dmatre

Why should the event have been for zero points if a chicane was inserted? Bridgestone showed up with the right equipment. Why penalize the teams that were actually in the right in this whole situation?

FIA should have instituted the chicane, allowed Michelin to bring in the backup tire, and then penalized any Michelin runner any points won in the event. They were the cause of the debacle.

Keep in mind that Michelin had a maximum speed in mind when they requested the chicane. Why didn't they simply advise their teams of the maximum speed, and then let them race without the chicane? Nothing in the rules says that the cars have to be going maximum speed at all places on the course. The Michelin-shod cars certainly had the option to slow to a safe speed on the banking, or to proceed through the pits (as they did in Practice 3 and Practice 4).

In the end, the teams decided not to compete. This problem lies not only with Michelin, but with the teams also. In the rain, the cars have to slow for the purpose of safety - they can't maintain the same lap times as in the dry. Well here was another situation that would have required only good judgement.

Blame FIA if you like, but actually, FIA administers the rules. FOM (Formula One Management, aka: Bernie Eccelstone) is responsible for the 'show'. It was the failure of Michelin to produce a tire capable of safely handling the speed (which was actually no different than the past 5 years), the teams to adequately prepare (according to SpeedTV, Michelin did test tires at Indy with Massa driving, but only Sauber sent a car), and FOM to come to a point where the show could go on, that caused the sorry events that we saw on Sunday.

PS: Anyone who went to Eldora on Saturday night had a chance to watch some real racing, and not high-speed driving by a bunch of crybabies. They were burning up and blowing the right rears all night, but nobody talked about pulling off. They simply put on a new tire and got on with business. The limp-wristed Euro-trash now driving F1 cars and running F1 teams could learn a lesson from the bull-rings of the midwest.

Cozz

For what I have seen is the FIA doesn't care about safty nor the fans. Michelin tried to correct the problem but the FIA simply didn't care. I thought that Michelin was to blame too (they are) but no where near the FIA.

The Indy track has had a lot of problems lately with the IRL and NASCAR. Both had to stop testing because of the dimond surfaced track. Firestone (IRL) made new tyres for the Indy track. As some of you may know Firestond is Bridgestone. Bridgestone knew what was going to happen. Michelin didn't have a clue because the FIA refuses them to test beyond regulations.

It pisses me off that the FIA continues to blame the teams and Michelin. The FIA cares more about rules then safty and the fans. If the rules do more harm than good then there is something wrong with the rules to begin with.

The FIA came to Indy and pissed all over American pride. The Indy track holds some of the best American historical events and the FIA resolves their issues via fax paper!!!

I hope Max gets shot in the head. For the FIA to say "slow down" shows me the ignorance within them. How do you slow down a pure bread racer with pressure behind him? You don't. You tell him to do what he does best... race!

taylor192

MB-BOB and the other pro-fan supporters in the thread - I think your opinion is wrong.

The FIA has been changing its rules every year to suit 'the fan'. Look at the sport now compared to even 5 years ago, a lot of change and IMHO, for the worse. F1 teams used to push the sports to its limits, and this meant a few tragedies and some domination. Now with a larger (and less racing inspired) fan-base the rules have to be changed to support a safe and competitive environment. Keep it up and what difference will there be between Champ/IRL and F1, or for that matter, Nascar?

So this is why I think FIA stickig to 'the rules' for the Michelin teams was a good move for the sports, although it will cost them some fans. Sport cannot permit 'mass-rule'. What's to stop the Michelin teas from pulling the same crap next time they don't like the rules and can't be competitive?

Those teams running Michelin had plenty of options. Does anyone think that Renault/Mercedes/BMW could not have beat the Jordans and Minardis even with a pit and a penalty? The Ferraris would've still run 1-2, yet the other 14 cars would've been able to race for at least 3-4.

Reducing speed was an option the team managers turned down due to the drivers not being trusted to lower their speeds. So, don't trust the driver. Install a governor into the engine management software and run a lower speed. Yes the 14 cars would be less competitive, yet they'd still be competitive with each other and make for a good race.

If Jordan, Minardi, and Sauber could take the same appraoch every weekend. They are rarely competitive, so why even race? Qualify an if they don't look to do well, pack it in and go home. They don't though, they still race every weekend!

I think the FIA hasn't punished the Michelin teams enough. They should be fined heavily (to compensate the USGP fans) and further punished at Monza. I wish the mdia would get off the FIA and Ferrari's back. They have done nothing wrong other than to 'play by the rules'. The Michelin teams (and not Michelin itself) should be harshly criticized for backing out of a race when they knew they could not be competitive and safe at the same time.

taylor192

No way.

The track owners also had the same choice, f*** FIA and install the chicane to go ahead with a race with all teams but Ferrari. Jordan and Mirnadi both agreed they woud race an unofficial race, Ferrari said no. if the track owner had done this, FIA would never return to Indy.

An unofficial race is stupid. An official race with the chicane where no matter how the 6 Bridgetone cars finished, they were awarded the top 6 places, would've been a fair compromise to me. Yet any compromise just opens the doors to teams being able to use and abuse the rules, something the FIA set a precendence earlier this year with the 3-race ban.

glojo

Hi Taylor,
I respect your opinion and would dearly love for it to be correct.

What has happened over the last few years with the rules simply beggars belief. Have you noticed how anyone that criticises either Ferrari or schumacher or treated with contempt by Ecclestone?

Hopefully you watched the race and can understand my points.

schumacher came in for his first pit stop and this took 16 seconds to allow the team to examine the left rear tyre. I have NO problem with this and think it a very responsible act because quite simply Bridgestone were concerned about the tyre. There is no other feasible\sensible\logical explanation. During this protracted pitstop the number one driver lost the lead. This is something no pit crew will usually allow unless they have a problem. Pit crews in fact train day after day to shave hundreths of a seconds off their times just to give the driver an advantage.

Do you honestly believe hand on heart that the two Ferrari's were racing each other?

Michelin had asked for a chicane to reduce the speeds on the fast bend, but this was denied. During the race Bridgestone shod cars reduced their speed to compensate for the bend. They could do this because they were not really racing. Neither Manardi, nor Jordan could challenge Ferrari and this was a golden oppurtunity to get points..... If they finished. Look up the records and see when these four cars all actually finished!!! They reduced their speed both for safety and reliability, they certainly were not racing.

Now we come to the next contraversial issue.
Team Orders.

You are in favour of the FIA enforcing the rules. On this we are in total agreement. What is good for one team should be good for all of them.

When questioned about 'Team orders' Ross Braun stated that his drivers were allowed to race each other up to the final re-fueling stop, then they must maintain position,. Now this is a flagrant breach of Regulation 147 which states, "Team ordrs which interfere with a race result are prohibited."

Not a long worded regulation, but perfectly clear.......

I might not agree with Ross Braun, but I can understand his reasons. Why are they not punished? You are supporting the FIA enforcement of its rules??

At Monaco this year scumacher pushed Barrichello out of the way on the very last lap of the Grand Prix????? This was clearly in breach of his alleged team orders

Now at Indianapolis for the first time we actually heard Ross Braun on the radio giving his 'Team orders'

After the last pit stop, schumacher again pushed Barrichello out of the way!!! The number two driver clearly was not impressed and actually had the nerve to catch up with his lead driver. This caused Ross Braun to come on the radio and instruct his drivers to 'cool it' and preserve their engines??? end of any overtaking. Again a breach of FIA regulations??


I could site a few other clear, flagrant breaches, but I would be branded a Ferrari knocker, I guarantee the only people punished will be the seven teams and Michelin. Team orders?? what team orders??

Take care and I await your reply

Regards for now,
John

KOMPRESSORnSC

Michelin had posted a news story on June 15th on their website about the tires and Indy. It is now curiously gone.

Basically, it said "Indy's tough becase of the balance of high speed and low speed infield." Michelin knew there was a challenge to develop a tire that would work. This was 2 days before the cars were even on track and they claimed that they had it covered. Obviously, they didn't.

I think what it really boils down to is this: Yes, there was probably a problem with the tires. Each side tried to give a little, but they were opposite in what they wanted to give and couldn't come together. So it turned into a pissing match. It became less about the tires / safety / chicane, and more about trying to get the FIA to cave in and change the rules. It's kind of like a husband and wife arguing about who left the dirty dish on the counter...it's most likely not about the dirty dish. IMHO, the FIA was correct in their rulings-they offered choices that stayed within the rules. The teams wanted to alter the rules. Although I'm not a big Bernie fan, I think the FIA did the right thing-you can't let the teams dictate the rules.

After having a few days to think about it, if the Michelin Teams decided they truly didn't feel safe, they did the right thing. It will hurt them and Michelin in the long run, but it was their choice. If they did it as a statement and someone breaks party lines and says "Well, we thought the tires were fine and were ready to race but we were all told to stick together", there will be hell to pay.

Edit: Just found this on the FIA Website: FIA Letters to Teams

MB-BOB

You folks are so hung-up on "the rules." I agree some rules are necessary, but you must remember that in the past, the genesis of Formula One was a minimum of rules... F1 in the early days was more like "unlimited hydroplanes" and encouraged innovation.

F1 promoted innovation by having as few rules as possible. This resulted in lots of variation between car designs and mechanics. V12s raced against Flat 12s and V8s. Some cars had six wheels, some were four-wheel drive, some had suspensions within suspensions, a variety of expressions of downforce tunnels, and a variety of wing sizes, shapes and wing positions... the cars looked different from each other. Nowadays the cars look like carbon copies of each other, because "the rules" don't permit innovation. Now it's all about conformity. Place the driver's rear view mirror outside FIA's vertical template and you will be banned. No innovation here, anymore.

And about the rules... I wish I could remember... maybe someone can help me. I'm almost sure I remember F1 races in the past where chicanes were installed at the last minute to limit speeds. But I can't remember which tracks and what years. I want to think the #1 chicane at Hockenheim was an impromptu set of simple cones the first year...

Bernie Ecclestone, Max Mosley and company have lost touch with the sport and the fan base. In the name of "standing on the rules," the FIA have inadvertantly given the teams their excuse to break away, for which FIA will be blamed. If they could have bent the rules a little bit on this occasion and the teams split, the FIA could have said, well, we tried, and the public would be on the FIA's side. But they've lost the high ground, now. I think we will now see the breakaway, which will be a repeat of the horrible CART/IRL split in which no one fared well for several years.

MB-BOB

More political intrigue, tied to "the rules" according to this quote from F1Live.com.

"Michelin's failure to supply its teams with safe and durable tyres came less than two weeks after it was warned by the FIA not to sacrifice safety for performance.

Mosley wrote to Michelin in the wake of Kimi Raikkonen's suspension failure in the European grand prix - caused by vibrations which built up after the Finn flat-spotted his right front tyre - warning it should take no risks in the specifications of its tyres."

What was Michelin to do?

AJChenMPH

I have to admit...this is getting better than "As the World Turns" and "Guiding Light." Though it probably still ranks lower than "General Hospital" and "One Life to Live"...

taylor192

John,

Great post, yet this is something as an old F1 fan (relatively, I'm 26 yet have been watching for as long as I can remember) I hate about the 'new rules'.

F1 is a team sport. A team should be allowed to do anything on its part to gain the most points. That includes allowing the faster car to pass so both cars lap faster. I admittedly don't know how long the 'team orders' rule has been around, yet F1 has seen its fair share of 'team orders' in the past and only until recently when Ferrari pulled the stunt with the 1-2 finish has team orders been criticized.

Personally, I do like the team aspect, and a team dominating a race then slowing to do essentially a formation parade lap is great to watch. Many fans, especially new fans hate it. Its like any team sport, you wanna put the ball into the possession of your best player, and allowing the better car to pass is essentially the same thing. NBA/NHL/NFL teams don't typically play hard right to the buzzer if its close, MLB teams don't play the last 1/2 inning if they are ahead, how can we blamea F1 team for taking it easy when they ahve a comfortable lead?

As for enforcing the rule, yes FIA should penalize Ferrari for their antics, yet the way the rule is written its very hard to. How can you penalize a team that is leading for backing off in an effort to prevent damaging their cars? Ferrari can claim the order wasn't 'not to race' but 'not to race hard' in the last stretch to ensure the cars finished and were prepared for the next race. I'd accept that reasoning, especially since the 1 engine rule/2 races and single tyre/race have all come to combat Ferrari's dominance.

As for your comment about the Ferrari cars 'not racing' - put yourself in the same place, garranteed a 1-2 finish as long as the cars cross the finish line, would you not take it a bit easy too to ensure that happened? It happens in every race where cars aren't racing anymore and are virtually garranteed their finishing order - the teams back off to preserve the cars to ensure they finish. That's strategy - blame the peopel that created the need for that strategy.

I wonder what the result of the meeting with the Michelin teams will be?

taylor192

I don't think you can write these same things all in the same argument.

The 'new rules' have all come from the 'new fans'. Today's fans don't want to watch domination, they want to watch competitive racing. They don't want to see driver's hurt/killed by pushing the cars to their speed limits, so there's radial tires, weight limits, ... They can't pay attention to several cars qualifying at once, so the format changed. I could go on and no, yet all of the 'new rules' seem directed towards the 'new fans'.

Thus IMHO the fans have taken the innovation out of F1 cause they didn't understand it. Sunday was just another example of it. Michelin tried to beat Bridgestone and ultimately failed. The race could've gone on, albeit with safety issues that would've never been an issue in years past. The race could've gone on with imposed reduced speeds, yet the fans would never want to watch a race of cars running at 3/4 speed where a single team would dominate, so what use was it to try? John is already criticzing Ferrari running at reduced speed.

I think they've given into the fan too much in an attempt to get more money. It happens in every sport, look at how its ripping apart the NHL and threatening to do the same to NBA and has done it to MLB in the past. Money shouldn't rule sports, and changing sports to deal with money sucks, at that point stop calling it a sport like the WWE has, call it 'entertainment'.

taylor192

I'm impressed with the number of Americans that feel this way. On the Canadian forums everyone is so 'soccer mom fair' that few share the same opinion.

taylor192

This from the Formula 1 website:I like it. The FIA should go after these teams to show this crap won't be tolerated.

BklynBenz

the FIA is going after them...

Michelin teams summoned by FIA

The FIA has ordered the seven Michelin teams to appear at a hearing of its World Motor Sport Council on Wednesday June 29 following their controversial withdrawal from the US Grand Prix.

The summons follows a statement issued by Formula One racing’s governing body earlier on Monday, in which it outlines its position on Michelin's decision to pull out of the race. The statement reads:

"Formula One 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 tyres 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 penalising 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 tyres. 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 One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that "tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances".

"A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised 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 tyre: 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 tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

"What about the American fans? What about Formula One 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."

The seven teams due to appear before the FIA next week are BAR, McLaren, Red Bull, Renault, Sauber, Toyota and Williams.

http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html


heres copies of the letters sent to the teams:

http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...sc_letters.pdf

lars

I continue to think the FIA did the best thing on Sunday, and that they are putting forward a good explanation of their position. I don't think this postion will have nearly a wide enough audience because few relatively fans will care enough to visit their website or others, where the laundry is hung out to dry.

I do wonder if (further) alienating the Michelin teams is in the FIA's long-term interest because, despite the disclaimer just above, I have difficulty separating their governance of F1 from FOM's interests. That could just be my problem, because we can bet the FIA is thinking hard about the alternative management structures.

glojo

Hi Taylor,
I am sorry I did not explain myself, team orders have indeed been going on ever since this type of racing began. As you say it is a team sport, but my complaint is when you order the faster car NOT to overtake the slower leading car. This is not what racing is about, nor should it be what team orders are about. Ross Braun ordered Barrichello to maintain position, even though he had been pushed off the track he very quickly caught up with the slower, leading car. You and I speak and understand English, but it is not the words that count, it is their meaning!! If Ross Braun had spoken in Martian and as a result of this Barrichello slowed down and maintained his position, then my point is quite simply 'Team orders' were issued to not overtake. The only way to corroborate this is to simply look at the cars telemetry. If the car reduced speed by a significant amount then I would submit some skullduggery is being committed. I certainly cannot prove it, but the FIA are fetching the seven teams up on charges which they hope to prove so let us all see a level playing field!!!!! It will never happen, Ferrari appear to be untouchable. I have decided that FIA stands for Ferrari Interests Apply.

My old drill Sergeant told me that if nine soldiers are marching with their left foot forward, and only one is marching with the right foot forward... Then the one should change step and not the nine.

What is not making the headlines is the fact that Minardi only competed in this farce because Jordan broke their word at the last minute and decided to race. Minardi desperately needed points and could not let Jordan have such a huge advantage. If Jordan had remained firm then Ferrari would have been exposed, but as usual the FIA stand firm alongside Ferrari.

To answer your question though the FIA will punish those it judged to be guilty, but this will simply add fuel to an already inflamed situation.

PLEASE try to step back and listen to the all time greats in this greatest of all Formulae. Take no notice of me, the newspapers, Bernie Ecclestone or anyone else that is directly involved.

Listen to Jackie Stewart, Sir Stirling Moss, Nigel Mansell etc etc None of them are blaming Michelen or the Michelin shod teams???? Nigel Mansell is an ex Ferrari driver who is known by the Italian Officianado as something like El Tigre because of his driving style, he cannot be viewed as biased (He won a World Championship with Williams, but his services were immediately dispensed with) This man has firmly stood behind Michelin.

What happened Sunday was a disgrace that could have, should have been avoided. I hope every spectator gets FULL compensation, and this is paid out by the FIA.

Oh and finally your 'new' rules are always being updated. A complete set of 'New rules' have already been formulated for the year 2008, when the current set will be ditched.

You must have a governing body, and they must govern, but we must not have a dictatorship which looks after the concerns of the one over the concerns of the rest. That surely must be wrong.

Minardi and Jordan were victims of bully boy tactics and at the end of the day I can understand why they both joined in the farce. They had tyres that were allegedly safe!!! So they would have been really heavily punished by the bullies if they had joined up with the Michelin teams.

Finally I have no problem with engine conservation providing ALL cars compete against each other.

Bye for now,
John

glojo

Hi Bob,
I thought this quote might highlight your point

****In 1976 after a long association with Cosworth, the Brabham team in an effort to find a 'competitive edge' switched to the Alfa-Romeo flat 12 engine. Niki Lauda (double World Champion) joined Brabham in 1978 and it was at this time that the controversial 'fan car' BT46B was developed. Lauda took the car to victory at its debut race in Sweden but it was immediately banned by the FIA (although the victory in Sweden was allowed to stand).****

The owner of Brabham at the time was one Bernie Ecclestone!! The Brabham had a large fan on the rear which sucked out the air from under the car. Notice how the car was banned but Brabham were allowed to keep the points!!!

Regards,
John

taylor192

I understand this, and it is frustrating cause you'd like to see a competitive race, regardless if its teammates racing each other. Looking at the telemetry I don't think Rubens could've overtaken MS. Lapping tenths of a second faster wouldn't have cut it. Ordering a car not to endanger its point position is not a bad team order. The debate is still open on whether Kimi should've pit to avoid the tyre damage, backed off and finished in a lower position, or ultimately went for it and wrecked. Those are the decisions team mangers get to make.
I don't know what drill sergeant you had, yet my CF friends would tell you if soldiers were told to march "left-right-left" and 9 of the did "right-left-right" those 9 would be disciplined for not following orders (then again in the CF, Canadian Forces no-one really gets disciplined ).
Please post some links to their comments.
You are quite right. Yet a governing body should hold the laws above 'majority rule' and find a compromise within the current laws before considering changes. The FIA proposed several alternatives all within the rules.
The fans are the only victims of buly-boy tactics by the Michelin teams. The FIA proposed solutions within the rules that would've allowed the teams to be competitive with each other and still race, albeit giving an advantage to the Bridgestone drivers.

Tough luck. F1 is NOT Nascar. The competition is not designed to be fair, each manufacturer, car and tyre, is given the ability to out perform each other within the rules. On this day Michelin failed, while Bridgestone had been failing in the previous races of this season. Michelin and the teams refused to accept the consequences of their failure and have bullied te FIA using the fans of the USGP to make their political statement.

That is absolutely repulsive.

Furhter repulsive is the fact many drivers were willing to race with the consessions proposed by the FIA and the team managers would not let them. Considering adding a computer code to govern the top speed of the cars is all that would've been required to ensure the driver's safety, I find the actions of all the teams absolutely repulsive.

I am a Mclaren fan, not a Ferrari fan. You seem to detest Ferrari and your opinion appears to be biased. McLaren even with a pit or governor could've challenged Jordan and Minardi for 3rd place and gained on Renault. Obviously each team was NOT looking out for their own best interest and collaborated to make a political statement. That's bullying, and repulsive.

Being a McLaren fan, I hope the FIA punishes them to the utmost. I was robbed of watching McLaren race, knowing it was their decision. Fines I don't think are enough, performance limitations for the next race, or even the rest of the season would be enough, since it cannot be garranteed Michelin will show up with appropriate tyres.

I'd like to hear your unbiased opinion, not the Ferrari babble you just wrote.
Chris

Nola

Well at least 3 class action lawsuits have already been filed. I'm sure the number will grow by week's end.

glojo

I am truly sorry my observations have offended you. 'babble' is something you will have to explain. I have loved watching Ferrari race for many, many years. Gilles Villeneuve being just one of the many great drivers that have driven this legendary icon in Formula One. I object to what the present regime is doing to this proud icon, and if you take that as 'babble' then so be it.

You have insulted me, then asked for information??

This is a quote from a link that is just beneath it. I fear you might interpret them as further 'babble' and that is your prerogative. You can simply search the Internet for all the other names I have mentioned and you will see they all say exactly the same thing. No doubt though your knowledge is far greater than these 'babblers'

Definition
babble (TALK) [Show phonetics]
verb [I or T]
to talk or say something in a quick, confused, excited or foolish way:
The children babbled excitedly among themselves.
She was babbling something about her ring being stolen.


"You cannot blame Michelin. I thought it was very brave of them to declare their concern over the integrity of their product and advise the teams.

"You cannot really blame the teams, who had to react to the advice they were given and not risk the safety of their drivers.

"When the safety of drivers and, possibly, supporters comes into question, you don't mess about. You do whatever is necessary in order to race. A compromise had to be found. And that compromise was a chicane being installed at that final fast corner. Simple and effective. It has been done before. It could have been done again overnight on Saturday and the race could have gone ahead and the public been entertained.



"http://formula1.skysports.com/list.asp?hlid=286591&CPID=&CLID=&lid=2579&title=Ma nsell+saddened+by+US+GP&channel=Formula_One

Have a nice day,
John

Jim Banville

Why bring the teams up on charges? They didn't design/build the tires! Michelin did! I wouldn't race on tires that were said to only last 10 laps/set. What if they blew out at 9 laps and someone died while slamming into the wall? GET REAL!!!!!!!!!

Can someone explain to me how adding a chicane that EVERYONE has to go through gives some teams an "advantage"? All it does is allow all teams to compete. Tracks are changed around all the time. Chicanes are added/shifted every year and no one complains.

Bridgestone's earlier problems were temperature related. There is nothing you can do to change track temp. Several races are held at VERY hot tracks. Teams have known this for years and designed tires around that variable. Indy's recent track resurfacing and diamond grinding apparently dealt up a very unique, unforseen situation. Is anyone aware of a commentary published prior to the race in reference to the ultra abrasive character of the track after the latest grinding that Michelin should have been aware of? If the Michelin tires were designed to last at least 70 laps on an "average " F1 track, but would only last 10 on Indy, that track surface must be like a cheese grater!

taylor192

'Babble' is hardly an isult John, yet go back and read your opinions, they are highly critical of Ferrari. Every point of yours comes back to the FIA favors Ferrari. When you site opinion, not fact, anyone can consider it babbling.

Now lets stick to the facts:
1. Teams are required to bring 2 types of tyres, a better peforming one, and typically a worse performing one for bad weather. Why were the Michelins unable to use the poorer performing, although typically more reliable tyre?
2. The 'chicane' compromise has been criticized in itself. The placement of the chicane wouldn't have made a huge impact upon the speeds through the corner. With the acceleration of F1 cars the better cars would've still been subject to safety concerns.
3. The Michelin advice was that the tyres could not handle the normal speeds for that corner. Solution, slow the cars down. That could've be done without a chicane. Demanding a chicane when other solutoins are possible is bullying.

You can blame Michelin, they came unprepared. Nascar and other racing series have had to prepare tyres for this new track and have done so successfully. Michlein is at fault and should be blamed.

You can blame the teams cause they reacted only to the advice Michelin gave. The FIA gave acceptable solutions, they CHOSE not to accept those solutions and now they will be penalized further.

You can further blame the teams for the sham they pulled on the fans. They never had an intention of racing, they shouldn't have left the pits. That was an orchastrated political message on the parade lap pulling into the pits. Politics don't belong in sports.

'Its been done before' doesn't mean its right. We'd never accept that excuse from criminals, why should we accept it from those we regard highly?


So what does it come down to?
1. Michelin didn't research the new track conditions like other tyre manufacturers have.
2. Michelin screwed up the primary tyres.
3. Michelin further screwed up and didn't bring other suitable tyres.
4. The teams chose not to accept FIA solutions.
5. The teams chose to demand a solution knowing it was against the FIA rules.
6. The teams participated in a sham parade lap, adding further insult to injury to the fans.

Michelin and the teams are to blame. The FIA proposed an acceptable solution, the drivers wished to race with that solution, yet the teams stuck by Michelin's illegal proposal.


No worries John, probably some mix-up with Canadian-British wording, I wasn't trying to insult, just trying to get you to stop mentioning the Ferrari-FIA politics in every point you're making.
Chris

taylor192

Jim,

1. The teams participated in the orchastrated political message using the parade lap. That deserves punishment.
2. The teams chose not to accept the FIA solutions and continue to demand an unacceptable solution.
3. If Bridgestone brought tyres for a high speed course and you change it to a low-speed course, you disadvantage the teams that came well prepared.
4. Bridgestone's problems were temperature related. So move the race to later in the day or earlier in the morning. Or place speed limits on the race so that the tyres don't heat up as much at lower speeds than at higher speeds. No compromise was taken to give Bridgestone a competitive environment.
5. If the Michilen tyres won't last 10 laps, do 9 laps, pit, change tyres, take the penalty, and go on.

The funniest thing is that the 1 tyre rule was to combat Ferrari/Bridgestone domination - now its played to their advantage.

Minardi and Jordan race every weekend without any hope of running with the front-runners. Should the FIA put in rules Nascar-style to promote a fair compeititive environment? This is basically what this argument is boiling down to.

Hoyt Clagwell

If your drill Sergeant started the march using the cadence "left, left, left right left", and 9 of the 10 soldiers started out on their right, would he have made the one correct soldier change? I think not. Mine sure wouldn't have made the one correct soldier change. Bridgestone teams were the correct ones in this case following the rules of their drill Sergeant, the FIA.

glojo

Both yourself and Taylor are 'nit picking' the wording. What I am tryingto politely say is simply that if you have an organisation that has a rule and nine tenths of the company say that rule needs modifying and all come up with a better suggestion............ Do you then listen to the one tenth minority that are in complete and total disagreement and then give the decision against your majority???

I hope I have explained myself better time, but perhaps not!

Have a nice day,
John
A really hot morning in sunny Torquay