| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 01:19 AM |
[QUOTE=TheRipler]OK,
Sorry about the Jordan thing ( that was low ;) ), I should have put one extra smiley in there, but the first post I responded to didn't seem to have any basis in reality. I still don't see where you're getting that Michelin blamed the FIA. I did not see that in either letter. All I saw was "our tires don't work", "this might", "we're sorry". It looked like they were trying to keep the show going, but didn't have any valid suggestions, as has already been covered.
I admire Michelin for taking the hit on this one. They thought they had it ready, but their tires didn't work. They made a mistake, and admitted it. Not knowing the limit of the tires is where the problem came in. [/QUOTE]
The article that say Michelin blaming FIA for USGP Failure.
[url]http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194[/url]
Also, I want to show u something to make things lifely here.
Showing Flav breathes fire.
[img]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/14734_2.jpg[/img]
So hot Flav was steaming
[img]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/14717_2.jpg[/img]
Sorry about the Jordan thing ( that was low ;) ), I should have put one extra smiley in there, but the first post I responded to didn't seem to have any basis in reality. I still don't see where you're getting that Michelin blamed the FIA. I did not see that in either letter. All I saw was "our tires don't work", "this might", "we're sorry". It looked like they were trying to keep the show going, but didn't have any valid suggestions, as has already been covered.
I admire Michelin for taking the hit on this one. They thought they had it ready, but their tires didn't work. They made a mistake, and admitted it. Not knowing the limit of the tires is where the problem came in. [/QUOTE]
The article that say Michelin blaming FIA for USGP Failure.
[url]http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194[/url]
Also, I want to show u something to make things lifely here.
Showing Flav breathes fire.
[img]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/14734_2.jpg[/img]
So hot Flav was steaming
[img]http://www.itv-f1.com/ImageLibrary/14717_2.jpg[/img]
| bal00 | 06-21-2005 02:44 AM |
The one set of tires per race rule was put in place to faciliate passing on the track. It reduces the amount of marbles on the track so the drivers can actually use a different line through a corner and still have usable grip. It also leads to speed differences between drivers who choose to save their tires and those who run out of tires at the end of the race. Anyone remember Heidfeld's pass on Alonso in Monaco? Prime example for that.
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 04:57 AM |
A lot of people have a wrong understanding towards FIA one tire rule. They assume they only can use one tire for the entire race.
Actually, they can change an unlimited amount of tires ONLY if FIA see that their tires is really dangerous and MUST be replaced but designed wise, the tires must last for the entire race.
- Charles
Actually, they can change an unlimited amount of tires ONLY if FIA see that their tires is really dangerous and MUST be replaced but designed wise, the tires must last for the entire race.
- Charles
| mw1029h2 | 06-21-2005 05:21 AM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]A lot of people have a wrong understanding towards FIA one tire rule. They assume they only can use one tire for the entire race.
Actually, they can change an unlimited amount of tires ONLY if FIA see that their tires is really dangerous and MUST be replaced but designed wise, the tires must last for the entire race.
- Charles[/QUOTE] ,that being said they really can't change the tires when they want and that rule is really stupid. a team should be able to use 2 sets of tires at least per race, a driver was almost killed behind that B.S. rule
Actually, they can change an unlimited amount of tires ONLY if FIA see that their tires is really dangerous and MUST be replaced but designed wise, the tires must last for the entire race.
- Charles[/QUOTE] ,that being said they really can't change the tires when they want and that rule is really stupid. a team should be able to use 2 sets of tires at least per race, a driver was almost killed behind that B.S. rule
| TimStevens | 06-21-2005 08:28 AM |
This is what Stirling Moss had to say:
"Look, this is show business, we're not just talking about F1. Millions and millions of people are being let down, and all it required was a chicane."
"Look, this is show business, we're not just talking about F1. Millions and millions of people are being let down, and all it required was a chicane."
| Snowphun | 06-21-2005 08:57 AM |
[QUOTE=JonKav]This incident highlights the difference in FIA events vs the rest of the racing world. NASCAR changes rules mid-season, with inconsistent penalties, etc. But, we, as Americans, encourage rule-tweaking to suit our needs, and don't understand keeping rules intact--
[/QUOTE]
:lol: Formula 1 changes rules constantly. Qualifying just changed from two laps to one at Canada. The tire and engine rules are new this year, v8's for next year, who knows how many other changes they'll come up with.
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.
[/QUOTE]
:lol: Formula 1 changes rules constantly. Qualifying just changed from two laps to one at Canada. The tire and engine rules are new this year, v8's for next year, who knows how many other changes they'll come up with.
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.
| AndyRoo | 06-21-2005 10:16 AM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]I was just surfing through all of us who posted are pick 6 (8) predictions... and none of us picked Monteiro, or Albers! :lol:
However, some of you had Michael on the podium... So you folks will probably clean up. And if you had Michael on the podium, plus Barrichello in the points, then you're probably gonna win! :lol:
I had Michael 5th, and Barrichello 6th, which may not get me on the podium, but it would get me close, (4 + 4 = 8 total). :p[/QUOTE]
I just got an email saying this round for F1 pick 6 will be treated as a non points round.
good news for me!
However, some of you had Michael on the podium... So you folks will probably clean up. And if you had Michael on the podium, plus Barrichello in the points, then you're probably gonna win! :lol:
I had Michael 5th, and Barrichello 6th, which may not get me on the podium, but it would get me close, (4 + 4 = 8 total). :p[/QUOTE]
I just got an email saying this round for F1 pick 6 will be treated as a non points round.
good news for me!
| gtguy | 06-21-2005 10:28 AM |
(From Planet F1, et al...)
It's official: Michelin seven charged by FIA
Tuesday June 21 2005
Email Us Chat Forum
Mail article Print article
As predicted, the Michelin seven have been charged with bringing the sport into disrepute during the Indy fiasco by the FIA.
In a letter sent to all seven of the teams, the FIA declared that at next Wednesday's hearing, they would 'answer charges that, in breach of the above, you committed one or more acts prejudicial to the interests of a competition, namely the 2005 United States Grand Prix and/or to the interests of motor sport'.
The specific charges against the Michelin teams are that they:
- failed to ensure that you had a supply of suitable tyres for the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to all allow your cars to start the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to allow your cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as you had available and/or
- combined with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race.
'And that you failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race in breach of article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.'
It would appear that the FIA are blaming the seven Michelin teams, rather than Michelin themselves, for the debacle, suggesting that the teams should have simply slowed down as they approached the now notorious turn 13.
Related News
It's official: Michelin seven charged by FIA
Tuesday June 21 2005
Email Us Chat Forum
Mail article Print article
As predicted, the Michelin seven have been charged with bringing the sport into disrepute during the Indy fiasco by the FIA.
In a letter sent to all seven of the teams, the FIA declared that at next Wednesday's hearing, they would 'answer charges that, in breach of the above, you committed one or more acts prejudicial to the interests of a competition, namely the 2005 United States Grand Prix and/or to the interests of motor sport'.
The specific charges against the Michelin teams are that they:
- failed to ensure that you had a supply of suitable tyres for the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to all allow your cars to start the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to allow your cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as you had available and/or
- combined with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race.
'And that you failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race in breach of article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.'
It would appear that the FIA are blaming the seven Michelin teams, rather than Michelin themselves, for the debacle, suggesting that the teams should have simply slowed down as they approached the now notorious turn 13.
Related News
| Hawkeye | 06-21-2005 10:29 AM |
[QUOTE=Snowphun]:lol: Formula 1 changes rules constantly. Qualifying just changed from two laps to one at Canada. The tire and engine rules are new this year, v8's for next year, who knows how many other changes they'll come up with.
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.[/QUOTE]
Isn't part of the reason for rules changes was to even the playing field?
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.[/QUOTE]
Isn't part of the reason for rules changes was to even the playing field?
| GarySheehan | 06-21-2005 10:31 AM |
[QUOTE=gtguy](From Planet F1, et al...)
It would appear that the FIA are blaming the seven Michelin teams, rather than Michelin themselves, for the debacle, suggesting that the teams should have simply slowed down as they approached the now notorious turn 13.
Related News[/QUOTE]
I don't believe the FIA has any authority over a parts supplier when there is more than one supplier for said parts. I'm pretty sure the FIA only has authority over the teams that use the parts. Can anyone confirm?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
It would appear that the FIA are blaming the seven Michelin teams, rather than Michelin themselves, for the debacle, suggesting that the teams should have simply slowed down as they approached the now notorious turn 13.
Related News[/QUOTE]
I don't believe the FIA has any authority over a parts supplier when there is more than one supplier for said parts. I'm pretty sure the FIA only has authority over the teams that use the parts. Can anyone confirm?
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| gtguy | 06-21-2005 10:31 AM |
Further...
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin
| OnTheGas | 06-21-2005 10:54 AM |
Is Michelin Vulnerable To FIA Penalties?
�
�
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]I don't believe the FIA has any authority over a parts supplier when there is more than one supplier for said parts. I'm pretty sure the FIA only has authority over the teams that use the parts. Can anyone confirm?[/QUOTE]Good question Gary... I wish I knew that answer.
It is intrigueing that FIA is going after the teams, and not Michelin.
I suspect that the FIA could go directly after Michelin for sullying the reputation of F1. If that were true, then why go after the 7 teams only, and not after Michelin?
You ask a good question...
It is intrigueing that FIA is going after the teams, and not Michelin.
I suspect that the FIA could go directly after Michelin for sullying the reputation of F1. If that were true, then why go after the 7 teams only, and not after Michelin?
You ask a good question...
| OnTheGas | 06-21-2005 10:56 AM |
F1 Pick 6 Results
�
�
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]I just got an email saying this round for F1 pick 6 will be treated as a non points round...[/QUOTE]This sucks big time! Time to send a nasty gram to the p6 admin since FIA said that these points count toward the championship.
I just need to hear why this decision was made.
I just need to hear why this decision was made.
| BillT | 06-21-2005 11:03 AM |
I think I picked MS either first or second and had RB in the points. I was looking forward to those results to bolster my lackluster performance in the Pick6 so far this year.
| AndyRoo | 06-21-2005 11:14 AM |
i had MS 3rd and rubens no where...they should probably count the round if the FIA is.
| KAX | 06-21-2005 11:15 AM |
[QUOTE=gtguy]Further...
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin[/QUOTE]
i was wondering how long this would take. cant wait for the outcome
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin[/QUOTE]
i was wondering how long this would take. cant wait for the outcome
| Dussander | 06-21-2005 12:27 PM |
I feel for Richardo Zonta... his chance to run at Indy and then... nope. Also, Scott Speed lost out as well. He did awesome in Friday practice, but no one will remember that.
I liked Red Bull's blurb:
[quote]Behind the scenes, most of the drivers still wanted to race and our own David Coulthard was very definitely one of them, as was Juan Pablo Montoya, who was literally crying in frustration that he could not race in front of the huge contingent of Colombian fans who had made the trip from his home country.[/quote]
Oh, anyone else catch Monty on Letterman? It made my wife laugh (hard task). The bit about Connie getting more pissed off then Monty after bad stuff happens. She also liked how he brightened up when they started talking about Sebastian.
I liked Red Bull's blurb:
[quote]Behind the scenes, most of the drivers still wanted to race and our own David Coulthard was very definitely one of them, as was Juan Pablo Montoya, who was literally crying in frustration that he could not race in front of the huge contingent of Colombian fans who had made the trip from his home country.[/quote]
Oh, anyone else catch Monty on Letterman? It made my wife laugh (hard task). The bit about Connie getting more pissed off then Monty after bad stuff happens. She also liked how he brightened up when they started talking about Sebastian.
| photog72 | 06-21-2005 02:54 PM |
I don't know if this was shown or not, but it sums up my opinion:
[IMG]http://www.miami.com/images/miami/miamiherald/11943/142643560328.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.miami.com/images/miami/miamiherald/11943/142643560328.jpg[/IMG]
| jibco | 06-21-2005 03:48 PM |
[QUOTE=ForceFed4]I feel terrible for all the people that spend hundreds of dollars to attend this "race".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not so happy about how my super expensive weekend turned out. ****ing tossers!
Yeah, I'm not so happy about how my super expensive weekend turned out. ****ing tossers!
| OnTheGas | 06-21-2005 05:08 PM |
F1 Pick 6
�
�
It may be worthwhile for you folks to send a quick, polite e-mail to John Francis, who is currently administrating the F1P6 system. I sent one earlier today, pointing out that I had re-read the F1P6 rules at [url]http://www.motorsport.com/compete/p6/rules.asp[/url] and could not find how he could justify making the US GP a 'non-points' round, or whatever he called it.
John's e-mail is p6admin at motorsport dot com.
Just be polite about it... as I'm really curious as to his reasoning, which escapes me. I'm hoping he replies to either me, or someone (best if it was sent to everyone via the F1P6 page, or e-mail to players).
[QUOTE=BillT]I think I picked MS either first or second and had RB in the points. I was looking forward to those results to bolster my lackluster performance in the Pick6 so far this year.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]i had MS 3rd and rubens no where...they should probably count the round if the FIA is.[/QUOTE]
John's e-mail is p6admin at motorsport dot com.
Just be polite about it... as I'm really curious as to his reasoning, which escapes me. I'm hoping he replies to either me, or someone (best if it was sent to everyone via the F1P6 page, or e-mail to players).
[QUOTE=BillT]I think I picked MS either first or second and had RB in the points. I was looking forward to those results to bolster my lackluster performance in the Pick6 so far this year.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AndyRoo]i had MS 3rd and rubens no where...they should probably count the round if the FIA is.[/QUOTE]
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 05:40 PM |
[QUOTE=Snowphun]:lol: Formula 1 changes rules constantly. Qualifying just changed from two laps to one at Canada. The tire and engine rules are new this year, v8's for next year, who knows how many other changes they'll come up with.
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.[/QUOTE]
Its true that rules change constantly not only in F1 but in other races. However, the rules should not be changed under this circumstances. It would also be impossible to come with a set of rules and stick with it forever. Time change, so rules should change also. But for this case, its unreasonable to have it change.
- Charles
I for one wish they could come up with a standard and stick to it. Qualification in particular. I used to enjoy the 10 hot laps in an hour setup, quite suspenseful.[/QUOTE]
Its true that rules change constantly not only in F1 but in other races. However, the rules should not be changed under this circumstances. It would also be impossible to come with a set of rules and stick with it forever. Time change, so rules should change also. But for this case, its unreasonable to have it change.
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 05:41 PM |
[QUOTE=photog72]I don't know if this was shown or not, but it sums up my opinion:
[IMG]http://www.miami.com/images/miami/miamiherald/11943/142643560328.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Some people are smiling and laughing and booing the events. Its more like they are joining the fun (following the majority) rather than really protesting it.
- charles
[IMG]http://www.miami.com/images/miami/miamiherald/11943/142643560328.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Some people are smiling and laughing and booing the events. Its more like they are joining the fun (following the majority) rather than really protesting it.
- charles
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 05:44 PM |
[QUOTE=gtguy]Further...
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin[/QUOTE]
Sometimes, actually, the race kind of started but finish super early. It would be no different if we see a race with 20 cars and after 2 laps, 14 cars crash due to accident and leave 6 racers with Bridgestone to continue.
Well, I dont know about Law but sometimes, I find people trying to take this opportunity to get them some money.
- Charles
<<First lawsuit filed over Indy
Tuesday June 21 2005
The first lawsuit over the Indy farce has been filed in the U.S.
The Indy Star reports that one Larry Bowers, a Colorado resident, has 'filed a class action lawsuit against the F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Formula One Group, Formula One Administration, Michelin Tires and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway following Sunday�s United States Grand Prix.'
Bowers is claiming that the event was fraudulent, and that 'Formula One, the FIA, Michelin, the teams equipped by Michelin and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway forged an agreement allowing the Michelin teams to participate in the formation lap and then exit the track prior to the start of the race.'
'The alleged 'race' participated by just three teams did not constitute a true grand prix race under FIA and Formula One rules in that the race was started with an insufficient number of participants,' the lawsuit declares.
Bowers is seeking reimbursement for the five tickets he bought for the event and 'other costs' he spent as part of his attendance.>>
It looks like Ecclestone is saying that by taking part in the formation lap, that ended any obligation that the teams had to the race promoter, perhaps anticipating the potential lawsuit that is being discussed, where Indy will sue the FIA to recoup costs of putting on the race.
Kevin[/QUOTE]
Sometimes, actually, the race kind of started but finish super early. It would be no different if we see a race with 20 cars and after 2 laps, 14 cars crash due to accident and leave 6 racers with Bridgestone to continue.
Well, I dont know about Law but sometimes, I find people trying to take this opportunity to get them some money.
- Charles
| zumnwrx | 06-21-2005 06:11 PM |
Id likes to add,
For the RECORD the Ferrari drivers/teams never had the chance to agree with the chicane idea.. FIA wouldn�t allow it, for the simple fact that track changes the day of the race, with no time to practice, would be more of a REAL SAFETY issue then Michelins tires. Among other things
edgar, :)
For the RECORD the Ferrari drivers/teams never had the chance to agree with the chicane idea.. FIA wouldn�t allow it, for the simple fact that track changes the day of the race, with no time to practice, would be more of a REAL SAFETY issue then Michelins tires. Among other things
edgar, :)
| TimStevens | 06-21-2005 06:20 PM |
[QUOTE=zumnwrx]Id likes to add,
For the RECORD the Ferrari drivers/teams never had the chance to agree with the chicane idea.. FIA wouldn�t allow it, for the simple fact that track changes the day of the race, with no time to practice, would be more of a REAL SAFETY issue then Michelins tires. Among other things
edgar, :)[/QUOTE]
For the RECORD, 9 teams were in agreement about the chicane, one was not. It's effectively a moot point since the FIA said they wouldn't allow it anyway, but it's still the case.
For the RECORD the Ferrari drivers/teams never had the chance to agree with the chicane idea.. FIA wouldn�t allow it, for the simple fact that track changes the day of the race, with no time to practice, would be more of a REAL SAFETY issue then Michelins tires. Among other things
edgar, :)[/QUOTE]
For the RECORD, 9 teams were in agreement about the chicane, one was not. It's effectively a moot point since the FIA said they wouldn't allow it anyway, but it's still the case.
| zumnwrx | 06-21-2005 06:24 PM |
YEAH 9 teams that came ill prepared for a race :rolleyes:
here is the exact quote
[QUOTE]Tuesday, 21 June 2005
Ferrari's Jean Todt has denied that he formally objected to the construction of a temporary chicane at Indy. The Maranello chief said he was 'never involved' in a discussion, apart from with Bernie Ecclestone, but confirmed that he objected anyway. ''We were never asked about that,'' said Todt, a Frenchman. ''But is it serious to put in a chicane without testing it? It's ridiculous.'' Jean Todt said making rules and modifying circuits is a matter for the FIA, not Bernie or a bunch of crisis ridden teams. ''Imagine if we asked for two more laps in qualifying because we have better speed on the third lap. ''Everybody would laugh at us. ''You have to be prepared. If we knew beforehand that there would be a chicane, we would come with different tyres. ''Why should we compromise? This has been a hard hit for F1.''
[/QUOTE]
here is the exact quote
[QUOTE]Tuesday, 21 June 2005
Ferrari's Jean Todt has denied that he formally objected to the construction of a temporary chicane at Indy. The Maranello chief said he was 'never involved' in a discussion, apart from with Bernie Ecclestone, but confirmed that he objected anyway. ''We were never asked about that,'' said Todt, a Frenchman. ''But is it serious to put in a chicane without testing it? It's ridiculous.'' Jean Todt said making rules and modifying circuits is a matter for the FIA, not Bernie or a bunch of crisis ridden teams. ''Imagine if we asked for two more laps in qualifying because we have better speed on the third lap. ''Everybody would laugh at us. ''You have to be prepared. If we knew beforehand that there would be a chicane, we would come with different tyres. ''Why should we compromise? This has been a hard hit for F1.''
[/QUOTE]
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 06:50 PM |
[QUOTE=TimStevens]For the RECORD, 9 teams were in agreement about the chicane, one was not. It's effectively a moot point since the FIA said they wouldn't allow it anyway, but it's still the case.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Jordan and Minardi dont even care. With or without the Chicane, they are going to be behind anyway and loose the event. So they just follow the majority.
Now, I dispite Minardi's position in this whole situation but also a smart political move. First, he join the majority in supporting to boycott the event. Then he claimed that he join the race becuase he heard from the radio that Jordan is going to race so he raced and he dont want to disappoint the fans etc (bunch of rubbish IMO).
After the race and getting some happy points easily, he blame Jordan for starting the race. Why blame Jordan? Also, if Minardi boycott the race, look what happen to their budget department. Assume if they must pay their sponsors ($11m for BAR cos they cannot run in Monaco), they would most probably pay $10m (assume), pay back the spectators $3m for a total of $13m! Man! With budget of $50m, they might as well pack and go home.
- Charles
Actually, Jordan and Minardi dont even care. With or without the Chicane, they are going to be behind anyway and loose the event. So they just follow the majority.
Now, I dispite Minardi's position in this whole situation but also a smart political move. First, he join the majority in supporting to boycott the event. Then he claimed that he join the race becuase he heard from the radio that Jordan is going to race so he raced and he dont want to disappoint the fans etc (bunch of rubbish IMO).
After the race and getting some happy points easily, he blame Jordan for starting the race. Why blame Jordan? Also, if Minardi boycott the race, look what happen to their budget department. Assume if they must pay their sponsors ($11m for BAR cos they cannot run in Monaco), they would most probably pay $10m (assume), pay back the spectators $3m for a total of $13m! Man! With budget of $50m, they might as well pack and go home.
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 06:51 PM |
[QUOTE=zumnwrx]YEAH 9 teams that came ill prepared for a race :rolleyes:
here is the exact quote[/QUOTE]
Make that a 7 please :). Jordan and Minardi are with Bridgestone and they are perfectly ok to run the race as usual.
-Charles
here is the exact quote[/QUOTE]
Make that a 7 please :). Jordan and Minardi are with Bridgestone and they are perfectly ok to run the race as usual.
-Charles
| TimStevens | 06-21-2005 07:12 PM |
This thread has long since run its course.
Unsubscribing :)
Unsubscribing :)
| KAX | 06-21-2005 07:34 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]It may be worthwhile for you folks to send a quick, polite e-mail to John Francis, who is currently administrating the F1P6 system. I sent one earlier today, pointing out that I had re-read the F1P6 rules at [url]http://www.motorsport.com/compete/p6/rules.asp[/url] and could not find how he could justify making the US GP a 'non-points' round, or whatever he called it.[/QUOTE]
what does it matter now? It didnt happen
what does it matter now? It didnt happen
| ArtGecko | 06-21-2005 08:48 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]Actually, Jordan and Minardi dont even care. With or without the Chicane, they are going to be behind anyway and loose the event. So they just follow the majority.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
Yea they do, and no they weren't
"Here is an audio interview during the race on a Dutch TV station from Paul
Stoddart, on his thoughts about the situation:
[url]http://web.bsu.edu/mrpeters/Stoddart_Interview.mp3[/url] "
(Thanks Sean ;) )
(Oh, and for pic 6 I had MS in third and RB in eighth, so that would have been what, eight points?)
- Charles[/QUOTE]
Yea they do, and no they weren't
"Here is an audio interview during the race on a Dutch TV station from Paul
Stoddart, on his thoughts about the situation:
[url]http://web.bsu.edu/mrpeters/Stoddart_Interview.mp3[/url] "
(Thanks Sean ;) )
(Oh, and for pic 6 I had MS in third and RB in eighth, so that would have been what, eight points?)
| EHK | 06-21-2005 08:53 PM |
I may be late to the discussion, and this may have been said and pooped-on earlier, but its all Michelin's fault. They suck, take their sorry BS tires outta F1 for good. The lawsuits should name Michelin alone, they caused the situation. Never mind what could have been done race day, they had months to prepare for a turn that has been around for years. JMHO
Now go enjoy some edwards key lime pie. That stuff rocks.
Now go enjoy some edwards key lime pie. That stuff rocks.
| KAX | 06-21-2005 09:22 PM |
[QUOTE=EHK]they caused the situation.[/QUOTE]
actually Indy [I]caused[/I] the situation. You people need to read this stuff before you go throw out your opinion. Indy messed up the resurface job, Indy diamond grinded the track to get rid of the bump, and it was Indy's track that caused the tire failure. Michelin had the same compound they used last year and bridgestone did not, they brought the harder compound because they knew the track was bad and they knew tires would wear faster, Michelin did not race at the Indy 500 and Michelin did not know about the surface of the track. It is not their fault
PS im not blaming indy either, they are allowed to do whatever they want to the track, but when a team doesnt know about it, it hurts them.
actually Indy [I]caused[/I] the situation. You people need to read this stuff before you go throw out your opinion. Indy messed up the resurface job, Indy diamond grinded the track to get rid of the bump, and it was Indy's track that caused the tire failure. Michelin had the same compound they used last year and bridgestone did not, they brought the harder compound because they knew the track was bad and they knew tires would wear faster, Michelin did not race at the Indy 500 and Michelin did not know about the surface of the track. It is not their fault
PS im not blaming indy either, they are allowed to do whatever they want to the track, but when a team doesnt know about it, it hurts them.
| KAX | 06-21-2005 09:45 PM |
Bernie could be sued
�
�
Qouted from F1racing.net
[url]http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90332[/url]
F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone is tipped to land in court after Indianapolis Motor Speedway bosses fumed at their unfair treatment in the US grand prix. Indy CEO Tony George forked out a cool $13.5 million for Sunday's absurd six-car procession.
Bernie, 74, admitted that George may well want to refund tickets. "If I found myself in that position," the little Englishman conceded, "then I might well seek to make good my loss."
Bernie's conciliatory attitude was probably fashioned after irate fans screamed abuse at him as he left the 'Brickyard' on Sunday. In addition, two BAR mechanics were punched, and Red Bull's team members wisely made their way back to the hotel wearing 'Indy' t-shirts.
Ecclestone, though, also suggested that the Speedway can handle the often inconvenient nuances of racing. "IRL and Nascar can be delayed because of rain," he noted.
[url]http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90332[/url]
F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone is tipped to land in court after Indianapolis Motor Speedway bosses fumed at their unfair treatment in the US grand prix. Indy CEO Tony George forked out a cool $13.5 million for Sunday's absurd six-car procession.
Bernie, 74, admitted that George may well want to refund tickets. "If I found myself in that position," the little Englishman conceded, "then I might well seek to make good my loss."
Bernie's conciliatory attitude was probably fashioned after irate fans screamed abuse at him as he left the 'Brickyard' on Sunday. In addition, two BAR mechanics were punched, and Red Bull's team members wisely made their way back to the hotel wearing 'Indy' t-shirts.
Ecclestone, though, also suggested that the Speedway can handle the often inconvenient nuances of racing. "IRL and Nascar can be delayed because of rain," he noted.
| subbyspeed | 06-21-2005 09:54 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]Qouted from F1racing.net
Ecclestone, though, also suggested that the Speedway can handle the often inconvenient nuances of racing. "IRL and Nascar can be delayed because of rain," he noted.[/QUOTE]
hahahaha.. Yeah, but fans come out to those races knowing that weather could possibly pospone the race.
Bernie sounds a little desperate.
I can't wait to see what this upcoming court date does. If anything.
Ecclestone, though, also suggested that the Speedway can handle the often inconvenient nuances of racing. "IRL and Nascar can be delayed because of rain," he noted.[/QUOTE]
hahahaha.. Yeah, but fans come out to those races knowing that weather could possibly pospone the race.
Bernie sounds a little desperate.
I can't wait to see what this upcoming court date does. If anything.
| chaddeus | 06-21-2005 10:37 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]Qouted from F1racing.net
Bernie's conciliatory attitude was probably fashioned after irate fans screamed abuse at him as he left the 'Brickyard' on Sunday. In addition, two BAR mechanics were punched, and Red Bull's team members wisely made their way back to the hotel wearing 'Indy' t-shirts.[/QUOTE]
There are terrorist here in America! The government should find out who and bomb their house :p. Its soooo stupid for those people to do such thing. Who are they trying to prove? So uneducated.
- Charles
Bernie's conciliatory attitude was probably fashioned after irate fans screamed abuse at him as he left the 'Brickyard' on Sunday. In addition, two BAR mechanics were punched, and Red Bull's team members wisely made their way back to the hotel wearing 'Indy' t-shirts.[/QUOTE]
There are terrorist here in America! The government should find out who and bomb their house :p. Its soooo stupid for those people to do such thing. Who are they trying to prove? So uneducated.
- Charles
| BillT | 06-21-2005 10:38 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]actually Indy [I]caused[/I] the situation. .[/QUOTE]
Indy did not cause this situation. It is well within a circuits rights to resurface their track whenever they feel it is necessary. It is up to the teams that run and their suppliers including the tire manufacturers to do their due diligence to determine what effects the resurfacing will have on the cars and to adjust accordingly. In the absence of this due diligence, Michelin should have at least erred on the side of caution and created a stronger, more durable tire that sacrifced some performance for the sake of saftey.
Indy did not cause this situation. It is well within a circuits rights to resurface their track whenever they feel it is necessary. It is up to the teams that run and their suppliers including the tire manufacturers to do their due diligence to determine what effects the resurfacing will have on the cars and to adjust accordingly. In the absence of this due diligence, Michelin should have at least erred on the side of caution and created a stronger, more durable tire that sacrifced some performance for the sake of saftey.
| BriDrive | 06-21-2005 11:01 PM |
The whole affair was frankly: JUST A DAMNED SHAME
How ironic that this embarassment had to happen at the US GP.
Beyond all the BS, most of the major manufacturers desparately want grandprix racing in the US to thrive. Get inside corporate BMW, Toyota, Honda...all with major stakes in marketing and product line development, advertising and investment geared at selling upscale US consumers on high end tech cars.
I think I'd go after Michelin.
The analogy is like Formula Mazda coming to Laguna Seca, then announcing saturday that the cars will not race on sunday as the engines seem to be overheating due to elevation changes and oil starvation.........
How ironic that this embarassment had to happen at the US GP.
Beyond all the BS, most of the major manufacturers desparately want grandprix racing in the US to thrive. Get inside corporate BMW, Toyota, Honda...all with major stakes in marketing and product line development, advertising and investment geared at selling upscale US consumers on high end tech cars.
I think I'd go after Michelin.
The analogy is like Formula Mazda coming to Laguna Seca, then announcing saturday that the cars will not race on sunday as the engines seem to be overheating due to elevation changes and oil starvation.........
| BillT | 06-22-2005 08:51 AM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]It may be worthwhile for you folks to send a quick, polite e-mail to John Francis, who is currently administrating the F1P6 system. [/QUOTE]
I shot him a quick e-mail asking him to reconsider as a race was run and points were scored.
I shot him a quick e-mail asking him to reconsider as a race was run and points were scored.
| Hawkeye | 06-22-2005 10:12 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]actually Indy [I]caused[/I] the situation. You people need to read this stuff before you go throw out your opinion. Indy messed up the resurface job, Indy diamond grinded the track to get rid of the bump, and it was Indy's track that caused the tire failure. Michelin had the same compound they used last year and bridgestone did not, they brought the harder compound because they knew the track was bad and they knew tires would wear faster, Michelin did not race at the Indy 500 and Michelin did not know about the surface of the track. It is not their fault
PS im not blaming indy either, they are allowed to do whatever they want to the track, but when a team doesnt know about it, it hurts them.[/QUOTE]
As stated before in this thread. This was a sidewall load and failure issue NOT a wear related issue.
PS im not blaming indy either, they are allowed to do whatever they want to the track, but when a team doesnt know about it, it hurts them.[/QUOTE]
As stated before in this thread. This was a sidewall load and failure issue NOT a wear related issue.
| KAX | 06-22-2005 10:17 AM |
[QUOTE=Hawkeye]As stated before in this thread. This was a sidewall load and failure issue NOT a wear related issue.[/QUOTE]
it was a combination of both. The low pressure in the tires allowed the sidewall to kind of overlap and the rough surface of the track caused it to fail. Zontas tire didnt fail on the oval it failed on a flat turn because of the rough surface. That has to be obvious because the banking didnt change so the same spec tires as last year should have been fine, but as we all saw, they werent
it was a combination of both. The low pressure in the tires allowed the sidewall to kind of overlap and the rough surface of the track caused it to fail. Zontas tire didnt fail on the oval it failed on a flat turn because of the rough surface. That has to be obvious because the banking didnt change so the same spec tires as last year should have been fine, but as we all saw, they werent
| GarySheehan | 06-22-2005 10:40 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX]it was a combination of both. The low pressure in the tires allowed the sidewall to kind of overlap and the rough surface of the track caused it to fail. Zontas tire didnt fail on the oval it failed on a flat turn because of the rough surface. That has to be obvious because the banking didnt change so the same spec tires as last year should have been fine, but as we all saw, they werent[/QUOTE]
How are you thinking it's the same spec tire as last year? This is the first year that the tires have had to last from qualifying to the end of the race. There is no way this year's Michelin tire was the same spec as last year's Michelin tire.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
How are you thinking it's the same spec tire as last year? This is the first year that the tires have had to last from qualifying to the end of the race. There is no way this year's Michelin tire was the same spec as last year's Michelin tire.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| KAX | 06-22-2005 10:58 AM |
same spec meaning same durability spots and things like that. I didnt mean they are usuing the exact same tire as last year, it just has similarities to last years tire, just made with a harder compound to last them the race.
| Dark | 06-22-2005 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]Windsor surprised me a little when he suggested that the lack of safety of Michelins was "exaggerated", and that drivers could change the way they go thru the corner to remove the danger.
F1 is as competitive as any motorsport, and I don't see F1 drivers sacrificing time by choosing slower lines through a corner when they can hunt down the guy in front of them and pass for position, and more points.
Anyone have any idea as to what lines through turn 13 Windsor could be talking about? This doesn't make sense to me... But I haven't been to the track since 2000.[/QUOTE]
If Windsor is right there are other slower race lines to ease on the tire load on turn 13, then i think they have no reason not to race. Perhaps choosing slower race lines on turn 13 might not get them to 1st or 2nd, but atleast they can compete for 3rd to the 8th to salvage some championship points. With the leading teams getting 0 points and ferrari got both 10 and 8 points, not only ferrari had closes up the gap and it also create a bad image on fans towards them. They totally miss out the big picture, 1 team wins 1st and 2nd in one particular race will not do much on the championship points if other teams manage to score points as well. As a top class race driver, they should be able to adapt any situation on the track, and who knows if ferrari mignt DNF during the race. I suspect their might be pressure from the major teams to force the others to withdraw the race altogether. Seeing BAR have retire so many races already, giving up the USGP without even a try. They might as well move the entire team and crew to spectator sits.
F1 is as competitive as any motorsport, and I don't see F1 drivers sacrificing time by choosing slower lines through a corner when they can hunt down the guy in front of them and pass for position, and more points.
Anyone have any idea as to what lines through turn 13 Windsor could be talking about? This doesn't make sense to me... But I haven't been to the track since 2000.[/QUOTE]
If Windsor is right there are other slower race lines to ease on the tire load on turn 13, then i think they have no reason not to race. Perhaps choosing slower race lines on turn 13 might not get them to 1st or 2nd, but atleast they can compete for 3rd to the 8th to salvage some championship points. With the leading teams getting 0 points and ferrari got both 10 and 8 points, not only ferrari had closes up the gap and it also create a bad image on fans towards them. They totally miss out the big picture, 1 team wins 1st and 2nd in one particular race will not do much on the championship points if other teams manage to score points as well. As a top class race driver, they should be able to adapt any situation on the track, and who knows if ferrari mignt DNF during the race. I suspect their might be pressure from the major teams to force the others to withdraw the race altogether. Seeing BAR have retire so many races already, giving up the USGP without even a try. They might as well move the entire team and crew to spectator sits.
| ccortinas | 06-22-2005 11:14 AM |
Ok, so i just tried to paste this story here and then my screen went blank! :furious: arg
anyway, go to [URL=http://f1.racing-live.com/en/]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/[/URL] and read this story...
"[B][SIZE=3]Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix[/SIZE][/B]
A personal account of US Grand Prix events"
Very interesting to hear what went on throghout the weekend from a first person view.
-cc3
anyway, go to [URL=http://f1.racing-live.com/en/]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/[/URL] and read this story...
"[B][SIZE=3]Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix[/SIZE][/B]
A personal account of US Grand Prix events"
Very interesting to hear what went on throghout the weekend from a first person view.
-cc3
| TyrannoSullyRex | 06-22-2005 11:51 AM |
[QUOTE=ccortinas]Ok, so i just tried to paste this story here and then my screen went blank! :furious: arg
anyway, go to [URL=http://f1.racing-live.com/en/]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/[/URL] and read this story...
"[B][SIZE=3]Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix[/SIZE][/B]
A personal account of US Grand Prix events"
Very interesting to hear what went on throghout the weekend from a first person view.
-cc3[/QUOTE]
Very cool. Interesting line from that press release.
"Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why [b]I have called for his resignation.[/b] "
anyway, go to [URL=http://f1.racing-live.com/en/]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/[/URL] and read this story...
"[B][SIZE=3]Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix[/SIZE][/B]
A personal account of US Grand Prix events"
Very interesting to hear what went on throghout the weekend from a first person view.
-cc3[/QUOTE]
Very cool. Interesting line from that press release.
"Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why [b]I have called for his resignation.[/b] "
| Jon Bogert | 06-22-2005 11:56 AM |
Paul Stoddart has more than a passing acquaintance with the concept of "politically motivated". :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated.[/QUOTE]
| Hawkeye | 06-22-2005 12:13 PM |
What happened at Australlia?
| ccortinas | 06-22-2005 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE=Jon Bogert]Paul Stoddart has more than a passing acquaintance with the concept of "politically motivated". :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
the guy has to look out for his team you know.
I'm not sure what kind of monitary ramification this whole indy thing will have but I doubt Minardi has that deep of pockets.
the guy has to look out for his team you know.
I'm not sure what kind of monitary ramification this whole indy thing will have but I doubt Minardi has that deep of pockets.
| BillT | 06-22-2005 12:48 PM |
After Stoddard's actions at Australia, how can anyone take him seriously?
| dynoguy | 06-22-2005 01:22 PM |
Kax,it is michelins fault . you don't think they paid attention to what happens in other series that their compition race at. the news that indy resufaced the oval should not been news to them as all the pre-500 troubles were in the news. as far as tire construction goes, i've been to a tire test before (although a goodyear one for nascar) and the proceedures they go thru to find the right construction and tire compound. with the data they should have had from previous races there there should not have had a side wall issue, now they could have had a tread/compound one.
mike
mike
| Hawkeye | 06-22-2005 01:33 PM |
[QUOTE=BillT]After Stoddard's actions at Australia, how can anyone take him seriously?[/QUOTE]
Please explain? I looked over some of the race stuff from Australia and I didn't see anything that caught my eye.
Please explain? I looked over some of the race stuff from Australia and I didn't see anything that caught my eye.
| Jon Bogert | 06-22-2005 01:37 PM |
The latest from Mr. Mosley. The more I hear from this guy, the more I believe he made the right call(s) here.
[url]http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/220605-01.html[/url]
[url]http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/220605-01.html[/url]
| bemani | 06-22-2005 01:42 PM |
[QUOTE=Hawkeye]Please explain? I looked over some of the race stuff from Australia and I didn't see anything that caught my eye.[/QUOTE]
Basically Minardi wanted to run 2004 spec cars because they didn't have 2005 ones ready, but they weren't allowed. Then Stoddart sued FIA, and FIA threaten to pull all races out of Australia, and Minardi withdrawed. Then magically, Minardi mechanics put parts on the 2004 spec cars to make it 2005 spec.
So yeah, Paul Stoddart is an ass.
Basically Minardi wanted to run 2004 spec cars because they didn't have 2005 ones ready, but they weren't allowed. Then Stoddart sued FIA, and FIA threaten to pull all races out of Australia, and Minardi withdrawed. Then magically, Minardi mechanics put parts on the 2004 spec cars to make it 2005 spec.
So yeah, Paul Stoddart is an ass.
| BillT | 06-22-2005 01:46 PM |
[QUOTE=Hawkeye]Please explain? I looked over some of the race stuff from Australia and I didn't see anything that caught my eye.[/QUOTE]
In the first race of the year in Australia, Paul Stoddard complained that his team, Minardi, could not comply - the excuse was a combination of not having the money and simply not having the parts - with the new aero rules and wanted to run his cars in the '04 configuration. The FIA then said you can't run and Paul then asked the Australian court system for an injunction to allow them to compete. I believe the courts denied the injunction and 'magically' Paul's cars were fitted with the '05 spec aero parts and were allowed to race.
In the first race of the year in Australia, Paul Stoddard complained that his team, Minardi, could not comply - the excuse was a combination of not having the money and simply not having the parts - with the new aero rules and wanted to run his cars in the '04 configuration. The FIA then said you can't run and Paul then asked the Australian court system for an injunction to allow them to compete. I believe the courts denied the injunction and 'magically' Paul's cars were fitted with the '05 spec aero parts and were allowed to race.
| rallynutdon | 06-22-2005 01:52 PM |
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 . . .).
"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 . . .).
| rallynutdon | 06-22-2005 01:54 PM |
[QUOTE=BillT]In the first race of the year in Australia, Paul Stoddard complained that his team, Minardi, could not comply - the excuse was a combination of not having the money and simply not having the parts - with the new aero rules and wanted to run his cars in the '04 configuration. [/QUOTE]
From what I read in RACER, he was trying to make a point about the bad way the rules were written for 2005!
From what I read in RACER, he was trying to make a point about the bad way the rules were written for 2005!
| bemani | 06-22-2005 01:59 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]
Well he's got to make up some sort of excuse for acting like an ass!
Well he's got to make up some sort of excuse for acting like an ass!
| BillT | 06-22-2005 02:01 PM |
[QUOTE=rallynutdon]
You wouldn't have been changing the WHOLE circuit, just a small portion.
[/QUOTE]
Just that small portion radically changes the whole nature of that circuit. Indy is a big conundrum for the engineers because it is two circuits in one - an extremely fast (I believe the longest full throttle run in F1) circuit with the banked turn and the front straight and the extremely slow infield portion. By putting that chicane there, you now have a very slow overall track with an additional braking point that nobody considered. How would the teams have felt if one of the car's brakes failed due to inadequate cooling caused by this additional braking point and cause the driver to crash into the wall and injure himself?
You wouldn't have been changing the WHOLE circuit, just a small portion.
[/QUOTE]
Just that small portion radically changes the whole nature of that circuit. Indy is a big conundrum for the engineers because it is two circuits in one - an extremely fast (I believe the longest full throttle run in F1) circuit with the banked turn and the front straight and the extremely slow infield portion. By putting that chicane there, you now have a very slow overall track with an additional braking point that nobody considered. How would the teams have felt if one of the car's brakes failed due to inadequate cooling caused by this additional braking point and cause the driver to crash into the wall and injure himself?
| BillT | 06-22-2005 02:02 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]
He still ended up looking like a huge ass - he stated that they didn't even have the parts, but they magically appeared on their car so they could race.
He still ended up looking like a huge ass - he stated that they didn't even have the parts, but they magically appeared on their car so they could race.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét