Yet the flown-in tires were also defective, did you miss that? Really the only solution would have been to change tires every 8 laps, and even that would be scary for the drivers. I think they would have refused. In my opinion, the tire problem was much more dangerous and severe than they let on to the public. The point I was illustrating is that in endurance racing getting by at that very second is not so critical as it would be in F1. Moving off the racing line in 13 may or may not have been extremely dangerous, I'm not sure. You'd have to look at the line to see. We do know though, that being off the line can be dangerous (marbles).
The flown in tires were deemed unsuitable, because they had not been tested at the track, not because they new something was wrong with them, or so I read- but they took the time to fly them in and were willing to race the original tires with a chicane. Sure it is 'dangerous' to move off line, but so is racing in the first place and So is not coming prepared and not trying to find a solution until the 11th hour. They had all weekend starting with the first practice (I think that is when the first tire blew) on friday to start talking to the FIA about a solution, but instead they suggest the most drastic solution as possible (a chicane- that no one was prepared for and was not safety tested) all in the intrest of 'safety' of the drivers. I am sure you are more versed and much smarter than I am and I will live in my world of ignorance thanks for the valuable input.
Something absolutely should have been done already Friday. Why they waited until Sunday morning at 6am just adds more fuel to the idea that it was a big bluff and they never expected the FIA to react the way they did. This is the first I've heard of the tires being deemed unsuitable for that reason, but have heard numerous times that the tire engineers said they just weren't going to be any safer. Someone, somewhere, said that the tires had been tested at the track and found to be unsuitable, but I don't see when that would have occured. I hope Deep Throat comes out and gives the evidence needed to prove that Michelin is cheating with their construction. Don't ask me how, but thats my suspicion. Believe me, I was there, it was not a fun way to end the weekend. However, it was the only solution to the problem.
And all of this talk about going to jail if you send your driver out.....well what do you say when something happens in the chicane? Well, Michelin said it was OK. Really, the company that just admited they screwed up and made a lousy tire. Yeah. Did you test it at all to make sure it was OK. Well, No, we didn't have time.
I will say that I was pretty disapointed last Sunday. My first trip to Indy and first live F1 race. But I still had a good weekend of events, the drive up was nice, and would do it again. I felt like they could have done something to make the race happen but now do not agree with the concept of starting the bridgestone cars first, taking away points, etc....DC may think I would have been content to settle for a "WWF show" as he put it but what I really wanted was an all out F1 race. Some staged, bogus, the show must go on would have been as boring as what we got. They just would have been leting themselves out of hot water. The teams were at fault and Ferrari/Schumi are back in the hunt!
Everyone here seems to be missing a huge point. Theyve been here how many years and they cant get the tires right?!? Well, the track has been altered dramatically because of the resurface. How dramatically? Well, when the IRL (you know those guys- the formula cars that drive around on ovals) came to Indy to test they had to cancel the test because of TIRE safety issues! The surface was then reground again, and changes were made to the design of the tires (Firestone, sister company of drum roll Bridgestone). The NASCAR test was also initially canceled this year because of tire safety issues. Changes were made to those tires as well. So, if the guys who supply tires to oval racers, and have had tens of years of experience at Indy and other higher banked tracks had issues with the new surface where they as well had to stop after only a day or so of testing why are you guys knocking around Michelin???? But, Bridgestone didnt have an issue!!!!! Of coarse they didnt. Im sure their sister company Firestone made sure the right info regarding the new surface and what changes needed to be made was sent over to them. It was a black eye for Formula 1. They should have put the chicane in. They did it in 94 at many tracks that didnt really need it but, in the sake of safety and the sport it was done. They had precedence needed to do it again and it should have been done. But, thats just it. Its done. History. Now we need to take a look at what the repercussions are. If Max and Bernie didnt think the Break Away Series had any real solidarity well, now you have your proof. With this one single act they have solidified the teams and manufacturers in a way that otherwise wouldnt have been possible. Theyve made a huge political miscalculation. Maybe they thought some teams would break ranks and run the race? They may have seen this as a perfect opportunity to divide and conquer. To me it only proved one thing. As I watched the race with my best friend last night, its his second season as a fan, he turned to me after Id brought him up to speed on the BAS and said If I had to choose between watching these teams compete and some other teams that I know nothing about (basically more Jordans and Minardis) or BAR, Williams, Toyota, McLaren, Sauber, and the others, Id watch them.! Ferrari or not I want to see some good racing. I felt the same way. We may have witnessed the end of F1 this past weekend as we know it. I hope not.
Amazing how this all happened at least 3 weeks ago and Michelin still shows up with tires that don't work, OK so that was just the soft compound well why didn't they try the hard compound, well because they failed to bring both hard and soft compound as they are required to do. To try and cry foul because Bridgestone paid attention to something that happened 3 weeks before is asinine. Of course Firestone helped Bridgestone with tires for last weekend, but they didn't keep the problem a secret, everyone in motorsports knew about the issue and Michelin was just too cocky to pay attention.
Solidified them enough that BMW just bought Sauber, and announced its plans to remain in F1... They may all be egotistical, but most are not stupid. They go where the money is, and that is in F1, not a fragmented series run by shady characters like Briatore. All these protests, bluffs of the GPWC are just that... bluffs. They want more money, and they know the return on investment in a breakaway series is extremely questionable, and at the very best, several years after they would break. Do you think that any of them want to pump $100M+ (reduced budgets) into the GPWC for 2 or 3 years with absolutely no return (especially when they know their current ROI in F1)? Just so we are all on the same page, everyone here understands this is not Tyrell, not early Lotus, etc. It's a business now. The teams are run with org charts, pmp's, they have mission statements, goal matrices, etc. It's all about money when looking down from the top. Sure, the mechanics are still passionate, team managers are into motorsport, but it is a business pure and simple when you look down from Motozemolo or Schremp's chairs. If anything, I think this weekend crushed the GPWC more than anything else. The defectors played their highest hand, and the FIA, Bernie, Max, etc. didn't cave. I don't think that any of the manufacturers want to take on the burden of running a series. The auto industry's future is a bit shaky right now. I'm pretty sure that DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, and Honda don't want to bear the burden of putting a multi-billion dollar racing season into place. Renault, McLaren, Williams, Minardi, and Jordan all don't have the resources.
I agree, Schumi was soo despetate to get a win that the ruined one of the best races of the seasion for tens of thousands of people instead of showing some class and demanding modifications. I would of been furious if I attended this event. I would love to attend it and probably will because I doubt that F1 will allow anything this insane to happen again. I was looking foward to this event for months. When it happened I went into a rage. There aren't many sports I like, I hate Basket/base/football, Nascar and hockey. I look foward to the US GP every year. It seems that something dumb happens every year in the US GP, weather it's Schumi handing barichello a free win or half the cars quiting. Ferrari should of took the higher road and demanded modifications to the track. It perplexes me that F1 is not concerned with puting on a good show in the US. I guess the next good races will be at SPA belgum and at Monza. I'm already looking foward to them.
BMW can't stay in F1 for 2 years? Then in 2008 go to a different series? I always thought BMW-Williams was one of the biggest proponents of the GPWC. Also, if you believed the GPWC was a bluff before....wouldn't you have to view it as a real thing now? Max didn't budge at all, the teams realize they will get no leeway from him at all. Wouldn't that mean they are more likely to start their series? These sort of egomaniacs don't like to let the 'other guy' get the last laugh. Also, the financial aspects of running the series are fairly substantial.....but when you have 100% control of the money...certainly the demands would be lessened.
While I am not pleased that the USGP sucked, the above statement is patently ridiculous!!! I was not up to Schumacher, it was not up to Todt. It was up to Michelin. THE RULES ARE THE RULES! THE TRACK LAYOUT IS THE TRACK LAYOUT! If Ferrari and the other teams that chose to run the race had protested in concert with the whiners that can't get a car prepped, there simply would not have been any race. Everybody would have come off the track after the warmup lap and THAT'S IT. The FIA can't change the track at the last minute, the liability would be astounding. Every team that did not win, would have good grounds for litigation if they had installed the chicane. If there was any mishaps in any way that could be even remotely related to the chicane, there are more suits. I guess you can't understand that everybody, including the Bridgestone teams, had their chassis, tires + pressures, gearing and engines set up for the track without a chicane. To add a chicane would only penalize the teams that had done their prep work properly. F1 (this year in particular, with only one set of tires per race) and any form of motor racing is a very fine balance of performance vs durability. If you gamble too much in one direction guess what, either your car is too slow or it breaks, ie: YOU LOSE. TOUGH SH*T! That is the world of racing. Hey Michelin, Because you didn't do the research and development, it's all your fault - TOUGH SH*T!!! YOU SUCK!!! Bridgestone should become the single supplier of tires to F1 !!!
Matt, The technical problem with installing the chicane is that in any form of reasonability, they would have to repeat practice sessions, qualifying and warm up, in order to provide a safe environment. It can not be a last minute alteration. Did the teams have enough tires for the additional track time? Did the teams have enough fuel? How much time before all of the spectators would go home anyway? Can they wait around for another 2 to 3 days? Hotel and airline reservations? Work and family obligations? Added expense? Wouldn't that produce as much displeasure amongst the crowd? They had a race, but I couldn't stay to see it. It was ugly and I don't see anyway around that. It is just a shame that Michelin got it so wrong. They needed to sacrifice a bit of speed to gain a bit of reliability, they didn't do it. My displeasure is aimed solely at them for not doing their homework. Prior to the last few days, I have harbored no ill will toward Michelin. But this has got me pissed off. They have been fast all season, apparently they have been riding a fine line of acceptable safety limits to gain performance. OK, they gambled and would lose the race, now they want to blame everybody else. This only compounds the ugly nature of the entire event.
And . . you must be a cart or IRL fan - you want spec tires, what's next? I always thought F1 was the pinnacle of motor racing, not an entry level formula Dodge series. Carol
Actually Carol, I can't stand IRL and I think you misunderstand, I definitely do not advocate F1 becoming a "spec" series. But it has been clearly demonstrated that Michelin has ignored safety in favor of performance. By FIA charter they are required to consider the safety of the competitors. Maybe I should have provided further qualification for you, such as, for the balance of the season or if aything close to what Michelin has caused this weekend rears it's ugly head again, or ??? But big deal, you are plainly in the throws of wild extrapolation from a brief statement, in which the subject you chose to highlight was not even covered. If the same manor of discernment is applied to your post, we could surmise that you feel the death of any number of drivers is acceptable as long as Michelin is allowed to stay. At this moment I don't know of anyone besides Bridgestone that would be near ready to provide "safe" tires to F1 and I feel strongly that Michelin should not be allowed to go unscathed. If anyone else is ready, let them come forth. Let me also state that, I do not own any Bridgestone or Michelin tires. There is no brand favoritism working here. With kind regards, Bill
By even asking for the last minute changes in the rules that have been in place all season and in the track layout, by not requesting that their drivers run slower through #13 unless everybody did the same, they have made a feeble attempt to deflect the responsibility for the situation onto others, by forcing the FIA to render a decision regarding a question that should have never been asked. This attempt to "pass the buck" has the unholy stink of back-scratching politics. The likelyhood of backroom pressure to get all of the li'l duckies in a row, to mount a show of strength to threaten FIA into complying to their wholly unreasonable self serving demands. Although this has seemed to work on some people, IMO, the helm of responsibility is resting squarely on their shoulders. They came to class unprepared again. "F"
To request a last minute change in the rules is to assert that the rules are wrong. The purpose is to assign blame elsewhere for their own predicament. It wasn't our fault, it's the rules..... It wasn't our fault, it's turn 13..... It wasn't our fault, it's the lack of a chicane..... It wasn't our fault, it's because they won't slow down with us..... Coulthard says, It wasn't our fault, it's Ferrari's, for not going along with our plan..... Cry me a river! Hey Tell, Have a good evening.
I know that with some changes to the rules, or changes to the track or both, there may have been a race with full or near full participation. But, bear in mind that Michelin had problems last year, they have had problems at other tracks this year and who is to say that the Michelin tires would have been safe for the whole race, even with the addition of a chicane? 1) If there was a chicane installed, they would have to repeat days of preparatory testing and qualification (what if the held a race and nobody came). 2) If they allowed Michelin to substitute tires at the last moment it would imply that the rules are simply a moving target/goal. 3) The teams did not want to change tires repeatedly during the race. 4) The only option that seemed acceptable to the Michelin teams was to slow the entire field down. Any of these options, would set highly controversial precedents, and then the weight of influence might forever rest with the Michelin teams, because they are suppliers to most of the teams. I don't know if there is any other supplier, of any equipment in F1, that is represented by more teams, so does FIA become Michelin's body of enforcement, rather than an independent governing entity?
I think Max summed the whole issue up nicely in this interview. Q)What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only six cars? A)"My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, thats just my personal view." Q)Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans? A)"You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality." Q)Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane? A)"The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous." Q)Why unfair? A)"Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event." Q)Is this why Ferrari objected? A)"No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved." Q)Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone? A)"No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness." Q)Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One? A)"Okay, but its the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane." Q)All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons? A)"There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes." Q)How can you say a chicane would be potentially dangerous when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons? A)"A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?" Q)But its what the teams wanted. A)"Its what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to." Q)Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France? A)"It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig." Q) Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre why did they not have a back-up available? A)"You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on- the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems." Q)Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe? A)"Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing." Q)So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do? A)"We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested." Q) How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner? A)"They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver." Q)But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others? A)"No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits effectively a drive-through penalty." Q)How would a driver know what speed he was doing? A)"His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane." Q)But would this be real racing? A)"It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race." Q)Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged? A)"Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship." Q)But that would have looked very strange could you call that a race? A)"It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened." Q)Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all? A)"No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane." Q)Didnt the Michelin teams offer to run for no points? A)"I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats." Q)What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams? A)"This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestones high- speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules." Q)Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website? A)"We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them." Q)Wouldnt Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport? A)"No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both." Q)Didnt this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race? A)"No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example." Q)Finally, whats going to happen on June 29 in Paris? A)"We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced." E.A. Source FIA
The failures weren't due to soft or hard rubber compound. It was due to the internal construction of the tire (belts) that all their compounds shared. I'm a huge motorsport fan and I didn't know about the prior problems at Indy, did you? I don't follow IRL or NASCAR. I'm a F1 and sports car guy.
