| kfoote | 06-20-2005 02:13 PM |
[QUOTE=theformula175789]...
Bridgestone has a much longer and more sucessful history in autoracing and F1 particularly....[/QUOTE]
Michelin has quite an extensive history in auto racing, and specifically sports cars. None of the Audi R8's had any problems with tires coming apart at Le Mans this weekend, and they fared quite well. The Pratt & Miller Corvettes switched to Michelin because they were faster than the Goodyears that they had been running. Yokohama winning GT2 was a major upset, as Michelin has dominated that class for many years.
I do agree that the blame here should be split 80/20 between Michelin and the teams.
As far as adding the chicaine, I don't understand why Minardi and Jordan voted for adding the chicaine. I certainly wouldn't have in their shoes. With a business aquaintance ending up with a broken pelvis as a result of a temorary chicaine in Charlotte several years ago that WAS approved for use, I REALLY do not like them.
Bridgestone has a much longer and more sucessful history in autoracing and F1 particularly....[/QUOTE]
Michelin has quite an extensive history in auto racing, and specifically sports cars. None of the Audi R8's had any problems with tires coming apart at Le Mans this weekend, and they fared quite well. The Pratt & Miller Corvettes switched to Michelin because they were faster than the Goodyears that they had been running. Yokohama winning GT2 was a major upset, as Michelin has dominated that class for many years.
I do agree that the blame here should be split 80/20 between Michelin and the teams.
As far as adding the chicaine, I don't understand why Minardi and Jordan voted for adding the chicaine. I certainly wouldn't have in their shoes. With a business aquaintance ending up with a broken pelvis as a result of a temorary chicaine in Charlotte several years ago that WAS approved for use, I REALLY do not like them.
| driggity | 06-20-2005 02:31 PM |
[QUOTE=Hawkeye]What would have happened if they took one lap all pulled into the pits and changed into the tires that would have worked (ssuming the tires were there)? Would they get a black flag or a stop and go penalty?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that the exact penalty was ever stated but Charlie Whiting's letter covers some possibilities.
[QUOTE]Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.
Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams� allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that the exact penalty was ever stated but Charlie Whiting's letter covers some possibilities.
[QUOTE]Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.
Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams� allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.
[/QUOTE]
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 02:33 PM |
Champ car is allowing anyone with a 2005 USGP ticket to get in free for the race in Clevland(sp) this weekend.
| theformula175789 | 06-20-2005 02:38 PM |
I didnt in any way say that Michalin was new to racing. I just said Bridgestones had MORE experiance.
[QUOTE]This was a safety issue, not a performance issue. Schumacher's tire blew on his first out lap![/QUOTE]
If this was about safety then why were all the options given to the teams turned down. Options that would have eliminated safety concerns but limited performance. That statement has no basis.
[QUOTE]The rules, organizers, teams and drivers have to be flexible enough to deal with emergency situations as this was but they did not compromise.[/QUOTE]
Oh say if the teams were allowed to bring two sets of tire to every event. One set intended for performance and one set that was strictly a failsafe in the event the perfomance tires were not safe to run? Would that work? Guess what buddy, you need to read some rules before you speak, becasue that is exactly the current rules. Every last one of the Michalin teams "Chose" not to bring a failsafe tire. Again, a statement pulled out of thin air with no basis!
[QUOTE]This was a safety issue, not a performance issue. Schumacher's tire blew on his first out lap![/QUOTE]
If this was about safety then why were all the options given to the teams turned down. Options that would have eliminated safety concerns but limited performance. That statement has no basis.
[QUOTE]The rules, organizers, teams and drivers have to be flexible enough to deal with emergency situations as this was but they did not compromise.[/QUOTE]
Oh say if the teams were allowed to bring two sets of tire to every event. One set intended for performance and one set that was strictly a failsafe in the event the perfomance tires were not safe to run? Would that work? Guess what buddy, you need to read some rules before you speak, becasue that is exactly the current rules. Every last one of the Michalin teams "Chose" not to bring a failsafe tire. Again, a statement pulled out of thin air with no basis!
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 02:50 PM |
Interesting quote copied from SpeedTV.
"Ferrari principal Jean Todt countered that the Scuderia was never even consulted by the FIA, and resolution of the matter was always to be resolved between the Michelin-shod outfits and the governing body.
"We were never involved with those discussions (about a chicane), " Todt was quoted as saying by Autosport-Atlas."
The 7 teams are now being summoned by the FIA. This is going to go on for a long time. Just another day in the F1 soap opera drama series, As The Wheel Turns.
"Ferrari principal Jean Todt countered that the Scuderia was never even consulted by the FIA, and resolution of the matter was always to be resolved between the Michelin-shod outfits and the governing body.
"We were never involved with those discussions (about a chicane), " Todt was quoted as saying by Autosport-Atlas."
The 7 teams are now being summoned by the FIA. This is going to go on for a long time. Just another day in the F1 soap opera drama series, As The Wheel Turns.
| driggity | 06-20-2005 02:56 PM |
[QUOTE=theformula175789]Oh say if the teams were allowed to bring two sets of tire to every event. One set intended for performance and one set that was strictly a failsafe in the event the perfomance tires were not safe to run? Would that work? Guess what buddy, you need to read some rules before you speak, becasue that is exactly the current rules. Every last one of the Michalin teams "Chose" not to bring a failsafe tire. Again, a statement pulled out of thin air with no basis![/QUOTE]
This is the first I've heard that the teams use the 2nd tire construction at a race purely as a failsafe. Everything else I've heard is that both sets are intended for performance, but under somewhat different conditions.
This is the first I've heard that the teams use the 2nd tire construction at a race purely as a failsafe. Everything else I've heard is that both sets are intended for performance, but under somewhat different conditions.
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 03:07 PM |
Questions
�
�
[list][*][b]What was wrong with Michelin's tires?[/b] - Michelin released a statement this morning saying that they are still investigating these tires. They said they have not yet pinpointed why these tires failed. Remember that not only did Ralf's left rear fail during his first hot lap in the Friday afternoon session, but also Toyota's test driver, Zonta, had a LR tire fail in the infield section in the Friday AM session as well... apparently the same cause, sidedwall failure.[*][b]Why did the Michelin teams not race?[/b] - This has not been stated explicitly... But incredible pressure must have been exerted on the Michelin teams to not race. There had been millions of dollars invested by the Michelin teams to race here. This was an important event not only for gaining points, but also for many of their sponsors. Decisions of this nature usually come down to money, and it is strongly suspected that the teams knew that in the U.S. legal system they could be liable for really big dollars if they had raced on their Michelins, but I would like to see confirmation as to exactly how all M teams came to agreement that they did. Remember, if one driver, or team had stepped out of line and ran a lap or two, this deal would have failed.[*][b]Was FIA really going to issue speeding tickets at turn 13[/b] - FIA's letter implied that they would help enforce speed limits requested by Michelin in turn 13. How well prepared were they to do this? Why would they offer this solution? Did they believe this to be a smart thing to implement, or was this more of a rhetorical position?[*][b]What penalty will Michelin receive?[/b][*][b]The Michelin teams have been asked to appear before FIA. What penalties might they receive?[/b][*]Published crowd estimates are 120,000 and 130,000 for Sunday, which is pretty impressive. [b]After the smoke and anger goes away, will next year's crowd by smaller?[/b][*][b]Is this the last time we see turn 13 at the Indy GP course in it's present configuration?[/b] - I suspect there will be a race at Indy next year, and that Michelin will be granted their chicane... (More Mickey Mouse for an already Mickey Mouse track!).[*][b]Did F1 really lose?[/b] - Many people have said that F1 lost, and that the fans lost on Sunday. But perhaps not.
Sunday clearly illustrated the difference 'tween [b]NASCAR[/b], where the regulations are created by the folks who also promote and profit from the series. Their philosophy is that the rule book is written in pencil, and will always be made flexible to the primary purpose of providing a good show for the fans. This philosophy they share with other entertainments which bill themselves as sports, such as professional wrestling.
F1's structure has FOA (Bernie) in charge of promoting (and profitting from) F1, while FIA (Max Mosely) is in charge of rules. So when a team, or driver, is not within compliance with the rules, FIA implements the penalties by being concerned with sporting justice vs. the entertaining appeal to the fans. Examples of this would include banning BAR for 3 races earlier this season, and black flagging Montoya at Canada.
Indy made this distinction very clear. For some fans this is a win for F1, and their philosophy. Other fans may not appreciate racing being conducted strictly as a sport, because they expect it be an entertainment, a la WWF.[/list]
Sunday clearly illustrated the difference 'tween [b]NASCAR[/b], where the regulations are created by the folks who also promote and profit from the series. Their philosophy is that the rule book is written in pencil, and will always be made flexible to the primary purpose of providing a good show for the fans. This philosophy they share with other entertainments which bill themselves as sports, such as professional wrestling.
F1's structure has FOA (Bernie) in charge of promoting (and profitting from) F1, while FIA (Max Mosely) is in charge of rules. So when a team, or driver, is not within compliance with the rules, FIA implements the penalties by being concerned with sporting justice vs. the entertaining appeal to the fans. Examples of this would include banning BAR for 3 races earlier this season, and black flagging Montoya at Canada.
Indy made this distinction very clear. For some fans this is a win for F1, and their philosophy. Other fans may not appreciate racing being conducted strictly as a sport, because they expect it be an entertainment, a la WWF.[/list]
| KAX | 06-20-2005 03:14 PM |
[QUOTE=TOMMY B]"Michelin is sorry that the tires it ran in free practice and qualifying were not suitable for use in racing conditions"
Well here you have it Michelin was to blame..................
TOMMY B
RALLY ON //////////////////////////[/QUOTE]
apologizing isnt necessarily taking blame. Coulthard apologized, did he cause the problem?
Michelin is just saying that to help out the FIA and F1 so people like you guys dont start throwing the blame anywhich way they feel.
Like many others have said EVERYONE was at fault in some way. stop point fingers and accept that already.
Well here you have it Michelin was to blame..................
TOMMY B
RALLY ON //////////////////////////[/QUOTE]
apologizing isnt necessarily taking blame. Coulthard apologized, did he cause the problem?
Michelin is just saying that to help out the FIA and F1 so people like you guys dont start throwing the blame anywhich way they feel.
Like many others have said EVERYONE was at fault in some way. stop point fingers and accept that already.
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 03:37 PM |
Michelin Not To Be Blamed?
�
�
[QUOTE=KAX]...Like many others have said EVERYONE was at fault in some way...[/QUOTE]You're not the only person who thinks Michelin is not to be blamed... But I find that position hard to understand.
Especially if one looks at the performance of the Bridgestone tires vs. the Michelin tires at Indy. Furthermore, it is not like Indy is an unknown to Michelin... This was their [b]5th year[/b] at this circuit, which has always been run in the same configuration.
It is interesting to note that Michelin said that the 'Barcelona spec' tires which they had hoped would provide a safe alternative, was found to not be safe after further testing on a simulator in France.
If Michelin had properly tested their tires prior to this, none of this would have happened!
At the same time, when Bridgestone did not provide a tire to handle the conditions at Bahrain, instead of asking for a new chicane to be built, Ferrari tried to race, and then pulled their remaining car in to the garage during the race when the tires were too bad to continue.
So is it that the rules apply to Bridgestone, but not Michelin?
Especially if one looks at the performance of the Bridgestone tires vs. the Michelin tires at Indy. Furthermore, it is not like Indy is an unknown to Michelin... This was their [b]5th year[/b] at this circuit, which has always been run in the same configuration.
It is interesting to note that Michelin said that the 'Barcelona spec' tires which they had hoped would provide a safe alternative, was found to not be safe after further testing on a simulator in France.
If Michelin had properly tested their tires prior to this, none of this would have happened!
At the same time, when Bridgestone did not provide a tire to handle the conditions at Bahrain, instead of asking for a new chicane to be built, Ferrari tried to race, and then pulled their remaining car in to the garage during the race when the tires were too bad to continue.
So is it that the rules apply to Bridgestone, but not Michelin?
| GarySheehan | 06-20-2005 03:56 PM |
I picked the wrong thread to respond to as this one has a lot more discussion going on. Please forgive my crossposting...
In my mind, this went down exactly as it should have. Although I am disappointed that I didn't get to see our home race in true fashion, I would have been much more disappointed if the FIA had compromised in any way.
1. Putting a chicane in the track last minute is impossible. It's dangerous, for one, and it changes the track configuration for teams that are not able to compete successfully on the original design. That type of favoritism cannot exist in F1.
2. Creating an arrangement to keep Michelin drivers out of the points in order to put on a show is dangerous. With no points to gain, there is nothing to lose. Why wouldn't some team "accidentally" take out a Ferrari or two in a low speed corner? It's been done before. This is a cut-throat sport with VERY high stakes. It's worth consideration.
3. The Michelin issue was not compound related. These were structural failures between the belts and the sidewalls. Saying that Michelin had no time to test is unimportant. They've been to Indy six times previously. They had visibility into the issues that were happening at the track in previous races. The track was actually re-ground shortly after the initial incidents occured earlier in the and the issues were dramatically diminished. Michelin made an error.
4. The only true losers here are the folks that paid hard earned cash to attend the race in person. I feel bad for them, but their disappointment will not kill this sport. I myself was in awe of the entire event, as I'm sure most spectators were. There was really no wrong doing on the part of the FIA, the teams that did compete in the race as well as the teams that did not compete in the race.
5. One thing that came out loud and clear is that the FIA will not compromise to help the teams that come unprepared. This is very reassuring for the teams that get their stuff right.
6. If this had gone the other way and Bridgestones were failing, this same ruling would have been a small blip in the weekends activities, even though the ramifications are identical.
7. Drivers are somewhat insane. Drivers will race unsafe cars. The teams did the right thing by not allowing their drivers out to race "at reduced speeds".
8. How dangerous would that be with 14 cars pitting every 10 laps and coming out on cold tires, all fighting for position to be in the 7th and 8th position? Which of the teams would stretch the tire changing window to get an advantage on the other teams for precious World Championship points? If the Michelins had run, we would have seen more failures.
Congratulations to all involved. I believe everyone, (FIA, Michelin, Bridgestone and the teams) did everything they should have. It sucked that it happened, but truly there were no alternatives. As an avid fan of F1 for over 20 years, with no allegiance to any team, I am satisfied with the way this race went down.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
In my mind, this went down exactly as it should have. Although I am disappointed that I didn't get to see our home race in true fashion, I would have been much more disappointed if the FIA had compromised in any way.
1. Putting a chicane in the track last minute is impossible. It's dangerous, for one, and it changes the track configuration for teams that are not able to compete successfully on the original design. That type of favoritism cannot exist in F1.
2. Creating an arrangement to keep Michelin drivers out of the points in order to put on a show is dangerous. With no points to gain, there is nothing to lose. Why wouldn't some team "accidentally" take out a Ferrari or two in a low speed corner? It's been done before. This is a cut-throat sport with VERY high stakes. It's worth consideration.
3. The Michelin issue was not compound related. These were structural failures between the belts and the sidewalls. Saying that Michelin had no time to test is unimportant. They've been to Indy six times previously. They had visibility into the issues that were happening at the track in previous races. The track was actually re-ground shortly after the initial incidents occured earlier in the and the issues were dramatically diminished. Michelin made an error.
4. The only true losers here are the folks that paid hard earned cash to attend the race in person. I feel bad for them, but their disappointment will not kill this sport. I myself was in awe of the entire event, as I'm sure most spectators were. There was really no wrong doing on the part of the FIA, the teams that did compete in the race as well as the teams that did not compete in the race.
5. One thing that came out loud and clear is that the FIA will not compromise to help the teams that come unprepared. This is very reassuring for the teams that get their stuff right.
6. If this had gone the other way and Bridgestones were failing, this same ruling would have been a small blip in the weekends activities, even though the ramifications are identical.
7. Drivers are somewhat insane. Drivers will race unsafe cars. The teams did the right thing by not allowing their drivers out to race "at reduced speeds".
8. How dangerous would that be with 14 cars pitting every 10 laps and coming out on cold tires, all fighting for position to be in the 7th and 8th position? Which of the teams would stretch the tire changing window to get an advantage on the other teams for precious World Championship points? If the Michelins had run, we would have seen more failures.
Congratulations to all involved. I believe everyone, (FIA, Michelin, Bridgestone and the teams) did everything they should have. It sucked that it happened, but truly there were no alternatives. As an avid fan of F1 for over 20 years, with no allegiance to any team, I am satisfied with the way this race went down.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| SLIG | 06-20-2005 04:01 PM |
Just put everybody on Bridgestones, and go racing. Some years ago in the Trans-am, the Ford Mustang or Merkur teams were unhappy with the supplied Goodyears, under their contract. They mounted BFG's buffed off the white letters, and went racing. I saw it at Long Beach, I think. The show must go on...if there is any kind of safe alternative, screw the contracts, politics, posturing. Let's race.
| KAX | 06-20-2005 04:15 PM |
[QUOTE=GarySheehan]
Congratulations to all involved. I believe everyone, (FIA, Michelin, Bridgestone and the teams) did everything they should have. It sucked that it happened, but truly there were no alternatives. As an avid fan of F1 for over 20 years, with no allegiance to any team, I am satisfied with the way this race went down.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
i agree to that whole-heartedly. There was nothing anyone could have done to change this and continue on racing. There were too many dangers to be fixed, as every alternative given was just a different problem, and they could not have changed any rule to help michelin out, as that would be grossly unfair to bridgestone.
The one thing that should have happened was testing, BUT its not michelins fault for not doing it, as they did not know the track was much different, or so its been assumed. Well have to wait and see the actualy prolem that occured and the true reason why the tires failed. The only thing they could have done to save everyone was postpone the race and allow testing for all teams to get a suitable tire, they had an extra week before french GP so that could have been done, but i can understand why it wasnt.
for now, lets wait to see the results of Michelins testing on those tires.
Congratulations to all involved. I believe everyone, (FIA, Michelin, Bridgestone and the teams) did everything they should have. It sucked that it happened, but truly there were no alternatives. As an avid fan of F1 for over 20 years, with no allegiance to any team, I am satisfied with the way this race went down.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url][/QUOTE]
i agree to that whole-heartedly. There was nothing anyone could have done to change this and continue on racing. There were too many dangers to be fixed, as every alternative given was just a different problem, and they could not have changed any rule to help michelin out, as that would be grossly unfair to bridgestone.
The one thing that should have happened was testing, BUT its not michelins fault for not doing it, as they did not know the track was much different, or so its been assumed. Well have to wait and see the actualy prolem that occured and the true reason why the tires failed. The only thing they could have done to save everyone was postpone the race and allow testing for all teams to get a suitable tire, they had an extra week before french GP so that could have been done, but i can understand why it wasnt.
for now, lets wait to see the results of Michelins testing on those tires.
| Hawkeye | 06-20-2005 04:23 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX]
for now, lets wait to see what they do about all the fans who wasted their money.[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
for now, lets wait to see what they do about all the fans who wasted their money.[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
| ForceFed4 | 06-20-2005 04:53 PM |
[QUOTE=SLIG]Just put everybody on Bridgestones, and go racing. [/QUOTE]This is perhaps the best idea I didn't even hear on Sunday.
I'm sure it couldn't have happened for a variety of material & contractual reasons, but it would have been a triumphant day had Bridgestone been able to simply sell tires to any team that wanted them.
This would have been the real [i]racing[/i] solution. Of course, the teams contracted w/ Bridgestone would've opposed it, Michelin would've opposed it and could probably go after any of its contracted teams that did it, and Bridstone almost certainly didn't pysically have the tires on-site to do it. It's probably against the rules too. But that just shows how the bureaucracy of F1 has gotten in the way of the sport of F1.
I'm sure it couldn't have happened for a variety of material & contractual reasons, but it would have been a triumphant day had Bridgestone been able to simply sell tires to any team that wanted them.
This would have been the real [i]racing[/i] solution. Of course, the teams contracted w/ Bridgestone would've opposed it, Michelin would've opposed it and could probably go after any of its contracted teams that did it, and Bridstone almost certainly didn't pysically have the tires on-site to do it. It's probably against the rules too. But that just shows how the bureaucracy of F1 has gotten in the way of the sport of F1.
| meebs | 06-20-2005 04:55 PM |
The problem with this, is that is not what F1 is all about. I have enjoyed every minute of the tire war since Michilen decided to participate. I enjoy different companies pushing the envelope to beat each other out. Engine, chassis, tire. It's fun to see these battles just as much as the actual execution of the package in the hands of the drivers. Removing elements of what make the series interesting is not the best answer in my opion.
Plus, this is a multi million dollar industry. Money = politics by default. Saying "screw politics" is unrealistic at the least!!
Bottom line. The teams were being babies about it and that's basicly what Rubens said in the interview. Good for Bridgestone I say, and yes, I will most likely buy RE750's again for my car and not Pilot Sports. ;)
[QUOTE=SLIG]Just put everybody on Bridgestones, and go racing. Some years ago in the Trans-am, the Ford Mustang or Merkur teams were unhappy with the supplied Goodyears, under their contract. They mounted BFG's buffed off the white letters, and went racing. I saw it at Long Beach, I think. The show must go on...if there is any kind of safe alternative, screw the contracts, politics, posturing. Let's race.[/QUOTE]
Plus, this is a multi million dollar industry. Money = politics by default. Saying "screw politics" is unrealistic at the least!!
Bottom line. The teams were being babies about it and that's basicly what Rubens said in the interview. Good for Bridgestone I say, and yes, I will most likely buy RE750's again for my car and not Pilot Sports. ;)
[QUOTE=SLIG]Just put everybody on Bridgestones, and go racing. Some years ago in the Trans-am, the Ford Mustang or Merkur teams were unhappy with the supplied Goodyears, under their contract. They mounted BFG's buffed off the white letters, and went racing. I saw it at Long Beach, I think. The show must go on...if there is any kind of safe alternative, screw the contracts, politics, posturing. Let's race.[/QUOTE]
| fuzzy13 | 06-20-2005 04:57 PM |
[QUOTE=theformula175789]
Lastly, I propse a BAN ON MICHALIN TIRES! My testing has concluded that they are unsafe on midly banked, gradual, right hand turns. At the very least you should contact your local or state highway department and have Pre-turn chicanes installed on all RH corners so you may safely use Michalin Products.[/QUOTE]
Intersting. The testing I have done leads me to conclude that they handle midly nad highly banked turns very well - both left and right, up hill and downhill.
Looks like the spec that Michelin have in Canada is perfect for the conditions here, but not in the US.
:devil:
Lastly, I propse a BAN ON MICHALIN TIRES! My testing has concluded that they are unsafe on midly banked, gradual, right hand turns. At the very least you should contact your local or state highway department and have Pre-turn chicanes installed on all RH corners so you may safely use Michalin Products.[/QUOTE]
Intersting. The testing I have done leads me to conclude that they handle midly nad highly banked turns very well - both left and right, up hill and downhill.
Looks like the spec that Michelin have in Canada is perfect for the conditions here, but not in the US.
:devil:
| endeavor | 06-20-2005 04:59 PM |
Gary summed it up pretty well, IMO. It's just too bad that the "fair" solution resulted in a sucky "race".
So the FIA had already proposed to move to a single tire supplier in 2008. I'm thinking there may be a big push to get that in for 2007 now.
So the FIA had already proposed to move to a single tire supplier in 2008. I'm thinking there may be a big push to get that in for 2007 now.
| Dussander | 06-20-2005 05:02 PM |
Their cars would not work on Bridgestones. Even if they spent all Sunday testing and tuning, they would still be dangerously screwed up the next day. Also Bridgestone did not bring enough tires for all the other cars.
| endeavor | 06-20-2005 05:07 PM |
It's also worth noting that teams generally bring two different classes of tires: A fast tire and a conservative, reliable, slower tire. Michelin didn't have their slow tires there that week. Bridgestone/Ferrari did and that's the tire they ran on Sunday.
| Jon Bogert | 06-20-2005 05:10 PM |
[IMG]http://www.rallystuff.com/images/michletter.jpg[/IMG]
| manicmechanic02 | 06-20-2005 05:23 PM |
Everyone is talking about the Bridgestone "teams" how unfair it would be to the Bridgestone "team[B]s[/B] ". The only competitive team on Bridgestones is Ferrari.
Secondly, if you watched the event the bridgestone tires were also taking a beating. when they showed the Ferrari pits you could see the tires were getting shredded more than usual. They didnt fail and thats a testament to Bridgestone but they were taking a beating.
Ive only been watching F1 for 2 yrs so Im new to the sport, but I think this was a very political move by the FIA and politics and sports dont mix.
Secondly, if you watched the event the bridgestone tires were also taking a beating. when they showed the Ferrari pits you could see the tires were getting shredded more than usual. They didnt fail and thats a testament to Bridgestone but they were taking a beating.
Ive only been watching F1 for 2 yrs so Im new to the sport, but I think this was a very political move by the FIA and politics and sports dont mix.
| KAX | 06-20-2005 05:25 PM |
[QUOTE=Hawkeye]Fixed that for you.[/QUOTE]
IRL is the one refunding all the money to the fans, and hopefully that comes out of Eccelstones pocket.
Like another said, it would be impossible for the michelin teams to run bridgestones, they arent set up for it. Peugeot took a year to figure out the Pirellis, and they still arent running well.
IRL is the one refunding all the money to the fans, and hopefully that comes out of Eccelstones pocket.
Like another said, it would be impossible for the michelin teams to run bridgestones, they arent set up for it. Peugeot took a year to figure out the Pirellis, and they still arent running well.
| Bonzo | 06-20-2005 05:25 PM |
:lol: at Michelin letter
| boundy3 | 06-20-2005 05:30 PM |
Just got home from the USGP and what a dissapointment :(
Arrived Thrusday and enjoyed practice and qualifying, and all the different events that took place around the city. Everything was great up untill the start. Let me tell you it was pretty scary being there when everyone found out that only 6 cars would be racing. I was sitting directly across from the Ferrari pit box and the stands around me were packed FULL. After the warm up lap everyone was very confused, then after the first lap that confusion turned into anger. A lot of booing and cursing. Thank God they stopped selling the beer right after the start.
I moved farther down the track towards turn one to avoid any rioting, which thankfully didn't take place. But with a whole lot of colombian's and european's very experienced with soccer game fights I wasn't going to take any chances.
In the end just dissapointed, it could of turned out to be a great race, and Kimi was looking good. I think the blame rests firmly on Michelin's shoulders and maybe partly the teams. I don't know who had the final word on the 7 teams not running, but if it was possible to either switch tires before the race or during, no matter the penalty, that would of been the best solution. This hasn't made me any less of a fan of F1, and may go back next year if held(especially if there is a refund).
Arrived Thrusday and enjoyed practice and qualifying, and all the different events that took place around the city. Everything was great up untill the start. Let me tell you it was pretty scary being there when everyone found out that only 6 cars would be racing. I was sitting directly across from the Ferrari pit box and the stands around me were packed FULL. After the warm up lap everyone was very confused, then after the first lap that confusion turned into anger. A lot of booing and cursing. Thank God they stopped selling the beer right after the start.
I moved farther down the track towards turn one to avoid any rioting, which thankfully didn't take place. But with a whole lot of colombian's and european's very experienced with soccer game fights I wasn't going to take any chances.
In the end just dissapointed, it could of turned out to be a great race, and Kimi was looking good. I think the blame rests firmly on Michelin's shoulders and maybe partly the teams. I don't know who had the final word on the 7 teams not running, but if it was possible to either switch tires before the race or during, no matter the penalty, that would of been the best solution. This hasn't made me any less of a fan of F1, and may go back next year if held(especially if there is a refund).
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 05:40 PM |
Michelin Brought 2 Tire Coumpounds To Indy
�
�
Just so there is no confusion, Michelin did bring 2 tire compounds to Indy, and both compounds were tested by the Michelin teams on Friday.
[url]http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=188862&FS=F1[/url]
[url]http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=188862&FS=F1[/url]
| TheRipler | 06-20-2005 05:47 PM |
I blame Max Mosley and the FIA. He was pushing the stupid 1 tire rule, plus limitations on testing. This combination of rule change seemed insane to me last year when it was first discussed. One set of tires per race sounds like a safety issue to begin with. Then the FIA mandates a reduction in testing, and it just exasterbates the issue. How are tire companies supposed to develop tires that will safely last 2-4 times the distance without 2-4 times the testing?
It was a timebomb waiting to happen. I assumed it would be Bridgestone that we'd see the problems in first, since they've been struggling so much this year. I never thought it would be like this. Well, F1 managed to save a few bucks, and only use 4 tires per car during a race! Who knew it would cost half of their US fanbase?
What would I have done differently? I would have preffered that they called the race. Having six cars fielded was a slap in the face. I would have liked to seen all the Michelin runners not line up for the warmup lap, break their contract agreements, and force a rewrite of this mysterious Concorde Agreement.
It was a timebomb waiting to happen. I assumed it would be Bridgestone that we'd see the problems in first, since they've been struggling so much this year. I never thought it would be like this. Well, F1 managed to save a few bucks, and only use 4 tires per car during a race! Who knew it would cost half of their US fanbase?
What would I have done differently? I would have preffered that they called the race. Having six cars fielded was a slap in the face. I would have liked to seen all the Michelin runners not line up for the warmup lap, break their contract agreements, and force a rewrite of this mysterious Concorde Agreement.
| MattNJ2.8 | 06-20-2005 05:58 PM |
If I were Bridgestone, I would have had my salesman walk down to the pits during the warm-up and sell F1 tires for $100,000 a pop :devil: :devil: :devil:
| endeavor | 06-20-2005 05:59 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]Just so there is no confusion, Michelin did bring 2 tire compounds to Indy, and both compounds were tested by the Michelin teams on Friday.
[url]http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=188862&FS=F1[/url][/QUOTE]
You're right. I had read a Max Mosley quote saying that they didn't bring the conservative tire, but the quote was taken out of context (he was actually contradicting what he said in the previous sentence :mad: ).
[url]http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=188862&FS=F1[/url][/QUOTE]
You're right. I had read a Max Mosley quote saying that they didn't bring the conservative tire, but the quote was taken out of context (he was actually contradicting what he said in the previous sentence :mad: ).
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 07:06 PM |
[QUOTE=ForceFed4] Michelin did the only thing they could given that the tire flaw was real, and unquestionably dangerous to any driver who raced on them. They had no choice but to recommend that their drivers not participate.
Those making macho comments about "wussing out" and the drivers needing to "adapt" and "drive around" the problem; I'd really love to know where you learn to "adapt" to sudden, catastrophic tire failure. This is not the same as, "Oh, I've lost 4th gear" or "Gee, I'm losing front downforce"; it's not a matter of driver finese or skill, it's a complete crap-shoot. And the odds as given by Michelin were bad. Demanding 14 people to entertain you in equipment proven to be faulty; well, it's just not reasonable.
The FIA didn't help the situation, true. But as has been pointed out; what's the point of the rules if they're bent to favor the unprepared, even if the unprepared is a majority of the competitors?
IMO it seems we're simply hitting a point where rules designed to cut costs are interfering with the spectacle or the racing. As both tire manufacturers have had issues this season, I think it's reasonable to suggest that tire technology simply isn't up to the level yet where competitive tires can be designed that will reliably last an entire race weekend.
Maybe it's "fun" and interesting for the tire engineers to overcome this challenge; but it's not making for very riveting motor racing, that's for sure.
All those yelling for a spec tire; how would that have helped this weekend? If F1 had a spec tire and we had seen the same failures this weekend, there would have been NO race at all. Everyone seems to be making the assumption that a Spec tire couldn't have failed/be flawed; I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.[/QUOTE]
Michelin did the right thing by having their drivers not to drive for safety reason. That is ok and the result is, they lost. What more can you say? They decided its too dangerous and they pull out of the event. Tough luck Michelin. Next time, come with the correc tires!
Isn't the temporary chicane a solution to adapt and drive around the problem? So you saying drivers can't adapt? If they can't adapt, then no point putting the chicane. These drivers are super good drivers. Michelin already say that they can go around the turn 12/13 if they slow down but apparently, they do not want it. Basically, Michelin who brought the wrong tires, do not want to admit it and expect FIA to change the rules and Bridgestone to compromise.
Also, why didn't Michelin bring their safer tires to the USGP? If they would to bring the safer tires (which is usually a harder compound), they would have use it for their qualifying and use it for their race but they choose not to. They insisted on using the softer compound tires and insisted on going fast. Is this fair for Bridgestone who brought the right and safe tires?
Its all about Michelin being the majority tires supplier of F1 trying to control F1 by giving some crappy excuses. Only people who understand the working of FIA and F1 will understand...
- Charles
Those making macho comments about "wussing out" and the drivers needing to "adapt" and "drive around" the problem; I'd really love to know where you learn to "adapt" to sudden, catastrophic tire failure. This is not the same as, "Oh, I've lost 4th gear" or "Gee, I'm losing front downforce"; it's not a matter of driver finese or skill, it's a complete crap-shoot. And the odds as given by Michelin were bad. Demanding 14 people to entertain you in equipment proven to be faulty; well, it's just not reasonable.
The FIA didn't help the situation, true. But as has been pointed out; what's the point of the rules if they're bent to favor the unprepared, even if the unprepared is a majority of the competitors?
IMO it seems we're simply hitting a point where rules designed to cut costs are interfering with the spectacle or the racing. As both tire manufacturers have had issues this season, I think it's reasonable to suggest that tire technology simply isn't up to the level yet where competitive tires can be designed that will reliably last an entire race weekend.
Maybe it's "fun" and interesting for the tire engineers to overcome this challenge; but it's not making for very riveting motor racing, that's for sure.
All those yelling for a spec tire; how would that have helped this weekend? If F1 had a spec tire and we had seen the same failures this weekend, there would have been NO race at all. Everyone seems to be making the assumption that a Spec tire couldn't have failed/be flawed; I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make.[/QUOTE]
Michelin did the right thing by having their drivers not to drive for safety reason. That is ok and the result is, they lost. What more can you say? They decided its too dangerous and they pull out of the event. Tough luck Michelin. Next time, come with the correc tires!
Isn't the temporary chicane a solution to adapt and drive around the problem? So you saying drivers can't adapt? If they can't adapt, then no point putting the chicane. These drivers are super good drivers. Michelin already say that they can go around the turn 12/13 if they slow down but apparently, they do not want it. Basically, Michelin who brought the wrong tires, do not want to admit it and expect FIA to change the rules and Bridgestone to compromise.
Also, why didn't Michelin bring their safer tires to the USGP? If they would to bring the safer tires (which is usually a harder compound), they would have use it for their qualifying and use it for their race but they choose not to. They insisted on using the softer compound tires and insisted on going fast. Is this fair for Bridgestone who brought the right and safe tires?
Its all about Michelin being the majority tires supplier of F1 trying to control F1 by giving some crappy excuses. Only people who understand the working of FIA and F1 will understand...
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 07:11 PM |
[QUOTE=Leonardo]Michelin offer to fly new tires in with the information they got after the crash and FIA said no. So, knowing about Firestone's tie with Bridgestone and Michelin offering to fly tires in and FIA saying no, I say FIA has the bigger blame!!!
Michelin could have tested earlier but the track conditions changed after it. Ask IRL and NASCRAP!!!
Screw FIA!!![/QUOTE]
Dude. Watch what you say as its not backed by anything regarding Firestone's and Bridgestone tie and FIA saying no. That is your personal opinion and should be disregarded when discussing the entire FIA issue.
- Charles
Michelin could have tested earlier but the track conditions changed after it. Ask IRL and NASCRAP!!!
Screw FIA!!![/QUOTE]
Dude. Watch what you say as its not backed by anything regarding Firestone's and Bridgestone tie and FIA saying no. That is your personal opinion and should be disregarded when discussing the entire FIA issue.
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 07:18 PM |
[QUOTE=REX8]Michelin did get new tires shipped in...they weren't allowed to use them. When Bridgestone or Michelin in years past has had uncompetitive tires, they've always raced on them, why would this time be any different????When Bridgestone has been slow this rear, they still run. Two years ago when Michelin stunk...THEY STILL RAN. You are crazy to think that just because they're slow, they'd not race. Do you know how much this mistake is going to cost them? You think they did it on purpose??? Michelin runners could have slowed down, they problem was they had no way to control this factor. There was no way to limit drivers speed in the corner except for saying, slow down in 13. That still creates an uncontrollable situation. Going into the pits more often? The tires failed in just a few laps of practice, they cuold go on lap 1 or 4 or 20...you can't just have them pit sooner. Michelin also didn't know how slow they had to run to be safe. Telling them to SLOW DOWN, as the FIA agreed, still created a dangerous situation. Botton line, Bridgestone could've gotten all the points and the race could have gone on for the remaining positions...Again, where do you see michelins underperforming..they had the fastest laps in practice and qualifying..the FIA said NO to new tires they flew in...[/QUOTE]
So if they dont know how slow they should go, would Michelin's idea of putting a chicane solve the problem? If there is no way to limit drivers speed i the corner, then would the temporary chicane solve the problem? Why would slow down as FIA suggested create a dangerous situation.
Also, it was proposed that Bridgestone runners get all the points BUT team using Michelin tires say NO. FIA say no new tires when BECAUSE the rules says that you are not allowed to change tires after qualifying.
Because MIchelin was known for their good tires this season and in USGP, they dont want to compromise and admit their tires are not as good as Bridgestone for USGP. MIchelin already say that unless they reduce speed, the tires are OK but somehow, they just dont accept the idea of reducing speed.
In a way, I think the teams and Michelin should be the biggest to be blamed.
- Charles
So if they dont know how slow they should go, would Michelin's idea of putting a chicane solve the problem? If there is no way to limit drivers speed i the corner, then would the temporary chicane solve the problem? Why would slow down as FIA suggested create a dangerous situation.
Also, it was proposed that Bridgestone runners get all the points BUT team using Michelin tires say NO. FIA say no new tires when BECAUSE the rules says that you are not allowed to change tires after qualifying.
Because MIchelin was known for their good tires this season and in USGP, they dont want to compromise and admit their tires are not as good as Bridgestone for USGP. MIchelin already say that unless they reduce speed, the tires are OK but somehow, they just dont accept the idea of reducing speed.
In a way, I think the teams and Michelin should be the biggest to be blamed.
- Charles
| bemani | 06-20-2005 07:24 PM |
[QUOTE=TimStevens]However, I just read the second portion of the post-race interviews, and Michael or Rubens suggested that the Michelins should have just come through the pits every lap. This, I think, would have worked pretty well. I wonder if anyone suggested this to them [i]before[/i] the race.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Speed Channel mentioned that it was one of the suggestions, either on Friday or Saturday - Michelin cars should bypass turn 13 altogether.
I'm very happy that FIA didn't bend over for Michelin. They obviously thought they could blackmail FIA because they have the bulk of the teams behind them.
Yes, Speed Channel mentioned that it was one of the suggestions, either on Friday or Saturday - Michelin cars should bypass turn 13 altogether.
I'm very happy that FIA didn't bend over for Michelin. They obviously thought they could blackmail FIA because they have the bulk of the teams behind them.
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 07:33 PM |
[QUOTE=TheRipler]I blame Max Mosley and the FIA. He was pushing the stupid 1 tire rule, plus limitations on testing. This combination of rule change seemed insane to me last year when it was first discussed. One set of tires per race sounds like a safety issue to begin with. Then the FIA mandates a reduction in testing, and it just exasterbates the issue. How are tire companies supposed to develop tires that will safely last 2-4 times the distance without 2-4 times the testing? .[/QUOTE]
The 1 tire rule was agreed by everybody earlier on even before the first race of the year. Nobody complain about it so this consideration should not be taken into factor for the USGP disappointment.
I bet sometime in your life, you would understand Max Mosley's position as FIA president. The entire idea of the cost saving is other teams trying to slow down Ferrari as they are winning all the race with all the $$ and with more $$, they can invest more into high tech stuff. So teams come together, propose some kind of cost saving so that Ferrari and the other team could play in equal playing field. Ferrari did not say much about it but followed the new rule and continue F1. Initially, Ferrari was not doing well and all the teams seems to be happy, no complaints. Now Ferrari is starting to come back and they are not happy. SO basically, they wnat to be happy if they win. If they are going to loose, they expect FIA to change the rules so they can win. WTH!!
- Charles
The 1 tire rule was agreed by everybody earlier on even before the first race of the year. Nobody complain about it so this consideration should not be taken into factor for the USGP disappointment.
I bet sometime in your life, you would understand Max Mosley's position as FIA president. The entire idea of the cost saving is other teams trying to slow down Ferrari as they are winning all the race with all the $$ and with more $$, they can invest more into high tech stuff. So teams come together, propose some kind of cost saving so that Ferrari and the other team could play in equal playing field. Ferrari did not say much about it but followed the new rule and continue F1. Initially, Ferrari was not doing well and all the teams seems to be happy, no complaints. Now Ferrari is starting to come back and they are not happy. SO basically, they wnat to be happy if they win. If they are going to loose, they expect FIA to change the rules so they can win. WTH!!
- Charles
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 07:36 PM |
I bet those who really understand F1 and follow F1 news will understand FIA and Bridgestone position of not allowing Michelin to break the rules. Those who dont really understand, its ok i guess but I do hope you guys can consider all factor and decide for yourself.
- Charles
- Charles
| TheRipler | 06-20-2005 07:52 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]So if they dont know how slow they should go, would Michelin's idea of putting a chicane solve the problem? If there is no way to limit drivers speed i the corner, then would the temporary chicane solve the problem? Why would slow down as FIA suggested create a dangerous situation.
Also, it was proposed that Bridgestone runners get all the points BUT team using Michelin tires say NO. FIA say no new tires when BECAUSE the rules says that you are not allowed to change tires after qualifying.
Because MIchelin was known for their good tires this season and in USGP, they dont want to compromise and admit their tires are not as good as Bridgestone for USGP. MIchelin already say that unless they reduce speed, the tires are OK but somehow, they just dont accept the idea of reducing speed.
In a way, I think the teams and Michelin should be the biggest to be blamed.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
Charles,
1) Putting in a chicane would force the drivers to go slower in order to make the turn. Without a chicane, the drivers would not be forced to slow down, and would inevitably get into a dangerous situation with the tires. The FIA's suggestion of "just slow down" is laughable. You tell Kimi to slow down to 100mph in turn 13 with Alonso right behind him. Right... Even if they were fighting for 8th, they would fight. They might die. Nobody wants that.
2) The Michelin teams proposed a scenario that would allow Bridgestone all the points. ...but that chicane would be another unsafe scenario, and it was shot down. Where did you get this stuff from?
3) Michelin said in their first letter that their tires would not be safe in this race. They came straight out and said they aren't any good! They even apologized! What more do you want to prove they know their tires are broken?
Are you a bitter Jordan fan who finally got his way? Where do you get this stuff? :confused:
Also, it was proposed that Bridgestone runners get all the points BUT team using Michelin tires say NO. FIA say no new tires when BECAUSE the rules says that you are not allowed to change tires after qualifying.
Because MIchelin was known for their good tires this season and in USGP, they dont want to compromise and admit their tires are not as good as Bridgestone for USGP. MIchelin already say that unless they reduce speed, the tires are OK but somehow, they just dont accept the idea of reducing speed.
In a way, I think the teams and Michelin should be the biggest to be blamed.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
Charles,
1) Putting in a chicane would force the drivers to go slower in order to make the turn. Without a chicane, the drivers would not be forced to slow down, and would inevitably get into a dangerous situation with the tires. The FIA's suggestion of "just slow down" is laughable. You tell Kimi to slow down to 100mph in turn 13 with Alonso right behind him. Right... Even if they were fighting for 8th, they would fight. They might die. Nobody wants that.
2) The Michelin teams proposed a scenario that would allow Bridgestone all the points. ...but that chicane would be another unsafe scenario, and it was shot down. Where did you get this stuff from?
3) Michelin said in their first letter that their tires would not be safe in this race. They came straight out and said they aren't any good! They even apologized! What more do you want to prove they know their tires are broken?
Are you a bitter Jordan fan who finally got his way? Where do you get this stuff? :confused:
| finnRex | 06-20-2005 07:53 PM |
Don't think I'll be going to that town any more. How freakin' disappointing. I understand team safety and driver safety, I highly commend that. Michelin didn't have a problem last year, or the previous 4 before that. They got caught with their pants down for this race.
I don't plan on dropping any more $$$ on F1 though. Which is sad, 'cuz I've been going to Indy since '00. :(
If the roles were reversed, and Bridgestone would have asked for a chicane or using another set of tires, I'm sure Michelin and its teams would have said go fly a kite. It's competition.
Mika
I don't plan on dropping any more $$$ on F1 though. Which is sad, 'cuz I've been going to Indy since '00. :(
If the roles were reversed, and Bridgestone would have asked for a chicane or using another set of tires, I'm sure Michelin and its teams would have said go fly a kite. It's competition.
Mika
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 07:57 PM |
Chicane & Bridgestone / Michelin Points System Solution
�
�
[QUOTE=johnfelstead]...install a chicane, put the bridgestone runners at the front of the grid, let the race run giving the top bridgestone runners the points with the michelin runners then getting the remaining points so they had an incentive to race properly. The fans would get a show, the sport would come out of a crisis situation having dealt with a problem in a profesional way putting the fans first.[/QUOTE]I'm surprised that you wrote this John. But, now that you've slept on this idea, do you still believe that this would have been either a viable, or proper solution?
In the end, I thought that the situation was handled well by all parties. A weird race, but certainly within the spirit of the rules, and a proper solution for Michelin's failure.
I just hope that FIA doesn't cane Michelin, nor their teams at all, since they have already paid a big, big penalty.
In the end, I thought that the situation was handled well by all parties. A weird race, but certainly within the spirit of the rules, and a proper solution for Michelin's failure.
I just hope that FIA doesn't cane Michelin, nor their teams at all, since they have already paid a big, big penalty.
| TheRipler | 06-20-2005 08:01 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]The 1 tire rule was agreed by everybody earlier on even before the first race of the year. Nobody complain about it so this consideration should not be taken into factor for the USGP disappointment.[/QUOTE]
Cost cutting was an idea to level the playing field. You are correct there, but the measures taken were obviously going to do nothing to curb costs. In addition, the long term costs (as a result of what we saw yesterday) will be much more in the end. To say nobody complained about it at the time is an outright falsehood.
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.
Cost cutting was an idea to level the playing field. You are correct there, but the measures taken were obviously going to do nothing to curb costs. In addition, the long term costs (as a result of what we saw yesterday) will be much more in the end. To say nobody complained about it at the time is an outright falsehood.
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 08:05 PM |
Pick 6 Competition
�
�
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
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
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 08:09 PM |
2 Race Engine Rule
�
�
Perhaps a little off topic, but I'll answer this one...[QUOTE=TheRipler]How does using one engine for two races save money?[/QUOTE]Fewer rebuilds... This has been generally acknowledged by all parties as being effective in saving teams money.
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 08:14 PM |
[QUOTE=TheRipler]Charles,
1) Putting in a chicane would force the drivers to go slower in order to make the turn. Without a chicane, the drivers would not be forced to slow down, and would inevitably get into a dangerous situation with the tires. The FIA's suggestion of "just slow down" is laughable. You tell Kimi to slow down to 100mph in turn 13 with Alonso right behind him. Right... Even if they were fighting for 8th, they would fight. They might die. Nobody wants that.
2) The Michelin teams proposed a scenario that would allow Bridgestone all the points. ...but that chicane would be another unsafe scenario, and it was shot down. Where did you get this stuff from?
3) Michelin said in their first letter that their tires would not be safe in this race. They came straight out and said they aren't any good! They even apologized! What more do you want to prove they know their tires are broken?
Are you a bitter Jordan fan who finally got his way? Where do you get this stuff? :confused:[/QUOTE]
Actually, I dont want people to wrongly blame FIA. I think FIA is almost at no fault in this situation. Its Michelin and the teams are at the biggest fault. If you see some of my post, its right that Michelin pull out of the race as they brought the wrong tires and the result is that all teams using Michelin lost.
I am sure they can adjust their speed to the corner. If Kimi can't slow down because they their tires can't take that speed, he is risking the risk of crashing! In all racing, knowing your limit of your tires is crucial. If you dont know the limit, you can't blame the tires! So for this case, I am sure they can slow down as suggested by Michelin but team simply can't take the idea of slowing down!
If they admit their tires are no good, they can't blame FIA for not changing the rule or blaming FIA for not installing the Chicane. Their tires are not good for the race and they got to accept it and lose. Teams and Michelin should not blame FIA.
Basically, I supported FIA idea on the entire thing and blame Michelin for not having a correct and safe tires for USGP.
Btw, dont start the personal attack that I am a bitter Jordan fan, which I am not. But I have more respect to those teams that ran the race than before.
- Charles
1) Putting in a chicane would force the drivers to go slower in order to make the turn. Without a chicane, the drivers would not be forced to slow down, and would inevitably get into a dangerous situation with the tires. The FIA's suggestion of "just slow down" is laughable. You tell Kimi to slow down to 100mph in turn 13 with Alonso right behind him. Right... Even if they were fighting for 8th, they would fight. They might die. Nobody wants that.
2) The Michelin teams proposed a scenario that would allow Bridgestone all the points. ...but that chicane would be another unsafe scenario, and it was shot down. Where did you get this stuff from?
3) Michelin said in their first letter that their tires would not be safe in this race. They came straight out and said they aren't any good! They even apologized! What more do you want to prove they know their tires are broken?
Are you a bitter Jordan fan who finally got his way? Where do you get this stuff? :confused:[/QUOTE]
Actually, I dont want people to wrongly blame FIA. I think FIA is almost at no fault in this situation. Its Michelin and the teams are at the biggest fault. If you see some of my post, its right that Michelin pull out of the race as they brought the wrong tires and the result is that all teams using Michelin lost.
I am sure they can adjust their speed to the corner. If Kimi can't slow down because they their tires can't take that speed, he is risking the risk of crashing! In all racing, knowing your limit of your tires is crucial. If you dont know the limit, you can't blame the tires! So for this case, I am sure they can slow down as suggested by Michelin but team simply can't take the idea of slowing down!
If they admit their tires are no good, they can't blame FIA for not changing the rule or blaming FIA for not installing the Chicane. Their tires are not good for the race and they got to accept it and lose. Teams and Michelin should not blame FIA.
Basically, I supported FIA idea on the entire thing and blame Michelin for not having a correct and safe tires for USGP.
Btw, dont start the personal attack that I am a bitter Jordan fan, which I am not. But I have more respect to those teams that ran the race than before.
- Charles
| dbrier | 06-20-2005 08:21 PM |
I took this outside the IMS ticket office at 4:00 PM today.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/dbrier/sorry.jpg[/IMG]
They had sandwich boards all over the track that said the same thing.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/dbrier/sorry.jpg[/IMG]
They had sandwich boards all over the track that said the same thing.
| chaddeus | 06-20-2005 08:23 PM |
[QUOTE=TheRipler]Cost cutting was an idea to level the playing field. You are correct there, but the measures taken were obviously going to do nothing to curb costs. In addition, the long term costs (as a result of what we saw yesterday) will be much more in the end. To say nobody complained about it at the time is an outright falsehood.
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.[/QUOTE]
Someone explained abut the engine issue so I will not talk about it. I'll explain why one set of tires save more money.
Assume each tires cost $10,000. In a race when you can change unlimited amount of tires, you might use about 2-3 set of tires for a race ($80,000 - 120,000). With one set of tires only allowed for a race, they spend $40,000. So its obvious that limiting tires change can save money.
Now, you may argue that the cost to research and create new tires cost money also but its more like an initial investment. They spend more today but in the future they save.
As for nobody complain about the tire regulation issue, I am sorry and I admit I lack support on those. You can disregard that statement.
The point of me arguing the entire situation here is so that people dont put blame all towards FIA and as if they did the wrong decision and causes the USGP disappointment. It is Michelin and the teams who decided they can't race as they did not bring the right tires.
Actually, we can view USGP as not a disappointment. Even if they continue racing, they would significantly loose out and might need to call a strategic DNF. In a way, the teams can save their engines for France :)
- Charles
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.[/QUOTE]
Someone explained abut the engine issue so I will not talk about it. I'll explain why one set of tires save more money.
Assume each tires cost $10,000. In a race when you can change unlimited amount of tires, you might use about 2-3 set of tires for a race ($80,000 - 120,000). With one set of tires only allowed for a race, they spend $40,000. So its obvious that limiting tires change can save money.
Now, you may argue that the cost to research and create new tires cost money also but its more like an initial investment. They spend more today but in the future they save.
As for nobody complain about the tire regulation issue, I am sorry and I admit I lack support on those. You can disregard that statement.
The point of me arguing the entire situation here is so that people dont put blame all towards FIA and as if they did the wrong decision and causes the USGP disappointment. It is Michelin and the teams who decided they can't race as they did not bring the right tires.
Actually, we can view USGP as not a disappointment. Even if they continue racing, they would significantly loose out and might need to call a strategic DNF. In a way, the teams can save their engines for France :)
- Charles
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 08:30 PM |
Points is Points!
�
�
Meanwhile, back to reality... what is done, is done!
And where does this leave the F1 championships?
Michelin's failure @ Indy was obviously good for Ferrari, but just how good?
In contrast to other F1 teams, Ferrari's primary focus is on the [b]World Drivers Championship[/b], so we will look at that first:
[list][*][b]59 Alonso[/b][*][b]37 Raikkonen[/b][*][b]34 M Schumacher[/b][*][b]29 Barrichello[/b][/list]
So the gap to the point for Michael is 25 points with 10 races to go! A couple of weeks ago Ross Brawn, Ferrari's Technical Director said that they will need to decide very soon if it is worthwhile to devote more engineering into their 2005 model, or instead begin to focus on the 2006 model (which is a radical change to the 2.4L V8). I would expect that Ferrari will devote some more resources to the 2005 car. Especially since Ferrari believes that their race pace at Indy would have enabled them to be on the podium, and compete for the win.
[b]World Constructors Championship[/b]:[list][*][b]76 Renault[/b][*][b]63 McLaren[/b][*][b]63 Ferrari[/b][/list]
This battle is even closer, w/Ferrari just 13 points from the lead.
It will be interesting to watch Ferrari and Bridgestone over the next few races to see if their race pace enables them to run for the wins. If so, that would be a 3 dog fight... McLaren, Renault, and Ferrari fighting for race wins on any weekend. While Toyota, Williams, and BAR can on any weekend certainly podium, if not fight for the win.
A very interesting season so far, and 2nd half of the season may be even better!!
And where does this leave the F1 championships?
Michelin's failure @ Indy was obviously good for Ferrari, but just how good?
In contrast to other F1 teams, Ferrari's primary focus is on the [b]World Drivers Championship[/b], so we will look at that first:
[list][*][b]59 Alonso[/b][*][b]37 Raikkonen[/b][*][b]34 M Schumacher[/b][*][b]29 Barrichello[/b][/list]
So the gap to the point for Michael is 25 points with 10 races to go! A couple of weeks ago Ross Brawn, Ferrari's Technical Director said that they will need to decide very soon if it is worthwhile to devote more engineering into their 2005 model, or instead begin to focus on the 2006 model (which is a radical change to the 2.4L V8). I would expect that Ferrari will devote some more resources to the 2005 car. Especially since Ferrari believes that their race pace at Indy would have enabled them to be on the podium, and compete for the win.
[b]World Constructors Championship[/b]:[list][*][b]76 Renault[/b][*][b]63 McLaren[/b][*][b]63 Ferrari[/b][/list]
This battle is even closer, w/Ferrari just 13 points from the lead.
It will be interesting to watch Ferrari and Bridgestone over the next few races to see if their race pace enables them to run for the wins. If so, that would be a 3 dog fight... McLaren, Renault, and Ferrari fighting for race wins on any weekend. While Toyota, Williams, and BAR can on any weekend certainly podium, if not fight for the win.
A very interesting season so far, and 2nd half of the season may be even better!!
| meebs | 06-20-2005 09:43 PM |
[QUOTE=manicmechanic02]
Secondly, if you watched the event the bridgestone tires were also taking a beating. when they showed the Ferrari pits you could see the tires were getting shredded more than usual. They didnt fail and thats a testament to Bridgestone but they were taking a beating.[/QUOTE]
Since when have any of the front runners ended a race with the specified tread depth in the grooves? :lol: The tires look like that after almost every race. :)
[QUOTE=manicmechanic02]Ive only been watching F1 for 2 yrs so Im new to the sport, but I think this was a very political move by the FIA and politics and sports dont mix.[/QUOTE]
I've been watching since 93 and to be honest... only the faces change. It's been like this ever since I can remember... bail out now while you can!! :D
Secondly, if you watched the event the bridgestone tires were also taking a beating. when they showed the Ferrari pits you could see the tires were getting shredded more than usual. They didnt fail and thats a testament to Bridgestone but they were taking a beating.[/QUOTE]
Since when have any of the front runners ended a race with the specified tread depth in the grooves? :lol: The tires look like that after almost every race. :)
[QUOTE=manicmechanic02]Ive only been watching F1 for 2 yrs so Im new to the sport, but I think this was a very political move by the FIA and politics and sports dont mix.[/QUOTE]
I've been watching since 93 and to be honest... only the faces change. It's been like this ever since I can remember... bail out now while you can!! :D
| KAX | 06-20-2005 09:45 PM |
The only way either Renault of Ferrari get race wins is if something happens to Raikkonen. Ferrari needs even more than that, and alonso is slowly getting worse. So this "fight" shouldnt last long.
For the people who meantioned Bahrain when the banking didnt allow the bridgestones to run, Bridgestone did try to get that changed and they did do the same things michelin did, and the same thing happened to them. the only difference is, ferrari dropping out ruins the race for a few people, but michelin dropping out ruins the race for about 7 times that (on the assumption there are about the same amount of supporters for each team, but i know thats not necessarily true). Bridgestone did try to get things changed when they couldnt run, but it wasnt a big deal because only one team didnt race, this time 7 didnt, its a little more noticable.
Im done arguing about whose at fault because everyone has their opinions and no facts will persuade them otherwise, it all depends on who you hate more.
Im am 100% sure ferrari will not be able to do anything with their 63 points as long as JPM doesnt keep getting disqualified and maintains his pace throughout the race as Raikkonen will surely win if he is still on the track.
Lets put all this behind us as much as we can, i know its a bitter dissappointment, but we shall see how it all plays out.
For the people who meantioned Bahrain when the banking didnt allow the bridgestones to run, Bridgestone did try to get that changed and they did do the same things michelin did, and the same thing happened to them. the only difference is, ferrari dropping out ruins the race for a few people, but michelin dropping out ruins the race for about 7 times that (on the assumption there are about the same amount of supporters for each team, but i know thats not necessarily true). Bridgestone did try to get things changed when they couldnt run, but it wasnt a big deal because only one team didnt race, this time 7 didnt, its a little more noticable.
Im done arguing about whose at fault because everyone has their opinions and no facts will persuade them otherwise, it all depends on who you hate more.
Im am 100% sure ferrari will not be able to do anything with their 63 points as long as JPM doesnt keep getting disqualified and maintains his pace throughout the race as Raikkonen will surely win if he is still on the track.
Lets put all this behind us as much as we can, i know its a bitter dissappointment, but we shall see how it all plays out.
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 10:07 PM |
Ferrari's Championship Potential
�
�
[QUOTE=KAX][b]The only way either Renault or Ferrari get race wins is if something happens to Raikkonen.[/b][/QUOTE]A few days ago at Canada, the only way that Kimi was able to win was when the three cars which were running ahead of him, the Renaults, and Montoya, all dropped out and gifted it to Kimi! Regarding Ferrari, they came very close to winning San Marino, and were the team to beat there.
[QUOTE=KAX][b]Im am 100% sure ferrari will not be able to do anything with their 63 points...[/b][/QUOTE]Pretty bold prediction! Mind if we quote you? :)
[QUOTE=KAX][b]Im am 100% sure ferrari will not be able to do anything with their 63 points...[/b][/QUOTE]Pretty bold prediction! Mind if we quote you? :)
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 10:13 PM |
Cool Shot!
�
�
[QUOTE=dbrier]I took this outside the IMS ticket office at 4:00 PM today.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/dbrier/sorry.jpg[/IMG]
They had sandwich boards all over the track that said the same thing.[/QUOTE]Thanks for sharing this!
I think I'll send IMS an e-mail and tell them that despite what happened on Sunday, if I have the money available, I'm going to the USGP next year. I'll tell them that they don't have anything to be ashamed or sorry about...
Well, except for the Mickey Mouse lay-out of the infield! :lol: I'll compliment them on their nice facilities, etc., then ask 'em when they are going to put a better road course in there! :lol:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/dbrier/sorry.jpg[/IMG]
They had sandwich boards all over the track that said the same thing.[/QUOTE]Thanks for sharing this!
I think I'll send IMS an e-mail and tell them that despite what happened on Sunday, if I have the money available, I'm going to the USGP next year. I'll tell them that they don't have anything to be ashamed or sorry about...
Well, except for the Mickey Mouse lay-out of the infield! :lol: I'll compliment them on their nice facilities, etc., then ask 'em when they are going to put a better road course in there! :lol:
| finnRex | 06-20-2005 10:13 PM |
I am hoping that Kimi will be able to close the gap with Mr. Alonso, and fend off Herr Schumacher. It's very frustrating though to see points given to Michael. I mean, he's too good of a driver to give any kind of points.
Edit: How about moving the U.S.G.P. to Laguna Seca?
Mika
Edit: How about moving the U.S.G.P. to Laguna Seca?
Mika
| erich_sc | 06-20-2005 10:14 PM |
From: [url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17726/[/url]
Interview with Peter Windsor
WINDSOR: �I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner. And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it � obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about �the tires were unsafe.� I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way. Beyond that, I am as shattered as anyone else. I love Formula One. I�ve been involved for 30 years and to see that happen on the warm-up lap, the formation lap, all those cars coming in like that, I think it was an absolute disgrace. To be honest, our obligation in this sport, or any sport is to the fans and for that to happen is just appalling.�
�I think the Michelin was na�ve in thinking that there would be a solution that falls outside the framework of the Formula One regulations � because they suggested a chicane that makes cars go slower through Turn 13, but that was never going to happen in a million years. The FIA, the governing body of the sport � this is the governing body that disqualifies cars for having a brake duct half a millimeter too large � they are never going to put in a chicane in on race morning, around which the cars are not allowed to practice or do anything at all � equally, there was talk about using another batch of tires, but that was never going to happen either.�
�Tell me where the difference is in what happened today and what might happen at any Grand Prix where there is a sudden downpour and one tire company, on intermediate tires, with no grip at all, everybody spins off on the straight and there is only five cars left in the race. That�s happened before and everyone thinks �Wow, what a great race.� They should have been out there racing and if there are problems, you drive around the problems as best you can. Racers are racers.�
�It�s the teams, these massively paid teams and drivers, who have a responsibility to the fans � not one of those Michelin team guys said �We made a horrendous mistake today and we take full responsibility. All they did was blame the FIA, blame Bernie, blame Ferrari, blame Bridgestone, blame everyone else, but they never actually blamed themselves. Do you know how many teams from Michelin actually did the pre-USA tire test to select the correct tire for Indianapolis? � Two � Felipe Massa and Anthony Davidson � everyone else was at Silverstone.�
�One of the watersheds of today was that Bernie Ecclestone stared people in the eye, literally eyeball to eyeball before the race, and said you are going to get in that car and race � not to the drivers, but to the team owners � and they stared him back. At the end of the day, in this particular situation, the eyeballing didn�t work for Bernie. It�s the first time I can remember it not working for him and there will be repercussions.�
�F1 is about people getting out there and going motor racing. We race in the rain. We race in the wind. We race in the hail. We race in the hot weather. And we have tire failures and lots of other terrible things, but that�s what Formula One is all about, for good and for bad.�
Interview with Peter Windsor
WINDSOR: �I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner. And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it � obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about �the tires were unsafe.� I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way. Beyond that, I am as shattered as anyone else. I love Formula One. I�ve been involved for 30 years and to see that happen on the warm-up lap, the formation lap, all those cars coming in like that, I think it was an absolute disgrace. To be honest, our obligation in this sport, or any sport is to the fans and for that to happen is just appalling.�
�I think the Michelin was na�ve in thinking that there would be a solution that falls outside the framework of the Formula One regulations � because they suggested a chicane that makes cars go slower through Turn 13, but that was never going to happen in a million years. The FIA, the governing body of the sport � this is the governing body that disqualifies cars for having a brake duct half a millimeter too large � they are never going to put in a chicane in on race morning, around which the cars are not allowed to practice or do anything at all � equally, there was talk about using another batch of tires, but that was never going to happen either.�
�Tell me where the difference is in what happened today and what might happen at any Grand Prix where there is a sudden downpour and one tire company, on intermediate tires, with no grip at all, everybody spins off on the straight and there is only five cars left in the race. That�s happened before and everyone thinks �Wow, what a great race.� They should have been out there racing and if there are problems, you drive around the problems as best you can. Racers are racers.�
�It�s the teams, these massively paid teams and drivers, who have a responsibility to the fans � not one of those Michelin team guys said �We made a horrendous mistake today and we take full responsibility. All they did was blame the FIA, blame Bernie, blame Ferrari, blame Bridgestone, blame everyone else, but they never actually blamed themselves. Do you know how many teams from Michelin actually did the pre-USA tire test to select the correct tire for Indianapolis? � Two � Felipe Massa and Anthony Davidson � everyone else was at Silverstone.�
�One of the watersheds of today was that Bernie Ecclestone stared people in the eye, literally eyeball to eyeball before the race, and said you are going to get in that car and race � not to the drivers, but to the team owners � and they stared him back. At the end of the day, in this particular situation, the eyeballing didn�t work for Bernie. It�s the first time I can remember it not working for him and there will be repercussions.�
�F1 is about people getting out there and going motor racing. We race in the rain. We race in the wind. We race in the hail. We race in the hot weather. And we have tire failures and lots of other terrible things, but that�s what Formula One is all about, for good and for bad.�
| finnRex | 06-20-2005 10:18 PM |
I agree with Peter 100%. Those jokers are paid big money to do their jobs(race). Accidents are awful, especially shunts like Ralf's last year. But it's part of the job description. There's ALWAYS a danger to racing.
Mika
Mika
| OnTheGas | 06-20-2005 10:21 PM |
Great Interview By Wind Tunnel
�
�
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.
[QUOTE=erich_sc]From: [url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17726/[/url]
Interview with Peter Windsor
WINDSOR: �I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner. And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it � obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about �the tires were unsafe.� I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way.[/QUOTE]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.
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.
[QUOTE=erich_sc]From: [url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17726/[/url]
Interview with Peter Windsor
WINDSOR: �I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner. And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it � obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about �the tires were unsafe.� I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way.[/QUOTE]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.
| erich_sc | 06-20-2005 10:25 PM |
[url]http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17713/[/url]
FIA Statement on USGP
Written by: Adam Cooper
Indianapolis, Ind. � 6/20/2005 The following statement was released Monday morning by the FIA, Formula� 1�s governing body, regarding the controversy at the U.S. Grand Prix that led to the withdrawal of the 14 Michelin-tired cars before the start:
"Formula 1 is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.
At Indianapolis, we were told by Michelin that their tires would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalizing any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.
The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tires. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams� lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula 1. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tire manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that �tires should be built to be reliable under all circumstances� (see correspondence on [url]www.fia.com[/url]).
A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tires optimized for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally � from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.
The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tire: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tires from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.
What about the American fans? What about Formula 1 fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race, the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.
It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules."
Paris, June 20, 2005
Very good points, I feel. I am very upset at the decision made my the Michelin teams and do not place the blame on the FIA.
FIA Statement on USGP
Written by: Adam Cooper
Indianapolis, Ind. � 6/20/2005 The following statement was released Monday morning by the FIA, Formula� 1�s governing body, regarding the controversy at the U.S. Grand Prix that led to the withdrawal of the 14 Michelin-tired cars before the start:
"Formula 1 is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.
At Indianapolis, we were told by Michelin that their tires would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalizing any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.
The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tires. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams� lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula 1. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tire manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that �tires should be built to be reliable under all circumstances� (see correspondence on [url]www.fia.com[/url]).
A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tires optimized for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally � from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.
The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tire: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tires from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.
What about the American fans? What about Formula 1 fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race, the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.
It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules."
Paris, June 20, 2005
Very good points, I feel. I am very upset at the decision made my the Michelin teams and do not place the blame on the FIA.
| KAX | 06-20-2005 10:27 PM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas]Pretty bold prediction! Mind if we quote on that? :)[/QUOTE]
i didnt mean they wont score any points, i just dont think theyll get 1st or 2nd in the championship, they'll finish third.
and Kimi and JPM were cathing the renaults, and Montoya said it himself he would pull aside for kimi to get the win. Them dropping out just sealed the deal. Personally Kimi has a pace that no one can seem to touch, except maybe montoya now that hes familiar with the car. I know i am very biased towards both, but that seems to be the same feeling the announcers have. No one could duck into the 1:10s at Indy except trulli during qualifying and he only had 3 laps of fuel in his car.
i didnt mean they wont score any points, i just dont think theyll get 1st or 2nd in the championship, they'll finish third.
and Kimi and JPM were cathing the renaults, and Montoya said it himself he would pull aside for kimi to get the win. Them dropping out just sealed the deal. Personally Kimi has a pace that no one can seem to touch, except maybe montoya now that hes familiar with the car. I know i am very biased towards both, but that seems to be the same feeling the announcers have. No one could duck into the 1:10s at Indy except trulli during qualifying and he only had 3 laps of fuel in his car.
| JonKav | 06-20-2005 11:18 PM |
I applaud FIA for standing tall and making the tough decision, but I also applaud the teams for making a gusty call; how the chicane "vote" went, I'm not entirely sure--I heard Ferrari had issues with it, or something.
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--we want to be satisfied, and when we're not, we want blood. Case in point, wanting refunds--what if the first lap wiped out all but six cars--would people still be inline for their money back? Did you sit/stand for all 73 laps then head to the main office, or go down immediately? Fact is, a boring, but complete race was run. IMS is not at fault for the actions of the teams/FIA, so don't blame them. I do think it was in poor taste for the fans to start throwing objects onto the track--you wanted excitement, but I don't think a car into a wall/car/upside down isn't what you intended... In essence, you were taking your frustrations out on the six cars which were racing--highly illogical, no?
I worked in the pits (Paramedic), and I want to say that none of the teams changed tires.. I don't recall hearing any guns going, nor did I see any tires get changed from what I saw on the big screens.
An interesting day for sure.
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--we want to be satisfied, and when we're not, we want blood. Case in point, wanting refunds--what if the first lap wiped out all but six cars--would people still be inline for their money back? Did you sit/stand for all 73 laps then head to the main office, or go down immediately? Fact is, a boring, but complete race was run. IMS is not at fault for the actions of the teams/FIA, so don't blame them. I do think it was in poor taste for the fans to start throwing objects onto the track--you wanted excitement, but I don't think a car into a wall/car/upside down isn't what you intended... In essence, you were taking your frustrations out on the six cars which were racing--highly illogical, no?
I worked in the pits (Paramedic), and I want to say that none of the teams changed tires.. I don't recall hearing any guns going, nor did I see any tires get changed from what I saw on the big screens.
An interesting day for sure.
| KAX | 06-20-2005 11:34 PM |
[QUOTE=JonKav]you wanted excitement, but I don't think a car into a wall/car/upside down isn't what you intended...[/QUOTE]
you failed to realize we live in a country where NASCAR rules, we like crashes.
The thing with changing the rules for americans goes to the whole amendment thing we have in our government, when things go a certain way, a set of rules should be allowed to change to suit the situation it is in. unfortunately not everyone agrees with this and this was a prime example. We cant assume everything can be changed at the blick of an eye and the FIA were right for not budging with the chicane and tire rules.
you failed to realize we live in a country where NASCAR rules, we like crashes.
The thing with changing the rules for americans goes to the whole amendment thing we have in our government, when things go a certain way, a set of rules should be allowed to change to suit the situation it is in. unfortunately not everyone agrees with this and this was a prime example. We cant assume everything can be changed at the blick of an eye and the FIA were right for not budging with the chicane and tire rules.
| TheRipler | 06-20-2005 11:53 PM |
[QUOTE=chaddeus]Actually, I dont want people to wrongly blame FIA. I think FIA is almost at no fault in this situation. Its Michelin and the teams are at the biggest fault. If you see some of my post, its right that Michelin pull out of the race as they brought the wrong tires and the result is that all teams using Michelin lost.
I am sure they can adjust their speed to the corner. If Kimi can't slow down because they their tires can't take that speed, he is risking the risk of crashing! In all racing, knowing your limit of your tires is crucial. If you dont know the limit, you can't blame the tires! So for this case, I am sure they can slow down as suggested by Michelin but team simply can't take the idea of slowing down!
If they admit their tires are no good, they can't blame FIA for not changing the rule or blaming FIA for not installing the Chicane. Their tires are not good for the race and they got to accept it and lose. Teams and Michelin should not blame FIA.
Basically, I supported FIA idea on the entire thing and blame Michelin for not having a correct and safe tires for USGP.
Btw, dont start the personal attack that I am a bitter Jordan fan, which I am not. But I have more respect to those teams that ran the race than before.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
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.
You say Michelin didn't want to slow down as suggested by the FIA. I can't see how having mobile michelin tire barriers along turn 13 would be safe for anyone. I also have my doubts about the safety of running 14 cars through the pit lane 72 times. What happens when they break the pit lane speed limit? A drive through penalty? :lol:
On a personal level, I still blame the FIA for an idiotic rule change with the tires. I don't think any other racing series has ever asked so much of a tire, and I don't think the technology is there for it yet. It's an interesting engineering problem, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it. I think they'll pay for it with yesterday's fiasco. Bridgestone did "well enough" this weekend, but even they haven't got the tire problem nailed down yet. Before the end of the year, I fear some unfortunate driver may pay a greater price.
BTW: props to IMS for expanding the SAFER barrier for Ralf.
Manufacturing isn't where most of the tire costs come from, it's R&D. The $10K tires are going to cost $20K+ now, as the price of development is spread out over fewer pieces of rubber. So, the savings aren't going to be that big in dollars.
The real cost to the sport will not be measurable.
You guys can argue why everything happened the way it did this weekend, and point fingers where you may. There is pleanty of blame to go around for all. I still think the root cause lay in a faulty rule change with unrealistic engineering expectations.
I am sure they can adjust their speed to the corner. If Kimi can't slow down because they their tires can't take that speed, he is risking the risk of crashing! In all racing, knowing your limit of your tires is crucial. If you dont know the limit, you can't blame the tires! So for this case, I am sure they can slow down as suggested by Michelin but team simply can't take the idea of slowing down!
If they admit their tires are no good, they can't blame FIA for not changing the rule or blaming FIA for not installing the Chicane. Their tires are not good for the race and they got to accept it and lose. Teams and Michelin should not blame FIA.
Basically, I supported FIA idea on the entire thing and blame Michelin for not having a correct and safe tires for USGP.
Btw, dont start the personal attack that I am a bitter Jordan fan, which I am not. But I have more respect to those teams that ran the race than before.
- Charles[/QUOTE]
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.
You say Michelin didn't want to slow down as suggested by the FIA. I can't see how having mobile michelin tire barriers along turn 13 would be safe for anyone. I also have my doubts about the safety of running 14 cars through the pit lane 72 times. What happens when they break the pit lane speed limit? A drive through penalty? :lol:
On a personal level, I still blame the FIA for an idiotic rule change with the tires. I don't think any other racing series has ever asked so much of a tire, and I don't think the technology is there for it yet. It's an interesting engineering problem, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it. I think they'll pay for it with yesterday's fiasco. Bridgestone did "well enough" this weekend, but even they haven't got the tire problem nailed down yet. Before the end of the year, I fear some unfortunate driver may pay a greater price.
BTW: props to IMS for expanding the SAFER barrier for Ralf.
Manufacturing isn't where most of the tire costs come from, it's R&D. The $10K tires are going to cost $20K+ now, as the price of development is spread out over fewer pieces of rubber. So, the savings aren't going to be that big in dollars.
The real cost to the sport will not be measurable.
You guys can argue why everything happened the way it did this weekend, and point fingers where you may. There is pleanty of blame to go around for all. I still think the root cause lay in a faulty rule change with unrealistic engineering expectations.
| Dark | 06-20-2005 11:58 PM |
[QUOTE=TheRipler]Cost cutting was an idea to level the playing field. You are correct there, but the measures taken were obviously going to do nothing to curb costs. In addition, the long term costs (as a result of what we saw yesterday) will be much more in the end. To say nobody complained about it at the time is an outright falsehood.
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.[/QUOTE]
Using one set of tires can save money on racing teams because the focus is now on both tire manufactures, they will need to spend $$$ to invent a long lasting R compond. Long lasting tires will suffer the maximum grip, therefore F1 should be slower than previous season in taking corners which close up the gap between $$$ teams and normal teams.
The teams might spent more money on using one engine for two races, but once they figure out what is need to be done. The cost will cut way down.
How does forcing a team to use one set of tires save any money?
How does using one engine for two races save money?
Please, explain to me in small words.[/QUOTE]
Using one set of tires can save money on racing teams because the focus is now on both tire manufactures, they will need to spend $$$ to invent a long lasting R compond. Long lasting tires will suffer the maximum grip, therefore F1 should be slower than previous season in taking corners which close up the gap between $$$ teams and normal teams.
The teams might spent more money on using one engine for two races, but once they figure out what is need to be done. The cost will cut way down.
| TheRipler | 06-21-2005 12:08 AM |
[QUOTE=Dark]Using one set of tires can save money on racing teams because the focus is now on both tire manufactures, they will need to spend $$$ to invent a long lasting R compond. Long lasting tires will suffer the maximum grip, therefore F1 should be slower than previous season in taking corners which close up the gap between $$$ teams and normal teams.[/QUOTE]
It has closed the gap, I'll give them that. However; as much as I wanted to see Ferrari beaten, I wanted to see them beaten on merit.
I almost brought up the tires will make them slower issue, but thought it might cloud things. It was supposed to add safety as well, IIRC. How much slower are they, again? Is it safer? The rule has failed.
I'll drop the engine thing, since someone has already noted it as being OT.
It has closed the gap, I'll give them that. However; as much as I wanted to see Ferrari beaten, I wanted to see them beaten on merit.
I almost brought up the tires will make them slower issue, but thought it might cloud things. It was supposed to add safety as well, IIRC. How much slower are they, again? Is it safer? The rule has failed.
I'll drop the engine thing, since someone has already noted it as being OT.
| sirfrankwilliams | 06-21-2005 01:06 AM |
[QUOTE=finnRex]How about moving the U.S.G.P. to Laguna Seca?[/QUOTE]
If only things were that simple. :)
This has long been a dream of mine. I believe however that to spite the new garages along the pitlane, Laguna is neither long or wide enough to sufice FIA standards. I bet someone would have a problem with the Corkscrew as well. ;)
(At least we have the historics.)
If only things were that simple. :)
This has long been a dream of mine. I believe however that to spite the new garages along the pitlane, Laguna is neither long or wide enough to sufice FIA standards. I bet someone would have a problem with the Corkscrew as well. ;)
(At least we have the historics.)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét