM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]Michelin is doing a fabulous job of trying to duck liability by labeling it a "safety concern" and try to point the blame towards anyone but themselves.
In no way do I see how they are not the root cause of this problem as they admitted as much.
[/QUOTE]
well you just contradicted yourself there Biggly. Michelin did cause a situation, but with the rest of the actions following, it was made into a much bigger one.
for dynoguy, this has been said before, the only way someone can design a tire for a track is to test on it. When were they supposed to do that and then be allowed to make a tire to comply with it? They had about 3 days to do all of this, how is that possible? Bridgestone did not need to test on it because they had the data from Firestone which they got during the testing and things for the Indy 500, Michelin did not.
The problem that occured was only started by the resurfacing and failures of Michelin, the fact that only 6 cars raced was caused the Todt and Mosley. i read an article on F1racing.net and Todt explained that he was never questioned on a chicane, but reading that article from Stoddart, Ecclestone did ask and Todt refused and Schumacher and Barricello left their desicions to him. Mosley was the key to this "FIAsco", as Stoddart called it, and how most dealing with the FIA should be considered, and he is the reason 6 of the 20 cars raced and 14 dropped out, he only got lucky that 4 more didnt go with the rest. His power has gone straight to his head and will use whatever he wants to get his way, he obviously shows no care for motorsports in the US as he easily threw out the possibility of ending it all.
EDIT: after reading the FIA link someone posted earlier, Mosley also states that Ferrari were never asked, but supposedly Ecclestone asked without consulting the FIA during a drivers meeting??
In no way do I see how they are not the root cause of this problem as they admitted as much.
[/QUOTE]
well you just contradicted yourself there Biggly. Michelin did cause a situation, but with the rest of the actions following, it was made into a much bigger one.
for dynoguy, this has been said before, the only way someone can design a tire for a track is to test on it. When were they supposed to do that and then be allowed to make a tire to comply with it? They had about 3 days to do all of this, how is that possible? Bridgestone did not need to test on it because they had the data from Firestone which they got during the testing and things for the Indy 500, Michelin did not.
The problem that occured was only started by the resurfacing and failures of Michelin, the fact that only 6 cars raced was caused the Todt and Mosley. i read an article on F1racing.net and Todt explained that he was never questioned on a chicane, but reading that article from Stoddart, Ecclestone did ask and Todt refused and Schumacher and Barricello left their desicions to him. Mosley was the key to this "FIAsco", as Stoddart called it, and how most dealing with the FIA should be considered, and he is the reason 6 of the 20 cars raced and 14 dropped out, he only got lucky that 4 more didnt go with the rest. His power has gone straight to his head and will use whatever he wants to get his way, he obviously shows no care for motorsports in the US as he easily threw out the possibility of ending it all.
EDIT: after reading the FIA link someone posted earlier, Mosley also states that Ferrari were never asked, but supposedly Ecclestone asked without consulting the FIA during a drivers meeting??
| BillT | 06-22-2005 03:59 PM |
You are just making up excuses for Michelin - if they had done their job correctly, then at least the 2nd tire compound they brought should have been safe enough to race on. Michelin flirted on the razor thin line and paid the price.
Track should only be changed when the tracks themselves are dangerous, not because someone brought substandard equipment to the race.
Track should only be changed when the tracks themselves are dangerous, not because someone brought substandard equipment to the race.
| KAX | 06-22-2005 04:01 PM |
im not disagreeing that Michelin were in the wrong for not bringing at least a suitable back up, they did create a problem. But putting 100% of the blame on Michelin is just ignorant and your not looking at all the sides on this.
| BillT | 06-22-2005 04:04 PM |
I just believe in treating causes and not symptoms.
| Jon Bogert | 06-22-2005 04:10 PM |
Michelin does not deserve [i]all[/i] the blame. Some of the blame also certainly goes to the team principles, who chose to boycott the event rather than suck it up and run slower. Those wonderful altruistic sportsmen would only accept a compromise that would handicap the properly prepared teams. That's a whole heap of blame right there, and I expect they'll pay for their selfishness at the upcoming FIA meeting.
| BillT | 06-22-2005 04:15 PM |
The team principles cannot run their cars if their tire manufacturer tells them the tires are unsafe.
| DrBiggly | 06-22-2005 04:19 PM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]Michelin does not deserve [i]all[/i] the blame. Some of the blame also certainly goes to the team principles, who chose to boycott the event rather than suck it up and run slower. Those wonderful altruistic sportsmen would only accept a compromise that would handicap the properly prepared teams. That's a whole heap of blame right there, and I expect they'll pay for their selfishness at the upcoming FIA meeting.[/QUOTE]
Indeed I am betting that they will as well. It will be certainly interesting to watch.
As far as me contradicting myself, "root cause of a problem" and "blame" are two divergent terms.
-Michelin is the root cause of the problem; they admitted it when they said that their tires were not properly prepared for that track. (This includes their "backup" tire if you will and even ones overnighted from France.)
-Michelin label their mistake as a "safety concern" which leaves the teams to deal with the problem of how to race on inappropriate tires.
-The teams now beg the FIA to change the rules.
-FIA looks like a bad guy for not accomodating a majority of the competitors' request for a track change; blame is pointed to the FIA by teams.
-Teams don't like FIA suggestions (there were 3 options, one of which wouldn't work since Michelin flew in more bum tires) and thus claim that the blame isn't with them, it's with the FIA.
-FIA says "We did what we could, you can still race. What are you waiting for?"
-Teams pull into pits and call it quits before the start.
Michelin I think still is dodging blame as much as possible despite being the root cause of the whole thing and I personally think it's a pretty smart way to play it. Now the teams are the bad guys, or the FIA, but not Michelin. :)
-Biggly
Indeed I am betting that they will as well. It will be certainly interesting to watch.
As far as me contradicting myself, "root cause of a problem" and "blame" are two divergent terms.
-Michelin is the root cause of the problem; they admitted it when they said that their tires were not properly prepared for that track. (This includes their "backup" tire if you will and even ones overnighted from France.)
-Michelin label their mistake as a "safety concern" which leaves the teams to deal with the problem of how to race on inappropriate tires.
-The teams now beg the FIA to change the rules.
-FIA looks like a bad guy for not accomodating a majority of the competitors' request for a track change; blame is pointed to the FIA by teams.
-Teams don't like FIA suggestions (there were 3 options, one of which wouldn't work since Michelin flew in more bum tires) and thus claim that the blame isn't with them, it's with the FIA.
-FIA says "We did what we could, you can still race. What are you waiting for?"
-Teams pull into pits and call it quits before the start.
Michelin I think still is dodging blame as much as possible despite being the root cause of the whole thing and I personally think it's a pretty smart way to play it. Now the teams are the bad guys, or the FIA, but not Michelin. :)
-Biggly
| DrBiggly | 06-22-2005 04:22 PM |
[QUOTE=BillT]The team principles cannot run their cars if their tire manufacturer tells them the tires are unsafe.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes they can! They had 2 options that the FIA was kind enough to suggest.
-Slow down on turn 13; we'll even put a spotter out there for you Michelin guys!
-Drive through the pits each time
In addition, you may change tires for safety reasons as often as necessary.
There were no Michelin men standing in white puffy suits in front of the cars preventing them from running. In fact, all of the Michelin teams qualified. :)
Oh yes they can! They had 2 options that the FIA was kind enough to suggest.
-Slow down on turn 13; we'll even put a spotter out there for you Michelin guys!
-Drive through the pits each time
In addition, you may change tires for safety reasons as often as necessary.
There were no Michelin men standing in white puffy suits in front of the cars preventing them from running. In fact, all of the Michelin teams qualified. :)
| cooleyjb | 06-22-2005 04:24 PM |
I think KAX works for Michelin ;)
The circuit is known quantity it did not magically change in the middle of the week before F1 got there. Michelin rolled the dice thinking that they had a good tire for it. They didn't and because of that they let the teams they supplied the tires to, down. They did not produce a tire that could run at the same pace the Bridgestones could.
As for the team principles not running their cars, that is just the "i'm leaving and taking my ball with me" attitude. They were embarrased to put out a car that couldn't run the same times because of their tires and therefore said "we quit" The name of the game with tires is conservation now and in order to conserve the Michelins they had to run notably slower. "Tough Luck" You went with them the rest of the season when they were quicker that the Bridgestones quit whining when the table is against you.
You cannot fault FIA or F1 for upholding the rules. That is what they are supposed to do and that is all they did. If you believe that they should have bent the rule for this event I hope I never have to race against you because now I believe you have the mentality to use/not use the rules as you see fit. This is called bad sportsmanship.
You can't blame Tony George for this. Just continue to blame him for ruining CART.
You can blame Michelin. They screwed up, plain and simple. They had all the opportunities to deal with this before it happened.
You can blame the teams. They could have conserved the tires to last the whole race. They just would have been slower. That's part of racing when you don't have a spec tire.
The circuit is known quantity it did not magically change in the middle of the week before F1 got there. Michelin rolled the dice thinking that they had a good tire for it. They didn't and because of that they let the teams they supplied the tires to, down. They did not produce a tire that could run at the same pace the Bridgestones could.
As for the team principles not running their cars, that is just the "i'm leaving and taking my ball with me" attitude. They were embarrased to put out a car that couldn't run the same times because of their tires and therefore said "we quit" The name of the game with tires is conservation now and in order to conserve the Michelins they had to run notably slower. "Tough Luck" You went with them the rest of the season when they were quicker that the Bridgestones quit whining when the table is against you.
You cannot fault FIA or F1 for upholding the rules. That is what they are supposed to do and that is all they did. If you believe that they should have bent the rule for this event I hope I never have to race against you because now I believe you have the mentality to use/not use the rules as you see fit. This is called bad sportsmanship.
You can't blame Tony George for this. Just continue to blame him for ruining CART.
You can blame Michelin. They screwed up, plain and simple. They had all the opportunities to deal with this before it happened.
You can blame the teams. They could have conserved the tires to last the whole race. They just would have been slower. That's part of racing when you don't have a spec tire.
| Jon Bogert | 06-22-2005 04:25 PM |
Look at the half dozen or so options that were considered. The options that would have slowed down the Michelin-shod cars by either driver discretion, electronic control or more frequent pit stops were rejected by the team principles. Some of these options were good, some were not so good, but any would have resulted in a more interesting race than what occurred.
Just trying to be absolutely clear here that, despite comments to the media or editorials trying to spin their priorities, the SOLE concern of the team principles was winning, not pleasing the fans, not following the rules, not putting on a good show. If they can hide behind Michelin, good for them, but it doesn't make it any less despicable.
Just trying to be absolutely clear here that, despite comments to the media or editorials trying to spin their priorities, the SOLE concern of the team principles was winning, not pleasing the fans, not following the rules, not putting on a good show. If they can hide behind Michelin, good for them, but it doesn't make it any less despicable.
| BillT | 06-22-2005 04:30 PM |
I'm all on the FIA's side on this issue, however, if Michelin says that their tires are unsafe (coupled with not agreeing to any of the FIA's suggestion for eliminating their safety), there is no team that will send their driver out to race and, I believe, they are even contractual obligated to listen to their tire manufacturer with regards to safety. Since Senna's death, it has become clear that the teams are liable for their driver's safety so no team would send their driver out on known, unsafe equipment because there would be severe legal (possible jail time), financial (lawsuits and fines), and sporting (stripping of points, race suspensions, etc) if anything were to happen to that driver while using that known, unsafe equipment.
| cooleyjb | 06-22-2005 04:34 PM |
[QUOTE=BillT]I'm all on the FIA's side on this issue, however, if Michelin says that their tires are unsafe (coupled with not agreeing to any of the FIA's suggestion for eliminating their safety), there is no team that will send their driver out to race and, I believe, they are even contractual obligated to listen to their tire manufacturer with regards to safety. Since Senna's death, it has become clear that the teams are liable for their driver's safety so no team would send their driver out on known, unsafe equipment because there would be severe legal (possible jail time), financial (lawsuits and fines), and sporting (stripping of points, race suspensions, etc) if anything were to happen to that driver while using that known, unsafe equipment.[/QUOTE]
I think one fact that needs to be stated is that any tire can be made 'unsafe'.
It is done by using above and beyond what it can handle.
Michelin's level of performance (safety in their minds) was lower than Bridgestones.
What does this mean? It means go SLOWER. This is why you have to slow down for turns usually. The tire can't handle the turn at 200Mph
That is why announcers have been known to say in the past "that guy is good and taking care of his tires"
If a Michelin driver went out and destroyed the tire in 10 minutes he would be someone who sucked at taking care of his tires.
The Michelins could have lasted the race and the weekend. However as it was previously state the teams cared more about winning that putting on a race and wimped out.
I think one fact that needs to be stated is that any tire can be made 'unsafe'.
It is done by using above and beyond what it can handle.
Michelin's level of performance (safety in their minds) was lower than Bridgestones.
What does this mean? It means go SLOWER. This is why you have to slow down for turns usually. The tire can't handle the turn at 200Mph
That is why announcers have been known to say in the past "that guy is good and taking care of his tires"
If a Michelin driver went out and destroyed the tire in 10 minutes he would be someone who sucked at taking care of his tires.
The Michelins could have lasted the race and the weekend. However as it was previously state the teams cared more about winning that putting on a race and wimped out.
| OnTheGas | 06-22-2005 05:29 PM |
Michelin Said The Tires Could Be Used On One Caveat
�
�
[QUOTE=BillT]The team principles cannot run their cars if their tire manufacturer tells them the tires are unsafe.[/QUOTE]But that is not what Michelin said. From Michelin's [URL=http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/190605-02.html]Saturday evening letter to FIA[/URL], "Michelin has in the sole interest of safety informed its partner teams that we do not have total assurance that all tyres that qualified the cars can be used [b]unless the vehicle speed in turn 13 can be reduced.[/b]"
I added the bold for emphasis.
I added the bold for emphasis.
| twotacosfor99cents | 06-22-2005 06:13 PM |
Sorry, repost. Ignore this post.
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 06:18 PM |
[QUOTE=rallynutdon]I still don't absolve him (Mosely). Some quotes and my comments.
"Why unfair?
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event."
You wouldn't have been changing the WHOLE circuit, just a small portion.
"Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?
OK, but it�s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane."
The BIG difference is the tire issue was a saftey issue. An oiling problem is NOT a saftey issue (I guess it could be if a motor seizes and locks the rear sending the car into the wall, but . . .).[/QUOTE]
Dude! If you where Ferarri, why would you compromise to teams bringing wrong tires? Did Michelin compromise earlier in the season when Bridgestone tires are no good?
A small change to you is a big thing in F1. They spend a few days practising and testing their cars. Why must they do it? F1 isn't like those Initial D or street drag race when you can just drive the car anyway they want. Gear Ratio need to be adjusted, aerodynamic must be adjusted, tires choice must be adjusted etc to make the race competitive. Its not as if those million dollars car are like Toyota Corolla.
About the tires and and oil issue. You got to understand that the analogy here isn't about the tires and oil but adapting to different situation. When oil surge problem occurs, team can have the drivers to drop their revs or slow down to adapt to the oil problem issue. Similarly, team can also tell their drivers to slow down to adapt to the tires issue.
Imagine this situation. You are driving your cool super tuned WRX and you are going to an race in a tarmac championship. However, the majority brought their gravel tires and say their gravel tires are not suitable and might be dangerous for tarmac unless they install a chicane. Would you want to compromise and run slower with them?
- Charles
"Why unfair?
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event."
You wouldn't have been changing the WHOLE circuit, just a small portion.
"Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?
OK, but it�s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane."
The BIG difference is the tire issue was a saftey issue. An oiling problem is NOT a saftey issue (I guess it could be if a motor seizes and locks the rear sending the car into the wall, but . . .).[/QUOTE]
Dude! If you where Ferarri, why would you compromise to teams bringing wrong tires? Did Michelin compromise earlier in the season when Bridgestone tires are no good?
A small change to you is a big thing in F1. They spend a few days practising and testing their cars. Why must they do it? F1 isn't like those Initial D or street drag race when you can just drive the car anyway they want. Gear Ratio need to be adjusted, aerodynamic must be adjusted, tires choice must be adjusted etc to make the race competitive. Its not as if those million dollars car are like Toyota Corolla.
About the tires and and oil issue. You got to understand that the analogy here isn't about the tires and oil but adapting to different situation. When oil surge problem occurs, team can have the drivers to drop their revs or slow down to adapt to the oil problem issue. Similarly, team can also tell their drivers to slow down to adapt to the tires issue.
Imagine this situation. You are driving your cool super tuned WRX and you are going to an race in a tarmac championship. However, the majority brought their gravel tires and say their gravel tires are not suitable and might be dangerous for tarmac unless they install a chicane. Would you want to compromise and run slower with them?
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 06:25 PM |
Teams also did not accept any solution by FIA. Both way dont compromize. Anyway, I'll side FIA. What reasons did the team come out when they dont listen to FIA solutions???
- Charles
- Charles
| BillT | 06-22-2005 06:42 PM |
OTG - we're getting to the same point from two different directions. The teams won't race if Michelin tells them the tires are unsafe and Michelin won't say the tires are safe unless the FIA implements their suggestion, the chicane, as the FIA's suggestions (which I agreed with) were 'unacceptable' to Michelin.
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 06:43 PM |
[QUOTE=rallynutdon]From what I read in RACER, he was trying to make a point about the bad way the rules were written for 2005![/QUOTE]
Actually, the rules was changed so that smaller lower budget teams such as Minardi or Jordan can run the race. The 1 engine, 2 race cut down the cost of engine rebuilding. The one set of tires also cut down the cost.
I seriously dont really like that Minardi guy. He keep pointing about politics, politics and he himselves is just like a wolf covered in sheep skin.
[url]http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/March/240305-01.html[/url]
- Charles
Actually, the rules was changed so that smaller lower budget teams such as Minardi or Jordan can run the race. The 1 engine, 2 race cut down the cost of engine rebuilding. The one set of tires also cut down the cost.
I seriously dont really like that Minardi guy. He keep pointing about politics, politics and he himselves is just like a wolf covered in sheep skin.
[url]http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/March/240305-01.html[/url]
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 06:44 PM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]Michelin does not deserve [i]all[/i] the blame. Some of the blame also certainly goes to the team principles, who chose to boycott the event rather than suck it up and run slower. Those wonderful altruistic sportsmen would only accept a compromise that would handicap the properly prepared teams. That's a whole heap of blame right there, and I expect they'll pay for their selfishness at the upcoming FIA meeting.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree with you there. Michelin to bring the wrong tires. Team Principal who decided not to run because they dont want to slow down.
- Charles
Totally agree with you there. Michelin to bring the wrong tires. Team Principal who decided not to run because they dont want to slow down.
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 06:56 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]well you just contradicted yourself there Biggly. Michelin did cause a situation, but with the rest of the actions following, it was made into a much bigger one.
for dynoguy, this has been said before, the only way someone can design a tire for a track is to test on it. When were they supposed to do that and then be allowed to make a tire to comply with it? They had about 3 days to do all of this, how is that possible? Bridgestone did not need to test on it because they had the data from Firestone which they got during the testing and things for the Indy 500, Michelin did not.
The problem that occured was only started by the resurfacing and failures of Michelin, the fact that only 6 cars raced was caused the Todt and Mosley. i read an article on F1racing.net and Todt explained that he was never questioned on a chicane, but reading that article from Stoddart, Ecclestone did ask and Todt refused and Schumacher and Barricello left their desicions to him. Mosley was the key to this "FIAsco", as Stoddart called it, and how most dealing with the FIA should be considered, and he is the reason 6 of the 20 cars raced and 14 dropped out, he only got lucky that 4 more didnt go with the rest. His power has gone straight to his head and will use whatever he wants to get his way, he obviously shows no care for motorsports in the US as he easily threw out the possibility of ending it all.
EDIT: after reading the FIA link someone posted earlier, Mosley also states that Ferrari were never asked, but supposedly Ecclestone asked without consulting the FIA during a drivers meeting??[/QUOTE]
Next race will be in France and its known that is Michelin home grown. So if Bridgestone tires are not good there, can you blame Michelin for it?
Actually, Todt wasn't in the meeting. Even if Todt was in the meeting, he would not have agreed on this ridiculous idea of putting a chicane. It is just simply not fair to put a chicane for Bridgestone. How, you can argue that Minardi is using the Bridgestone and they still agree on the chicane but seriously, with or without the chicane, they are still going to be behind and not winning! It doesn't matter to him at all.I think Stoddart is smart guy but also cunning in a negative way. He always side on the majority.
- Charles
for dynoguy, this has been said before, the only way someone can design a tire for a track is to test on it. When were they supposed to do that and then be allowed to make a tire to comply with it? They had about 3 days to do all of this, how is that possible? Bridgestone did not need to test on it because they had the data from Firestone which they got during the testing and things for the Indy 500, Michelin did not.
The problem that occured was only started by the resurfacing and failures of Michelin, the fact that only 6 cars raced was caused the Todt and Mosley. i read an article on F1racing.net and Todt explained that he was never questioned on a chicane, but reading that article from Stoddart, Ecclestone did ask and Todt refused and Schumacher and Barricello left their desicions to him. Mosley was the key to this "FIAsco", as Stoddart called it, and how most dealing with the FIA should be considered, and he is the reason 6 of the 20 cars raced and 14 dropped out, he only got lucky that 4 more didnt go with the rest. His power has gone straight to his head and will use whatever he wants to get his way, he obviously shows no care for motorsports in the US as he easily threw out the possibility of ending it all.
EDIT: after reading the FIA link someone posted earlier, Mosley also states that Ferrari were never asked, but supposedly Ecclestone asked without consulting the FIA during a drivers meeting??[/QUOTE]
Next race will be in France and its known that is Michelin home grown. So if Bridgestone tires are not good there, can you blame Michelin for it?
Actually, Todt wasn't in the meeting. Even if Todt was in the meeting, he would not have agreed on this ridiculous idea of putting a chicane. It is just simply not fair to put a chicane for Bridgestone. How, you can argue that Minardi is using the Bridgestone and they still agree on the chicane but seriously, with or without the chicane, they are still going to be behind and not winning! It doesn't matter to him at all.I think Stoddart is smart guy but also cunning in a negative way. He always side on the majority.
- Charles
| zumnwrx | 06-22-2005 07:55 PM |
564 posts and i must say a very good agruementive thread
Toast to us!
in all seriousness FIA did the right thing, and Michael is the winner of the USGP that was ran by the book/rules. It would have been nice to have had more cars on the track for the fans sake, but to change the course and mock up a race so Michelin could run, would have been a fake race resulting in no points and just as damming to the sport.
edgar, :)
Toast to us!
in all seriousness FIA did the right thing, and Michael is the winner of the USGP that was ran by the book/rules. It would have been nice to have had more cars on the track for the fans sake, but to change the course and mock up a race so Michelin could run, would have been a fake race resulting in no points and just as damming to the sport.
edgar, :)
| artkevin | 06-22-2005 08:11 PM |
I personally think that Michelin is obviously at fault, no question, but as others have said, the FIA is ultimately at fault for not there not being a show. Just as in the NHL I can't believe that a group of grown men can't sit down and get a solution. I wish they would have put in a chicane and had the Michlien runners race for 7th & 8th.
Way to shot yourselves and the US fans in the foot F1.
KP not a Mosley fan
Way to shot yourselves and the US fans in the foot F1.
KP not a Mosley fan
| OnTheGas | 06-22-2005 08:23 PM |
The Michelin Teams Suggested The Chicane, Not Michelin
�
�
[QUOTE=BillT]...Michelin won't say the tires are safe unless the FIA implements their suggestion, the chicane, as the FIA's suggestions (which I agreed with) were 'unacceptable' to Michelin.[/QUOTE]It would not be Michelin's place to suggest a course configuration. Their proper role is to inform their teams and the organizers of any limitations of their equipment or materials if it is going to affect the safety.
According Minardi team principal Paul Stoddart's [URL=http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=189438&FS=F1]account of Sunday morning[/URL], that is what happened. It was the teams that rejected FIA's solutions, and it was the teams that suggested the chicane instead.
It is important to take note of Stoddart's "Background", where he lays out the animosity that exists between the F1 teams and FIA. Those three paragraphs provide the reasons why no compromise was reached.
According Minardi team principal Paul Stoddart's [URL=http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=189438&FS=F1]account of Sunday morning[/URL], that is what happened. It was the teams that rejected FIA's solutions, and it was the teams that suggested the chicane instead.
It is important to take note of Stoddart's "Background", where he lays out the animosity that exists between the F1 teams and FIA. Those three paragraphs provide the reasons why no compromise was reached.
| KAX | 06-22-2005 08:59 PM |
^^ thats exactly right, no one willing to budge means no compromise, and the animosity just grows. Only difference is, the teams and michelin and sponsors care more about us than Mosley does (even if wining is still #1, we are somewhere), showing he has no respect for the fans means he has no respect for the sport, as we are what fuels it.
For chaddeus, no ones blaming bridgestone for getting data from a sister company, thats an advantage of having companies linked together (also the reason stuff like that is usually monitored here in the states).
Every suggested the FIA gave them just resulted in either, A) penalty to be named after the race or B) another safety issue. Going slower on the turn just left it open for one of the bridgestone runners not being able to slow down, or spinning out while trying to slow down to avoid one of the slower cars. Going into the pit lane could result in something that almost happened to Shumacher and Barricello, they are racing and will try to do what they can to stay in front of someone, even taking themout after the white line has past. Changing the tires every 10 laps would have inevitablely result in a penalty, possibly even disqualification as the rules had already put it, so why would Mosley change the rules then?
I still feel everyone is partly to blame for this, they all share responsibility for the huge tebacle (sp? but that doesnt matter), and no one should be clear except for Tony George and IMS, even though they seem to be taking the hit for it financially.
For chaddeus, no ones blaming bridgestone for getting data from a sister company, thats an advantage of having companies linked together (also the reason stuff like that is usually monitored here in the states).
Every suggested the FIA gave them just resulted in either, A) penalty to be named after the race or B) another safety issue. Going slower on the turn just left it open for one of the bridgestone runners not being able to slow down, or spinning out while trying to slow down to avoid one of the slower cars. Going into the pit lane could result in something that almost happened to Shumacher and Barricello, they are racing and will try to do what they can to stay in front of someone, even taking themout after the white line has past. Changing the tires every 10 laps would have inevitablely result in a penalty, possibly even disqualification as the rules had already put it, so why would Mosley change the rules then?
I still feel everyone is partly to blame for this, they all share responsibility for the huge tebacle (sp? but that doesnt matter), and no one should be clear except for Tony George and IMS, even though they seem to be taking the hit for it financially.
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 09:52 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]^^ thats exactly right, no one willing to budge means no compromise, and the animosity just grows. Only difference is, the teams and michelin and sponsors care more about us than Mosley does (even if wining is still #1, we are somewhere), showing he has no respect for the fans means he has no respect for the sport, as we are what fuels it.
For chaddeus, no ones blaming bridgestone for getting data from a sister company, thats an advantage of having companies linked together (also the reason stuff like that is usually monitored here in the states).
Every suggested the FIA gave them just resulted in either, A) penalty to be named after the race or B) another safety issue. Going slower on the turn just left it open for one of the bridgestone runners not being able to slow down, or spinning out while trying to slow down to avoid one of the slower cars. Going into the pit lane could result in something that almost happened to Shumacher and Barricello, they are racing and will try to do what they can to stay in front of someone, even taking themout after the white line has past. Changing the tires every 10 laps would have inevitablely result in a penalty, possibly even disqualification as the rules had already put it, so why would Mosley change the rules then?
I still feel everyone is partly to blame for this, they all share responsibility for the huge tebacle (sp? but that doesnt matter), and no one should be clear except for Tony George and IMS, even though they seem to be taking the hit for it financially.[/QUOTE]
It was the team's decision not to run the race!!! Again, teams decision not to run the race and not FIA or F1 Management team! FIA and F1 wanted them to continue but the team refused. Michelin already said that the tires can run at REDUCED speed but the team decided NOT to run! So you can see here, its the team who made the ultimate decision not to run at reduced speed.
Again and again, I will like to remind you and everyone about the tires regulation! People just dont seems to understand it! The one tire rule ALLOW team to change OOONNNLLYYYY if its deemed dangerous and they can change WITHOUT penalty and it was SUGGESTED by FIA that they can change ONLY if its deemed as dangerous. However, they are not allowed to change to different compound tires after the qualifying. We all just got to follow FIA rules and understand them and not just blindly read the surface.
In F1, when the blue flag is waved, you are supposed to let the behind driver pass you! FIA had already offer their help by putting a speed limit (please read Max Mosely's recent statement PLEASEEE... Its not gonna take you too long..)
Going to the pit lane is not going to result any safety issue. Drivers must still follow the pit lane rule and drive under the speed limit. I think you are just underestimating the driver's ability to control their emotion and driving skills. They are not a bunch of idiots who just go full throttle every where they go. They are precise drivers who know how to use different driving style to suit different situation. If they dont know how to, then you'll see drivers who drive 200mph in a 70mph corner. Yes drivers want to go fast but reasonably fast. They are not stupid enough to go fast and sacrifice their body and skin.
Michelin and the 7 teams should be blamed but not FIA, not F1 and not Ferrari. Blame Michelin for bringing the wrong tires but bringing the wrong tires isn't the ultimate reason why teams dont run the race. Its the 7 teams who join forces and decided not to run and i but more blame into the teams.
- Charles
For chaddeus, no ones blaming bridgestone for getting data from a sister company, thats an advantage of having companies linked together (also the reason stuff like that is usually monitored here in the states).
Every suggested the FIA gave them just resulted in either, A) penalty to be named after the race or B) another safety issue. Going slower on the turn just left it open for one of the bridgestone runners not being able to slow down, or spinning out while trying to slow down to avoid one of the slower cars. Going into the pit lane could result in something that almost happened to Shumacher and Barricello, they are racing and will try to do what they can to stay in front of someone, even taking themout after the white line has past. Changing the tires every 10 laps would have inevitablely result in a penalty, possibly even disqualification as the rules had already put it, so why would Mosley change the rules then?
I still feel everyone is partly to blame for this, they all share responsibility for the huge tebacle (sp? but that doesnt matter), and no one should be clear except for Tony George and IMS, even though they seem to be taking the hit for it financially.[/QUOTE]
It was the team's decision not to run the race!!! Again, teams decision not to run the race and not FIA or F1 Management team! FIA and F1 wanted them to continue but the team refused. Michelin already said that the tires can run at REDUCED speed but the team decided NOT to run! So you can see here, its the team who made the ultimate decision not to run at reduced speed.
Again and again, I will like to remind you and everyone about the tires regulation! People just dont seems to understand it! The one tire rule ALLOW team to change OOONNNLLYYYY if its deemed dangerous and they can change WITHOUT penalty and it was SUGGESTED by FIA that they can change ONLY if its deemed as dangerous. However, they are not allowed to change to different compound tires after the qualifying. We all just got to follow FIA rules and understand them and not just blindly read the surface.
In F1, when the blue flag is waved, you are supposed to let the behind driver pass you! FIA had already offer their help by putting a speed limit (please read Max Mosely's recent statement PLEASEEE... Its not gonna take you too long..)
Going to the pit lane is not going to result any safety issue. Drivers must still follow the pit lane rule and drive under the speed limit. I think you are just underestimating the driver's ability to control their emotion and driving skills. They are not a bunch of idiots who just go full throttle every where they go. They are precise drivers who know how to use different driving style to suit different situation. If they dont know how to, then you'll see drivers who drive 200mph in a 70mph corner. Yes drivers want to go fast but reasonably fast. They are not stupid enough to go fast and sacrifice their body and skin.
Michelin and the 7 teams should be blamed but not FIA, not F1 and not Ferrari. Blame Michelin for bringing the wrong tires but bringing the wrong tires isn't the ultimate reason why teams dont run the race. Its the 7 teams who join forces and decided not to run and i but more blame into the teams.
- Charles
| rallynutdon | 06-22-2005 10:16 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus] Team Principal who decided not to run because they dont want to slow down.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
No, I think (particularily since Senna) team principals don't want to be put in jail if something happens after Michelin has said the tire is unsafe. That seems to be the absolute bottom line, whether or not (add in one of the many different reasons from all the above postings why you think they should have run).
- Charles[/QUOTE]
No, I think (particularily since Senna) team principals don't want to be put in jail if something happens after Michelin has said the tire is unsafe. That seems to be the absolute bottom line, whether or not (add in one of the many different reasons from all the above postings why you think they should have run).
| chaddeus | 06-22-2005 10:21 PM |
[QUOTE=rallynutdon]No, I think (particularily since Senna) team principals don't want to be put in jail if something happens after Michelin has said the tire is unsafe. That seems to be the absolute bottom line, whether or not (add in one of the many different reasons from all the above postings why you think they should have run).[/QUOTE]
Why? MIchelin already say it can run at a reduce speed. Ok. If they are still concern about safety, then go to pitlane. If they are concern with pitlane safety, then maybe they are at the wrong sports cos sports comes with danger.
- Charles
Why? MIchelin already say it can run at a reduce speed. Ok. If they are still concern about safety, then go to pitlane. If they are concern with pitlane safety, then maybe they are at the wrong sports cos sports comes with danger.
- Charles
| Roy Lin | 06-23-2005 12:21 AM |
God FIA sucks, someone protect my beloved WRC from them!
| chaddeus | 06-23-2005 02:33 AM |
[QUOTE=Roy Lin]God FIA sucks, someone protect my beloved WRC from them![/QUOTE]
??? Haven't you been reading that its not FIA fault? Without FIA will be like a country without a government!
- Charles
??? Haven't you been reading that its not FIA fault? Without FIA will be like a country without a government!
- Charles
| XT6Wagon | 06-23-2005 03:21 AM |
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I cought one really interesting thing from what the Minardi guy said is that one of the main things they talked about on Saturday is for 2006 having a SINGLE tire supplier.
Seems like if the FIA has plans to do this, they might very well just make retarded suggestions like lapping through the pitlane, and refuse more sensible suggestions for the sole purpose of pre-selecting one tire supplier for next year.
Certainly the FIA is to blame ENTIRELY for the USGP issues because thier tire rules for this year make it nearly CERTAIN that it will happen at some time. They also have no regard for thier own rules till it suits them. They certainly let the backmarker teams run techinicly illegal equipment when it suits them because they need to fill a grid. They certainly seem to let Ferrari do as it pleases
Seems like if the FIA has plans to do this, they might very well just make retarded suggestions like lapping through the pitlane, and refuse more sensible suggestions for the sole purpose of pre-selecting one tire supplier for next year.
Certainly the FIA is to blame ENTIRELY for the USGP issues because thier tire rules for this year make it nearly CERTAIN that it will happen at some time. They also have no regard for thier own rules till it suits them. They certainly let the backmarker teams run techinicly illegal equipment when it suits them because they need to fill a grid. They certainly seem to let Ferrari do as it pleases
| artkevin | 06-23-2005 09:23 AM |
People keep saying that Tony Goerge and the FIA and 100% innocent. I simply do not agree with this. If the repaving/regrinding job done at the speedway was so bad that they had to cancel two days of testing in teo different series I would tend to think that the job was not done to an acceptable standard. I do not blame Bridgestone for using the info from the 500 teams but it was an advantage that Michelin did not have. With that, Michelin missed the mark but everyone keeps saying that they brought too soft of a tire. When they shipped over their Barcelona spec tires which are the hardest they have ever produced they showed the same charateristics. To me that points out the abrasive nature of the track more then Michelin bringing a crap tire.
I personally blame the FIA for hiding behind the letter of the law to the point that they dissappointed 150,000 people in the stands and countless in their homes. If Michelin and the teams had already given up their ability to score points and handed them to the Bridgestone shod teams, what harm would there be to put in a chicane?
Grown adults not being able to come to a reasonable compramise! Just pisses me off.
Remember that we the fans are the ones that support you.
KP
I personally blame the FIA for hiding behind the letter of the law to the point that they dissappointed 150,000 people in the stands and countless in their homes. If Michelin and the teams had already given up their ability to score points and handed them to the Bridgestone shod teams, what harm would there be to put in a chicane?
Grown adults not being able to come to a reasonable compramise! Just pisses me off.
Remember that we the fans are the ones that support you.
KP
| Jon Bogert | 06-23-2005 09:49 AM |
[QUOTE]Certainly the FIA is to blame ENTIRELY for the USGP issues because thier tire rules for this year make it nearly CERTAIN that it will happen at some time.[/QUOTE]...then shouldn't we blame the whole rulemaking system? And if the whole rulemaking system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our motorsport institutions in general? I put it to you ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!
| artkevin | 06-23-2005 10:10 AM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]...then shouldn't we blame the whole rulemaking system? And if the whole rulemaking system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our motorsport institutions in general? I put it to you ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America![/QUOTE]
NICE! :lol:
NICE! :lol:
| randy zimmer | 06-23-2005 10:12 AM |
chicanes are bad
�
�
As someone who has participated in pro races with chicanes added to tracks, they would have been more of a joke than what happened.
The first year a permanent one is added always leads to a rethink/redesign and Temporary ones usually, no, [COLOR=Red]Always[/COLOR] cause chaos.
rz
The first year a permanent one is added always leads to a rethink/redesign and Temporary ones usually, no, [COLOR=Red]Always[/COLOR] cause chaos.
rz
| D_REX | 06-23-2005 11:32 AM |
[QUOTE=artkevin] I do not blame Bridgestone for using the info from the 500 teams but it was an advantage that Michelin did not have. With that, Michelin missed the mark but everyone keeps saying that they brought too soft of a tire. When they shipped over their Barcelona spec tires which are the hardest they have ever produced they showed the same charateristics. [/QUOTE]
IIRC the failure was in the sidewall and was not related to compound choice. I guess a hard enough compound might comprimise grip to the point that there was less load on the sidewall but that would certainly be a crappy solution ;)
IIRC the failure was in the sidewall and was not related to compound choice. I guess a hard enough compound might comprimise grip to the point that there was less load on the sidewall but that would certainly be a crappy solution ;)
| KAX | 06-23-2005 11:43 AM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]
Going to the pit lane is not going to result any safety issue. Drivers must still follow the pit lane rule and drive under the speed limit. I think you are just underestimating the driver's ability to control their emotion and driving skills. They are not a bunch of idiots who just go full throttle every where they go. They are precise drivers who know how to use different driving style to suit different situation. If they dont know how to, then you'll see drivers who drive 200mph in a 70mph corner. Yes drivers want to go fast but reasonably fast. They are not stupid enough to go fast and sacrifice their body and skin. [/QUOTE]
obviously you didnt watch the race. If you did you would have seen Michael almost take out Barricello from the race after coming out of the pitlane, he wanted a position and was willing to run his own teammate off the course, what do you think would happen to people trying to get a position from a non-teammate?
[QUOTE=chaddeus]??? Haven't you been reading that its not FIA fault? Without FIA will be like a country without a government!
- Charles[/QUOTE]
last time i checked, governments are run by the country itself. The FIA is like the U.S. being ruled by the King of England, Max has no interest in what we want at all, only what he wants.
Going to the pit lane is not going to result any safety issue. Drivers must still follow the pit lane rule and drive under the speed limit. I think you are just underestimating the driver's ability to control their emotion and driving skills. They are not a bunch of idiots who just go full throttle every where they go. They are precise drivers who know how to use different driving style to suit different situation. If they dont know how to, then you'll see drivers who drive 200mph in a 70mph corner. Yes drivers want to go fast but reasonably fast. They are not stupid enough to go fast and sacrifice their body and skin. [/QUOTE]
obviously you didnt watch the race. If you did you would have seen Michael almost take out Barricello from the race after coming out of the pitlane, he wanted a position and was willing to run his own teammate off the course, what do you think would happen to people trying to get a position from a non-teammate?
[QUOTE=chaddeus]??? Haven't you been reading that its not FIA fault? Without FIA will be like a country without a government!
- Charles[/QUOTE]
last time i checked, governments are run by the country itself. The FIA is like the U.S. being ruled by the King of England, Max has no interest in what we want at all, only what he wants.
| CirrusWRX | 06-23-2005 12:30 PM |
I've come to the conclusion, as many have before me, but want to throw out another two words into the vocabulary being used to cite Michelin at fault: GAMBLE and GREED.
There is NOTHING in the FIA rulebook that dictates you must run all equipment to the ragged edge of performance such that it yields the best performance lasting only as long as absolutely necessary and not a moment longer.
Obviously, to gain the competitive edge, all manufacturers involved in this sport must take gambles all the time. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Me? I'm personally a very conservative person when it comes to gambling- I'd much rather leave potential HP on the table in return for potential longevity. If I were a pro racer would I be at the top? Probably not- except for the times when my gamble of reliability outweigh the gambles of my competitors who are trying to squeeze every last ounce and millesecond out of their gear.
Michelin, like the engine builders, have to balance performance with reliability. It's a gamble and they can choose how greedy they are with this mix. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind Michelin could design a tire in very short order (not overnight, obviously) that would be able to withstand and overcome the failures they experienced. Would they have given up valuable seconds on every lap? Would they have left a ton of grip on the table? Would the tires weigh more? Would they handle 20% worse? Quite possibly, but I also bet the same engineer could damned near gaurantee without ever seeing the track that "it will last..."
Michelin and the teams running Michelin took a gamble that day, as they do every event they run, and lost. Could one of the Michelin teams have demanded an "absolute rock hard solid tire that will last through a rally race no matter what type of hit in performance?" I bet they could but they took the gamble that it was not worth it and lost. I'm sure they took that gamble MANY times early in the season and won- Racing is a gamble.
Do you bet the guy in front of you is not going to dive into the turn, thus giving you a shot at it? Do you bet you can make it one more lap before stopping for fuel/tires? Do you bet that the engine is going to hold out for a few more minutes or should you ease off a bit? Do you think it's going to rain? Is it going to be hot?
It's all a gamble and no matter how many times you win, every now and then you're bound to lose. Of course, the more you win, the more you tend to get greedy...
There is NOTHING in the FIA rulebook that dictates you must run all equipment to the ragged edge of performance such that it yields the best performance lasting only as long as absolutely necessary and not a moment longer.
Obviously, to gain the competitive edge, all manufacturers involved in this sport must take gambles all the time. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Me? I'm personally a very conservative person when it comes to gambling- I'd much rather leave potential HP on the table in return for potential longevity. If I were a pro racer would I be at the top? Probably not- except for the times when my gamble of reliability outweigh the gambles of my competitors who are trying to squeeze every last ounce and millesecond out of their gear.
Michelin, like the engine builders, have to balance performance with reliability. It's a gamble and they can choose how greedy they are with this mix. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind Michelin could design a tire in very short order (not overnight, obviously) that would be able to withstand and overcome the failures they experienced. Would they have given up valuable seconds on every lap? Would they have left a ton of grip on the table? Would the tires weigh more? Would they handle 20% worse? Quite possibly, but I also bet the same engineer could damned near gaurantee without ever seeing the track that "it will last..."
Michelin and the teams running Michelin took a gamble that day, as they do every event they run, and lost. Could one of the Michelin teams have demanded an "absolute rock hard solid tire that will last through a rally race no matter what type of hit in performance?" I bet they could but they took the gamble that it was not worth it and lost. I'm sure they took that gamble MANY times early in the season and won- Racing is a gamble.
Do you bet the guy in front of you is not going to dive into the turn, thus giving you a shot at it? Do you bet you can make it one more lap before stopping for fuel/tires? Do you bet that the engine is going to hold out for a few more minutes or should you ease off a bit? Do you think it's going to rain? Is it going to be hot?
It's all a gamble and no matter how many times you win, every now and then you're bound to lose. Of course, the more you win, the more you tend to get greedy...
| artkevin | 06-23-2005 02:54 PM |
Racing is a gamble but I arguee that if Michelin had known how agressive the tarmac was they would have never brought that tire. I am sure that the tire they brought in 05 was based off the tire they raced and preformed well with in 04. I seriously doubt Michelin threw all the numbers out after last year and said lets start from zero and take nothing but assumptions. I do think they got it wrong and it is their fault but I feel the track had changed so much from last to this year that it has to be said.
KP
KP
| BriDrive | 06-23-2005 03:21 PM |
OK OK..............what have we established here in the NASIOC F1 Debating society?
That there is still no consensus on "who's to blame". Some (my self included) blame Michelin and the teams. The others blame FIA/Ecclestone/Ferrari.
Look at the sport. You have the very same division.
What the US GP really was, was 2 sides who have finally blown their cool. In public and in each other's faces, one calling the other's bluff and likewise.
All at the unfortunate and disgusting expense of the FANS.
In any other venue, Mosley would have been simply forced out long ago. Not because he's intrinsically right or wrong, but because he does not have the leadership and ability to bring the the teams and the FIA together and agree.....ON ALMOST ANYTHING. He's truly a failure and has been for a very long time. Bernie has been too blind to realize also, that its was time for him to arbitrate, concede and or compromise with the manufacturers ,who have the greatest stake in all of this, long ago as well.
The biggest mistake, among many many mistakes this season, was to go to a single tire per event. Sometimes 20/20 hindsight is all you need, especially if you thought you were too smart to begin with.
Without this rule, the US GP would have gone on without a hitch....BUT it still wouldn't have cured the wound F1 suffers but noone is willing to actually treat.
BriDrive
That there is still no consensus on "who's to blame". Some (my self included) blame Michelin and the teams. The others blame FIA/Ecclestone/Ferrari.
Look at the sport. You have the very same division.
What the US GP really was, was 2 sides who have finally blown their cool. In public and in each other's faces, one calling the other's bluff and likewise.
All at the unfortunate and disgusting expense of the FANS.
In any other venue, Mosley would have been simply forced out long ago. Not because he's intrinsically right or wrong, but because he does not have the leadership and ability to bring the the teams and the FIA together and agree.....ON ALMOST ANYTHING. He's truly a failure and has been for a very long time. Bernie has been too blind to realize also, that its was time for him to arbitrate, concede and or compromise with the manufacturers ,who have the greatest stake in all of this, long ago as well.
The biggest mistake, among many many mistakes this season, was to go to a single tire per event. Sometimes 20/20 hindsight is all you need, especially if you thought you were too smart to begin with.
Without this rule, the US GP would have gone on without a hitch....BUT it still wouldn't have cured the wound F1 suffers but noone is willing to actually treat.
BriDrive
| chaddeus | 06-23-2005 04:11 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]People keep saying that Tony Goerge and the FIA and 100% innocent. I simply do not agree with this. If the repaving/regrinding job done at the speedway was so bad that they had to cancel two days of testing in teo different series I would tend to think that the job was not done to an acceptable standard. I do not blame Bridgestone for using the info from the 500 teams but it was an advantage that Michelin did not have. With that, Michelin missed the mark but everyone keeps saying that they brought too soft of a tire. When they shipped over their Barcelona spec tires which are the hardest they have ever produced they showed the same charateristics. To me that points out the abrasive nature of the track more then Michelin bringing a crap tire.
I personally blame the FIA for hiding behind the letter of the law to the point that they dissappointed 150,000 people in the stands and countless in their homes. If Michelin and the teams had already given up their ability to score points and handed them to the Bridgestone shod teams, what harm would there be to put in a chicane?
Grown adults not being able to come to a reasonable compramise! Just pisses me off.
Remember that we the fans are the ones that support you.
KP[/QUOTE]
Actually, can't blame IMS also. If you want to blame IMS for the resurfacing of the track, might as well blame the company who do it. Don't go out of focus too far. The track is part of the characteristics. Its just like the weather as a characteristic of the race. Maybe if the weather is very hot, they need to detune the engine a bit. If most of the cars are having problem because of the weather, we can just blame the weather right?
Actually, i am still not sure about giving points to the Bridgestone idea. Teams on Michelin did brought the idea of running without any points (including bridgestone runners) but that is not fair for Bridgestone. Some one (no idea who) brought up the idea of giving all the points to Bridgestone but was not supported by everyone (including Michelin team). Also, did you read Max Mosley's statement. Its like an Olympic. You expect those runners who brought their shoe to perform without any points????
- Charles
I personally blame the FIA for hiding behind the letter of the law to the point that they dissappointed 150,000 people in the stands and countless in their homes. If Michelin and the teams had already given up their ability to score points and handed them to the Bridgestone shod teams, what harm would there be to put in a chicane?
Grown adults not being able to come to a reasonable compramise! Just pisses me off.
Remember that we the fans are the ones that support you.
KP[/QUOTE]
Actually, can't blame IMS also. If you want to blame IMS for the resurfacing of the track, might as well blame the company who do it. Don't go out of focus too far. The track is part of the characteristics. Its just like the weather as a characteristic of the race. Maybe if the weather is very hot, they need to detune the engine a bit. If most of the cars are having problem because of the weather, we can just blame the weather right?
Actually, i am still not sure about giving points to the Bridgestone idea. Teams on Michelin did brought the idea of running without any points (including bridgestone runners) but that is not fair for Bridgestone. Some one (no idea who) brought up the idea of giving all the points to Bridgestone but was not supported by everyone (including Michelin team). Also, did you read Max Mosley's statement. Its like an Olympic. You expect those runners who brought their shoe to perform without any points????
- Charles
| Snowphun | 06-23-2005 04:17 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]??? Haven't you been reading that its not FIA fault? Without FIA will be like a country without a government!
[/QUOTE]
I've read you saying it in many posts, but your opinion is not shared by all. The FIA certainly bares blame in this situation.
[/QUOTE]
I've read you saying it in many posts, but your opinion is not shared by all. The FIA certainly bares blame in this situation.
| chaddeus | 06-23-2005 04:17 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]obviously you didnt watch the race. If you did you would have seen Michael almost take out Barricello from the race after coming out of the pitlane, he wanted a position and was willing to run his own teammate off the course, what do you think would happen to people trying to get a position from a non-teammate?
last time i checked, governments are run by the country itself. The FIA is like the U.S. being ruled by the King of England, Max has no interest in what we want at all, only what he wants.[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously, you are someone who stick to F1 recently. I was at the race, sitting near turn 1 and I saw everything!! If you calcualte since this season, how many cars actually left the pitlane safely? The Shum and Barr incident is just a rare but possible case. Also, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety. If they want their drivers guaranteed safety, then they should not be in F1.
I hope you would put yourself in Max position. One one hand, he understand that the teams using Michelin tires are playing a political warfare with him and he understand that he must uphold the rules of FIA. If not, what is the point of FIA? If you are in Max position and you say ok with the chicane, then are you being fair to Bridgestone runners? Are you gonna change your rules to suit the majority? As Max had said, F1 is a sports that is entertaining and not an Entertainment disguised as a sports. There are not there to entertain you! They are there to race and the race is entertaining!
Of course everyone hate to see 6 car racing. But isn't it the same when 20 cars started and after say 10 laps, all the michelin team retire from the race and you are left is 6 cars with all Bridgestone?
- Charles
last time i checked, governments are run by the country itself. The FIA is like the U.S. being ruled by the King of England, Max has no interest in what we want at all, only what he wants.[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously, you are someone who stick to F1 recently. I was at the race, sitting near turn 1 and I saw everything!! If you calcualte since this season, how many cars actually left the pitlane safely? The Shum and Barr incident is just a rare but possible case. Also, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety. If they want their drivers guaranteed safety, then they should not be in F1.
I hope you would put yourself in Max position. One one hand, he understand that the teams using Michelin tires are playing a political warfare with him and he understand that he must uphold the rules of FIA. If not, what is the point of FIA? If you are in Max position and you say ok with the chicane, then are you being fair to Bridgestone runners? Are you gonna change your rules to suit the majority? As Max had said, F1 is a sports that is entertaining and not an Entertainment disguised as a sports. There are not there to entertain you! They are there to race and the race is entertaining!
Of course everyone hate to see 6 car racing. But isn't it the same when 20 cars started and after say 10 laps, all the michelin team retire from the race and you are left is 6 cars with all Bridgestone?
- Charles
| theformula175789 | 06-23-2005 04:19 PM |
Anyone who was hoping this thread would lead to a consensus is out of there mind. I, rather, simply wished to display my frustrations and perhaps enlighten some of those with a more open mind.
I was at the race and , just as I did at the track, believe that what transpired is exactly how it should have done so. I disagree with your position on Bernie. Though I see your point and it is a majority stance, I dont feel FIA and F1 managment need to be Buddy-Buddy with the teams and drivers. F1 worldwide exposure and recognition have only increased under current management. I believe that it is very possible this may not be the case had someone more interested in the teams stake managed the series.
I do agree that the one tire rule prevented the race from taking place as expected, however I dont think that means the rule change is to blame. Bridgestone proved the demands of a tire manufacture to produce a tire for such a format could be met. Michalin proved they are incapabile of evolving and have not the resources nor talent to build tires they dont have decades of experiance building. All this only shows that developing a tire to withstand the duration of a race is extremely difficult. To me that is what F1 is all about, proving things thought to impossible to consider can be accomplish succesfully when overtaken by the 10 most technologically advanced teams and tire manufacturers.
How many people thought grooved tires would be such a brilliant idea? The one tire rule was spearheaded by the same individual as the one tire rule. I think that shows that Bernies calls deserve the racing worlds respect no matter how redicoulous at the time. He's proving the cards in his hand will play better than anyone elses.
I was at the race and , just as I did at the track, believe that what transpired is exactly how it should have done so. I disagree with your position on Bernie. Though I see your point and it is a majority stance, I dont feel FIA and F1 managment need to be Buddy-Buddy with the teams and drivers. F1 worldwide exposure and recognition have only increased under current management. I believe that it is very possible this may not be the case had someone more interested in the teams stake managed the series.
I do agree that the one tire rule prevented the race from taking place as expected, however I dont think that means the rule change is to blame. Bridgestone proved the demands of a tire manufacture to produce a tire for such a format could be met. Michalin proved they are incapabile of evolving and have not the resources nor talent to build tires they dont have decades of experiance building. All this only shows that developing a tire to withstand the duration of a race is extremely difficult. To me that is what F1 is all about, proving things thought to impossible to consider can be accomplish succesfully when overtaken by the 10 most technologically advanced teams and tire manufacturers.
How many people thought grooved tires would be such a brilliant idea? The one tire rule was spearheaded by the same individual as the one tire rule. I think that shows that Bernies calls deserve the racing worlds respect no matter how redicoulous at the time. He's proving the cards in his hand will play better than anyone elses.
| chaddeus | 06-23-2005 04:22 PM |
[QUOTE=Snowphun]I've read you saying it in many posts, but your opinion is not shared by all. The FIA certainly bares blame in this situation.[/QUOTE]
Oh well, you are right that my opinion is not accepted by everyone :) but I hope more people will accept my idea just like the opposite side hoping their idea would be accepted but its a good debate I think. Now, I enter this forum a few times a day.
- Charles
Oh well, you are right that my opinion is not accepted by everyone :) but I hope more people will accept my idea just like the opposite side hoping their idea would be accepted but its a good debate I think. Now, I enter this forum a few times a day.
- Charles
| artkevin | 06-23-2005 04:52 PM |
[QUOTE=theformula175789]Anyone who was hoping this thread would lead to a consensus is out of there mind. I, rather, simply wished to display my frustrations and perhaps enlighten some of those with a more open mind.
I was at the race and , just as I did at the track, believe that what transpired is exactly how it should have done so. I disagree with your position on Bernie. Though I see your point and it is a majority stance, I dont feel FIA and F1 managment need to be Buddy-Buddy with the teams and drivers. F1 worldwide exposure and recognition have only increased under current management. I believe that it is very possible this may not be the case had someone more interested in the teams stake managed the series.
I do agree that the one tire rule prevented the race from taking place as expected, however I dont think that means the rule change is to blame. Bridgestone proved the demands of a tire manufacture to produce a tire for such a format could be met. Michalin proved they are incapabile of evolving and have not the resources nor talent to build tires they dont have decades of experiance building. All this only shows that developing a tire to withstand the duration of a race is extremely difficult. To me that is what F1 is all about, proving things thought to impossible to consider can be accomplish succesfully when overtaken by the 10 most technologically advanced teams and tire manufacturers.
How many people thought grooved tires would be such a brilliant idea? The one tire rule was spearheaded by the same individual as the one tire rule. I think that shows that Bernies calls deserve the racing worlds respect no matter how redicoulous at the time. He's proving the cards in his hand will play better than anyone elses.[/QUOTE]
Who said grooved tires were a brilliant idea?
I personally think that very time the FIA puts some radom wa of slowing the cars the teams just spend more money and get smarter and pick the time up in a VERY short amount of time. After grooves were put into place the cars were slow for he 1st of the season and then by years end they had pickesd the time back up. Putting the holes in the back of the air boxes 10 years ago did the same thing. They raised wings this year and they are already going faster then they did last year.
I like when the FIA comes in under saftey reasons (read wheel theathers) but I don't when they hide behind "slowing the cars down" (read raised wings put into effect months before the start of the season).
I do not agree the Michelin can't make a good tire. They have won how many 24 Hours of LeMans recently? They screwed up here, big time but the track has a major role in this whole fiasco. Bridgestone got it right, Michelin got it wrong and we all suffer becuase of it.
I was at the race and , just as I did at the track, believe that what transpired is exactly how it should have done so. I disagree with your position on Bernie. Though I see your point and it is a majority stance, I dont feel FIA and F1 managment need to be Buddy-Buddy with the teams and drivers. F1 worldwide exposure and recognition have only increased under current management. I believe that it is very possible this may not be the case had someone more interested in the teams stake managed the series.
I do agree that the one tire rule prevented the race from taking place as expected, however I dont think that means the rule change is to blame. Bridgestone proved the demands of a tire manufacture to produce a tire for such a format could be met. Michalin proved they are incapabile of evolving and have not the resources nor talent to build tires they dont have decades of experiance building. All this only shows that developing a tire to withstand the duration of a race is extremely difficult. To me that is what F1 is all about, proving things thought to impossible to consider can be accomplish succesfully when overtaken by the 10 most technologically advanced teams and tire manufacturers.
How many people thought grooved tires would be such a brilliant idea? The one tire rule was spearheaded by the same individual as the one tire rule. I think that shows that Bernies calls deserve the racing worlds respect no matter how redicoulous at the time. He's proving the cards in his hand will play better than anyone elses.[/QUOTE]
Who said grooved tires were a brilliant idea?
I personally think that very time the FIA puts some radom wa of slowing the cars the teams just spend more money and get smarter and pick the time up in a VERY short amount of time. After grooves were put into place the cars were slow for he 1st of the season and then by years end they had pickesd the time back up. Putting the holes in the back of the air boxes 10 years ago did the same thing. They raised wings this year and they are already going faster then they did last year.
I like when the FIA comes in under saftey reasons (read wheel theathers) but I don't when they hide behind "slowing the cars down" (read raised wings put into effect months before the start of the season).
I do not agree the Michelin can't make a good tire. They have won how many 24 Hours of LeMans recently? They screwed up here, big time but the track has a major role in this whole fiasco. Bridgestone got it right, Michelin got it wrong and we all suffer becuase of it.
| theformula175789 | 06-23-2005 07:07 PM |
[QUOTE]Who said grooved tires were a brilliant idea?
I personally think that very time the FIA puts some radom wa of slowing the cars the teams just spend more money and get smarter and pick the time up in a VERY short amount of time. After grooves were put into place the cars were slow for he 1st of the season and then by years end they had pickesd the time back up. Putting the holes in the back of the air boxes 10 years ago did the same thing. They raised wings this year and they are already going faster then they did last year.[/QUOTE]
I believe the form of auto racing inwhich you would be much more satisfied with would be any of the many NASCAR sactioned events. I cant argue with you becasue F1 is not based upon fan acceptance. Innovation would not exist if there were not rule changes. Its a game of cat and mouse. Burning the midnight oil to be the first to find a way around road blocks, via rule changes, is the way it has and will always be. Everyone involved in motorsports knows this like they know the back of their hand.
Your just bench racing. I cant explain to you how it is becasue you've never been behind a wheel or a pit wall. Everything you describe is all that is NASCAR and everything open wheel road racing is not.
I personally think that very time the FIA puts some radom wa of slowing the cars the teams just spend more money and get smarter and pick the time up in a VERY short amount of time. After grooves were put into place the cars were slow for he 1st of the season and then by years end they had pickesd the time back up. Putting the holes in the back of the air boxes 10 years ago did the same thing. They raised wings this year and they are already going faster then they did last year.[/QUOTE]
I believe the form of auto racing inwhich you would be much more satisfied with would be any of the many NASCAR sactioned events. I cant argue with you becasue F1 is not based upon fan acceptance. Innovation would not exist if there were not rule changes. Its a game of cat and mouse. Burning the midnight oil to be the first to find a way around road blocks, via rule changes, is the way it has and will always be. Everyone involved in motorsports knows this like they know the back of their hand.
Your just bench racing. I cant explain to you how it is becasue you've never been behind a wheel or a pit wall. Everything you describe is all that is NASCAR and everything open wheel road racing is not.
| OnTheGas | 06-23-2005 07:25 PM |
The New Autosport-Atlas Journal Is Out!
�
�
[URL]http://www.autosport-atlas.com/[/URL]
The US GP Review issue of the Autosport-Atlas.com journal is out, and it is fantastic! There is a lot of inside information that I'll try to paraphrase in the next day or two.
For instance, there is some information to questions that have been bothering me, such as:
How fast would Michelin have instructed the teams to run on their tires through T13?
Technically, how and why did this tire fail?
How did the dialogue occur between Ferrari, Bernie, Mosely, the Michelin 7, and the "GPWC" 9 teams?
Great stuff! This is an excellent magazine to subscribe to for F1 fans!
More on this soon, if another subscriber doesn't start sharing... (Sshhh... I'm still in the office, and don't have time now).
The US GP Review issue of the Autosport-Atlas.com journal is out, and it is fantastic! There is a lot of inside information that I'll try to paraphrase in the next day or two.
For instance, there is some information to questions that have been bothering me, such as:
How fast would Michelin have instructed the teams to run on their tires through T13?
Technically, how and why did this tire fail?
How did the dialogue occur between Ferrari, Bernie, Mosely, the Michelin 7, and the "GPWC" 9 teams?
Great stuff! This is an excellent magazine to subscribe to for F1 fans!
More on this soon, if another subscriber doesn't start sharing... (Sshhh... I'm still in the office, and don't have time now).
| KAX | 06-23-2005 07:42 PM |
yeh, when you get a chance, fill us in on the details of those articles, id really like to know.
| artkevin | 06-23-2005 07:53 PM |
[QUOTE=theformula175789]I believe the form of auto racing inwhich you would be much more satisfied with would be any of the many NASCAR sactioned events. I cant argue with you becasue F1 is not based upon fan acceptance. Innovation would not exist if there were not rule changes. Its a game of cat and mouse. Burning the midnight oil to be the first to find a way around road blocks, via rule changes, is the way it has and will always be. Everyone involved in motorsports knows this like they know the back of their hand.
Your just bench racing. I cant explain to you how it is becasue you've never been behind a wheel or a pit wall. Everything you describe is all that is NASCAR and everything open wheel road racing is not.[/QUOTE]
Apparently you live in my head. :rolleyes: When did you get here?
As far as I can tell we are all bench racers in here when it comes to F1. Just because you've been behind the wheel of a car doesn�t mean that you KNOW all the ins and outs of F1 in its political and physical realms.
Again, who has said that the grooved tires thing has paid off?
Again, I don't think my argument had anything to do with fan acceptance other then the people at the USGP, me being one of them. I was talking about pure lap times. The lap times,just the lap times as far as regs go.
As far as your last paragraph...What? :huh:
Where in the world did the NASCAR reference come from?
And thank you for presuming that I am partly retarded. I guess you have 0 clue as to who I am or what I do or what I RESEARCH. Apparently you are an interweb jockey that likes to sit on high and tell other people what to think and what they should do.
I only argue that this is not as clean cut as some people think. FIA 100%, Michelin 100% whatever.
KP
bigger F1 fan and student then you will ever know.
Your just bench racing. I cant explain to you how it is becasue you've never been behind a wheel or a pit wall. Everything you describe is all that is NASCAR and everything open wheel road racing is not.[/QUOTE]
Apparently you live in my head. :rolleyes: When did you get here?
As far as I can tell we are all bench racers in here when it comes to F1. Just because you've been behind the wheel of a car doesn�t mean that you KNOW all the ins and outs of F1 in its political and physical realms.
Again, who has said that the grooved tires thing has paid off?
Again, I don't think my argument had anything to do with fan acceptance other then the people at the USGP, me being one of them. I was talking about pure lap times. The lap times,just the lap times as far as regs go.
As far as your last paragraph...What? :huh:
Where in the world did the NASCAR reference come from?
And thank you for presuming that I am partly retarded. I guess you have 0 clue as to who I am or what I do or what I RESEARCH. Apparently you are an interweb jockey that likes to sit on high and tell other people what to think and what they should do.
I only argue that this is not as clean cut as some people think. FIA 100%, Michelin 100% whatever.
KP
bigger F1 fan and student then you will ever know.
| Rapid_Roo | 06-23-2005 09:12 PM |
from the FIA website. a Q&A session with max mosley
[QUOTE]THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
QUESTIONS TO MAX MOSLEY
22.06.2005
[B]What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars?[/B]
My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that�s just my personal view.
[B]Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?[/B]
You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.
[B]Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?[/B]The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.
[B]Why unfair?[/B]
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.
[B]Is this why Ferrari objected?[/B]
No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.
[B]Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?[/B]
No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half t
he competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.
[B]Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?[/B]
OK, but it�s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.
[B]All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?[/B]
There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.
[B]How can you say a chicane would be �potentially dangerous� when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?[/B]
A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident � how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?
[B]But it�s what the teams wanted.[/B]
It�s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.
[B]Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France?[/B]
It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig.
[B]Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre � why did they not have a back-up available?[/B]
You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.
[B]Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?[/B]
Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.
[B]So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?[/B]
We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre � but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.
[B]How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?[/B]
They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.
[B]But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?[/B]
No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits � effectively a drive-through penalty.
[B]How would a driver know what speed he was doing?[/B]
His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.
[B]But would this be real racing?[/B]
It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.
[B]Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?[/B]
Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.
[B]But that would have looked very strange � could you call that a race?[/B]
It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.
[B]Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?[/B]
No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.
[B]Didn�t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?[/B]
I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.
[B]What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?[/B]
This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone�s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.
[B]Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?[/B]
We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams� other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.
[B]Wouldn�t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?[/B]
No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.
[B]Didn�t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?[/B]
No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.
[B]Finally, what�s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?[/B]
We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.
[/QUOTE]
ok, I hate the guy for crap that he and his cronies have done to F1, but he does make a lot of sense. here anyway.
RR :)
[QUOTE]THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
QUESTIONS TO MAX MOSLEY
22.06.2005
[B]What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars?[/B]
My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that�s just my personal view.
[B]Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?[/B]
You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.
[B]Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?[/B]The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.
[B]Why unfair?[/B]
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.
[B]Is this why Ferrari objected?[/B]
No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.
[B]Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?[/B]
No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half t
he competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.
[B]Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?[/B]
OK, but it�s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.
[B]All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?[/B]
There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.
[B]How can you say a chicane would be �potentially dangerous� when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?[/B]
A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident � how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?
[B]But it�s what the teams wanted.[/B]
It�s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.
[B]Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France?[/B]
It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig.
[B]Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre � why did they not have a back-up available?[/B]
You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.
[B]Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?[/B]
Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.
[B]So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?[/B]
We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre � but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.
[B]How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?[/B]
They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.
[B]But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?[/B]
No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits � effectively a drive-through penalty.
[B]How would a driver know what speed he was doing?[/B]
His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.
[B]But would this be real racing?[/B]
It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.
[B]Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?[/B]
Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.
[B]But that would have looked very strange � could you call that a race?[/B]
It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.
[B]Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?[/B]
No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.
[B]Didn�t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?[/B]
I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.
[B]What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?[/B]
This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone�s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.
[B]Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?[/B]
We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams� other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.
[B]Wouldn�t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?[/B]
No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.
[B]Didn�t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?[/B]
No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.
[B]Finally, what�s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?[/B]
We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.
[/QUOTE]
ok, I hate the guy for crap that he and his cronies have done to F1, but he does make a lot of sense. here anyway.
RR :)
| KAX | 06-23-2005 09:47 PM |
^^ weve already seen that
| XT6Wagon | 06-23-2005 10:34 PM |
Um most of his answers are straight out of the south end of north bound cow...
| meebs | 06-24-2005 12:07 AM |
[QUOTE=XT6Wagon]Um most of his answers are straight out of the south end of north bound cow...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no actually it all makes very good sense. FiA bandwagon hating is WTLW. :rolleyes: I've been guilty of it myself years ago though. :lol:
Yeah, no actually it all makes very good sense. FiA bandwagon hating is WTLW. :rolleyes: I've been guilty of it myself years ago though. :lol:
| XT6Wagon | 06-24-2005 03:05 AM |
No read what he wrote with out the rose colored glasses on.
There is NO WAY IN HELL they would have allowed cars to run the race as he stated they had the option to do. Basicly they would have kicked the michelin teams off the track for running too slow because it IS a safety issue, and there is definitely no way, no way at all they would have let the teams use the pit lane for anything but REAL pit work.
Also notice how its everyones fault but HIS, the FIA stewards, and Ferraris in that order.
Then notice how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He claims that michelin was being unfair by running a low duriblity tire during qualifying, then he goes on to claim that its unfair to the bridgestone teams to subject them to safety issues because michelin brought a slow tire to the track.
Really the more I read on this, the more I think that someone really isn't interested in having michelin around anymore, and is willing to do much to make sure it happens. Something stinks when on Saturday one of the things talked about is one tire supplier for 06 and NO mention of the current situation. Then NO REAL solutions are suggested by the FIA. Then lots of words about how its all michelins fault. Then plenty of threats against teams that did the RIGHT thing and called it a day. This is then backed with more subtle attacks on michelin by implying that michelin was "cheating". THEN implying that they make sub-par tires speed wise.
What I REALLY want to see is the exact letters sent to both michelin and bridgestone on on june 1st. Thier replys if any would then be good. I also want to know if ANY data regarding the IRL failures was communicated to michelin other than just that they happened.
Next up I want to know if it was even POSSIBLE in the timeframe allowed for Michelin to have even attempted to test at indy for insuring the tires were satisfactory. Seriously 3 weeks isn't anything when you have a Race in canada in that time period. only 7 days between canada and USGP ruins any real chance to properly test... AND that IMO would be highly illegal to test right before a race...
There is NO WAY IN HELL they would have allowed cars to run the race as he stated they had the option to do. Basicly they would have kicked the michelin teams off the track for running too slow because it IS a safety issue, and there is definitely no way, no way at all they would have let the teams use the pit lane for anything but REAL pit work.
Also notice how its everyones fault but HIS, the FIA stewards, and Ferraris in that order.
Then notice how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He claims that michelin was being unfair by running a low duriblity tire during qualifying, then he goes on to claim that its unfair to the bridgestone teams to subject them to safety issues because michelin brought a slow tire to the track.
Really the more I read on this, the more I think that someone really isn't interested in having michelin around anymore, and is willing to do much to make sure it happens. Something stinks when on Saturday one of the things talked about is one tire supplier for 06 and NO mention of the current situation. Then NO REAL solutions are suggested by the FIA. Then lots of words about how its all michelins fault. Then plenty of threats against teams that did the RIGHT thing and called it a day. This is then backed with more subtle attacks on michelin by implying that michelin was "cheating". THEN implying that they make sub-par tires speed wise.
What I REALLY want to see is the exact letters sent to both michelin and bridgestone on on june 1st. Thier replys if any would then be good. I also want to know if ANY data regarding the IRL failures was communicated to michelin other than just that they happened.
Next up I want to know if it was even POSSIBLE in the timeframe allowed for Michelin to have even attempted to test at indy for insuring the tires were satisfactory. Seriously 3 weeks isn't anything when you have a Race in canada in that time period. only 7 days between canada and USGP ruins any real chance to properly test... AND that IMO would be highly illegal to test right before a race...
| DrBiggly | 06-24-2005 08:19 AM |
XT6Wagon,
To think that the FIA would have "kicked" the Michelin competitors off the track for going slower through a particular turn is quite the silly notion. Racers do it most notably running 3 very distinctly different speeds during the 24 hours of Le Mans without any fuss. I'm sure that the F1 drivers, basically considered to be the pinnacle of the sport, could manage. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]Then notice how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He claims that michelin was being unfair by running a low duriblity tire during qualifying, then he goes on to claim that its unfair to the bridgestone teams to subject them to safety issues because michelin brought a slow tire to the track.[/quote]
They didn't bring a "slow" tire to the track, they brought an inappropriate tire as far as durability was concerned. "Slow" would only be used to describe the tire if the teams hadn't decided to pull out and instead ran the race. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]
Really the more I read on this, the more I think that someone really isn't interested in having michelin around anymore, and is willing to do much to make sure it happens. Something stinks when on Saturday one of the things talked about is one tire supplier for 06 and NO mention of the current situation. Then NO REAL solutions are suggested by the FIA. Then lots of words about how its all michelins fault. Then plenty of threats against teams that did the RIGHT thing and called it a day. This is then backed with more subtle attacks on michelin by implying that michelin was "cheating". THEN implying that they make sub-par tires speed wise.[/quote]
Not only did the FIA give them 3 solutions, they would have permitted Michelin to run the tires that were flown in from France overnight, which they somehow managed to botch yet again so that became "purely academic" as it was stated. Tin foil hats need not apply here. Michelin made a bet, wagered high, and this time came up with a very, very bad hand. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]What I REALLY want to see is the exact letters sent to both michelin and bridgestone on on june 1st. Thier replys if any would then be good. I also want to know if ANY data regarding the IRL failures was communicated to michelin other than just that they happened.[/quote]
While I would be curious to see these letters, I doubt that Michelin would have responded that they were ready without having looked into the situation fully. Since I don't believe it's standard policy for the FIA to send out letters of advisory before particular events regarding such things, it would certainly have been taken under heavy consideration. If I got a warning via letter from the sanctioning body about a particular venue's changes and possible issues I would be absolutely sure to do my homework on it before responding that I was ready. Notice that Michelin hasn't had any complaints about not being able to test there themselves and instead folks are just assuming that they did not have time for it. If Michelin has balked at some sort of "unfair advantage" that Bridgestone might have had then I haven't heard of it yet. Nope, no tin foil hat needed here either. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]
Next up I want to know if it was even POSSIBLE in the timeframe allowed for Michelin to have even attempted to test at indy for insuring the tires were satisfactory. Seriously 3 weeks isn't anything when you have a Race in canada in that time period. only 7 days between canada and USGP ruins any real chance to properly test... AND that IMO would be highly illegal to test right before a race...[/quote]
So you know more than the high-paid engineers at Michelin about tire testing? Because you're assuming that they can't get the job done when in fact they responded via a letter to the FIA about the tire advisory that they were indeed prepared. Did you know that a typical F1 team has about 500 crew members? (This heard via JPM during an interview on Letterman the other night.) For contrast, a typical NASCAR team has about 80. Imagine just how many folks are dedicated to nothing more than just dealing with tires. Now try to figure out just how many Michelin employees are dedicated full-time to serving those 7 teams. What I'm getting at is that it's highly unlikely that Michelin didn't have time to test or send someone out to pay attention to the track and do precise calculations about circuit conditions well in advance of the race. Do remember, there's about $2,000,000,000 worth of sponsorship money on the line there. They don't just play around here; it's serious stuff. Again, it's Michelin simply made a grave error. Had it been reversed and it were Bridgestone, the Michelin teams would have simply said "tough luck guys" and run their race. :)
-Biggly
To think that the FIA would have "kicked" the Michelin competitors off the track for going slower through a particular turn is quite the silly notion. Racers do it most notably running 3 very distinctly different speeds during the 24 hours of Le Mans without any fuss. I'm sure that the F1 drivers, basically considered to be the pinnacle of the sport, could manage. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]Then notice how he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He claims that michelin was being unfair by running a low duriblity tire during qualifying, then he goes on to claim that its unfair to the bridgestone teams to subject them to safety issues because michelin brought a slow tire to the track.[/quote]
They didn't bring a "slow" tire to the track, they brought an inappropriate tire as far as durability was concerned. "Slow" would only be used to describe the tire if the teams hadn't decided to pull out and instead ran the race. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]
Really the more I read on this, the more I think that someone really isn't interested in having michelin around anymore, and is willing to do much to make sure it happens. Something stinks when on Saturday one of the things talked about is one tire supplier for 06 and NO mention of the current situation. Then NO REAL solutions are suggested by the FIA. Then lots of words about how its all michelins fault. Then plenty of threats against teams that did the RIGHT thing and called it a day. This is then backed with more subtle attacks on michelin by implying that michelin was "cheating". THEN implying that they make sub-par tires speed wise.[/quote]
Not only did the FIA give them 3 solutions, they would have permitted Michelin to run the tires that were flown in from France overnight, which they somehow managed to botch yet again so that became "purely academic" as it was stated. Tin foil hats need not apply here. Michelin made a bet, wagered high, and this time came up with a very, very bad hand. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]What I REALLY want to see is the exact letters sent to both michelin and bridgestone on on june 1st. Thier replys if any would then be good. I also want to know if ANY data regarding the IRL failures was communicated to michelin other than just that they happened.[/quote]
While I would be curious to see these letters, I doubt that Michelin would have responded that they were ready without having looked into the situation fully. Since I don't believe it's standard policy for the FIA to send out letters of advisory before particular events regarding such things, it would certainly have been taken under heavy consideration. If I got a warning via letter from the sanctioning body about a particular venue's changes and possible issues I would be absolutely sure to do my homework on it before responding that I was ready. Notice that Michelin hasn't had any complaints about not being able to test there themselves and instead folks are just assuming that they did not have time for it. If Michelin has balked at some sort of "unfair advantage" that Bridgestone might have had then I haven't heard of it yet. Nope, no tin foil hat needed here either. :)
[quote=XT6Wagon]
Next up I want to know if it was even POSSIBLE in the timeframe allowed for Michelin to have even attempted to test at indy for insuring the tires were satisfactory. Seriously 3 weeks isn't anything when you have a Race in canada in that time period. only 7 days between canada and USGP ruins any real chance to properly test... AND that IMO would be highly illegal to test right before a race...[/quote]
So you know more than the high-paid engineers at Michelin about tire testing? Because you're assuming that they can't get the job done when in fact they responded via a letter to the FIA about the tire advisory that they were indeed prepared. Did you know that a typical F1 team has about 500 crew members? (This heard via JPM during an interview on Letterman the other night.) For contrast, a typical NASCAR team has about 80. Imagine just how many folks are dedicated to nothing more than just dealing with tires. Now try to figure out just how many Michelin employees are dedicated full-time to serving those 7 teams. What I'm getting at is that it's highly unlikely that Michelin didn't have time to test or send someone out to pay attention to the track and do precise calculations about circuit conditions well in advance of the race. Do remember, there's about $2,000,000,000 worth of sponsorship money on the line there. They don't just play around here; it's serious stuff. Again, it's Michelin simply made a grave error. Had it been reversed and it were Bridgestone, the Michelin teams would have simply said "tough luck guys" and run their race. :)
-Biggly
| AndyRoo | 06-24-2005 09:38 AM |
[QUOTE=meebs]FiA bandwagon hating is WTLW. :rolleyes: I've been guilty of it myself years ago though. :lol:[/QUOTE]
But they make it soooo easy to hate them! :lol:
But they make it soooo easy to hate them! :lol:
| KAX | 06-24-2005 09:53 AM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]Had it been reversed and it were Bridgestone, the Michelin teams would have simply said "tough luck guys" and run their race. :)[/QUOTE]
i dont understand why you guys keep saying that. Thats exactly what happened. Bridgestone didnt run the race when their tires were sub-par, why is it that its all of a sudden the teams or Michelins fault for not running the race? No one blamed ferrari or Bridgestone when they couldnt handle the banking at bahrain, why blame the teams and Michelin now?
i dont understand why you guys keep saying that. Thats exactly what happened. Bridgestone didnt run the race when their tires were sub-par, why is it that its all of a sudden the teams or Michelins fault for not running the race? No one blamed ferrari or Bridgestone when they couldnt handle the banking at bahrain, why blame the teams and Michelin now?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét