gio64
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #18 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy? | |
Hi everyone, I am new here, I hope I don't do anything wrong...
Well, first of all, I need to reply to the incorrect post that referred to bending the rules has been done before.
For starters, SonicZoom has forgotten the most important part of that weekend (Brazilian GP2003), or he doesn't tell the whole story, because it would not support what he's saying. At the Brazilian GP 2003, the qualifying was dry. The rule that prevented the teams from changing the setup after qualifying was already there. Schumacher (and maybe one or two other drivers) decided to qualify with a wet setup, de facto ruining their chance of qualifying their cars upfront. The next day, Charlie Whiting decided to not obey to the new rules and allowed everyone to change the setup and the tires on the basis of safety (the cars would have had to otherwise start the race with the qualifying setup, which he felt would have been a hazard). This penalized Schumacher, since he had given up the qualifying performance in order to be well prepared for a wet race. I don't understand why SonicZoom doesn't mention this part. Also, starting the race under caution was a procedure that already existed. The conditions of the track were absolutely ridiculous, since I believe 8 cars (or more) out of 20 ended up going off on the same corner (that is 40% of the starting grid and included Michelin shod cars, proving that Whiting's decision was actually not only justified, but not cautious enough). To mention that event in conjunction with this is simply bios and plain wrong. He also doesn't mention the fact that Michelin raced for most of the season with tires that were as a matter of fact irregular, being designed in a way that the maximum foot print allowed for the tires would actually increase with wear, allowing all the Michelin shod teams to run on illegal tires (they got around the regulation, because the tire controls were done by the federation before the race and not at the end -understandably, since you don't want to have the drivers risk their lives only to find out the tires weren't regular in the first place-). When Michelin was finally forced to race regular tires, they stopped winning and had to wait until the Monaco GP of 2004 to score another victory. Nobody at FIA decided to disqualify any of the Michelin shod cars, nor did they attempt to penalize them in any way. But SonicZoom will tell you that although the tires were irregular, since they were checked before the race (when they appeared to be OK) Michelin was really doing nothing wrong, right?
If I am not mistaking, at the Brazilian GP all the Bridgestone shod cars showed up at the start, started the race behind the Safety Car and then lost positions because they had to drive slowly when the weather conditions did not allow them to push.
How does that compare to not racing?
Does he have any information regarding who asked for that decision (starting under Safety Car)? Does he know if that is something present in the rules or not?
While the rain was a temporary problem, the Indy corner was not (Whiting also allowed McLaren mechanics to do questionable work on Raikkonen's car to repair potential problems during the season in more than one occasion). But as the regular Joe likes to say, they all want Ferrari to win. We have no proof; actually, we have proof of the opposite, but let’s blame Ferrari, because somebody says so. Or better yet, let’s blame them because they are the tip of the technological arrow in the world and they are not American or English, which sounds better to me.
Now, Indy was a disgrace, no question about it. Here's why.
Michelin failed to provide tires that would last reliably for longer than 10 laps. Michelin failed to bring a second tire for dry conditions. Michelin flew other tires to the track and then said that they were not going to work anyway (why? they did not test them in any way). Michelin told the teams not to race. The teams could have changed their tires 6 times in the race, doing a couple of slower laps and using whatever reliable life they had on those tires, and they could have ended up with a third position. That is with both Ferraris finishing, and that was not guaranteed, as we all saw, which means that in the end, with a couple of lucky breaks they could have finished the race in first.
FIA had communicated that they weren't going to allow the chicane. This is obvious. It establishes a very dangerous precedent for the sport. Also, this chicane would not have been evaluated from a safety standpoint, which makes it a bit of a paradox, considering why they would have put it in place. As we have learned today, the chicane would have likely not solved the tire problems, rendering the bending of the rules absolutely useless.
All this doesn't answer the following question: why should the teams that have no problems drive around the chicane?
Now, I would like to spend a couple of words on Ferrari.
The fact that somebody calls them in contention here is simply idiotic. The rules are there and something like "you shall not modify the track after the weekend has started" doesn't penalize anyone specifically in a line of principle, so I don't understand why you would even bother with calling them in this mess. Had they said yes, had Whiting allowed the construction, had the race gone on like that, the FIA would have invalidated it. That would have been a real farce. And -again- why should somebody lose the opportunity of making points if they have done nothing wrong? I cannot believe that the blame for this would be put on a team. It is simply ridiculous. After Michelin doesn't supply decent tires, after Michelin doesn't have another tire, after the team have 2 options (slow down or change tires quite a few times), after FIA has said that they cannot allow the track changes to happen, after the Michelin teams decide to not communicate their decision not to race to Race Director (by rules, they should do so I believe 1 hour prior to the start, if they know that they will not be able to race), after all the Michelin teams pull in at the end of the formation lap...
It's FERRARI'S FALUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY YES TO THE CHICANE It just amazes me.
One last comment for those that had the stupid $ sign on or that have just said that this was a matter of big business or money: if there is one thing that this mess disproved is that this sport is about money (not that I think so, but it certainly it did not show this weekend). Michelin lost by not racing. The teams lost by not racing. Formula 1 lost from this. The Indy organization lost from this. All the engine manufacturers (BTW, all of them are way bigger than Ferrari in terms of revenues) lost from this. But we have still people talking how it's about money (who’s money? What monetary advantage did anyone gain from this event?).
Can somebody tell me if anyone throws beer cans and water bottles when they suspend a race on an oval because it rains?
Gio
|
