Sorry I have to add this in.... I have found over the years that of all the motorsports I have covered F1 is the worst for Politics in the sport. The FIA being the worst for politics and Ferrari as a whole donot play fair at all! They never have really. I covered the Canadian Gp and thank my lucky stars that this crap did not happen in Montreal. I was on my way to ithe Brick yard but got called to a more lucrative venture at the last moment....thank god!
Well, my last question wasn't really my main point.
In any case, yes, the GP ran in a bad way. Suspending a race means nobody runs. In that I understand the difference. But I think that missing the show as you hoped it was going to be is/would be the same. I believe that while people perceive the rain before an oval race as something inevitable, they percieve the Michelin tire problem as resolvable. And I think that's an error.
I will be the first one to say that there could have been ways of avoiding/preventing these circumstances (single tire supplier in F1 is the first I can think of); but I will also be the first one to accept that the only real, just and possible solution to that situation would have been for the Michelin team to run slowly/change the tires/combination of both. Not pretty, but better than what happened and certainly just.
Anything else is stupid. Chicanes and the likes would have been like saying: it's the Superbowl night and one team's equipment is faulty. So, both teams will agree on not wearing equipment and will play flag football instead. I don't think that would solve the problem...
It is amazing how perceptions overcome facts.
Let me respond to a couple of things.
If there is something that didn't get involved in the events of las Sunday is Politics. Politics happen when people try to play/dance around the rules to accommodate somebody's needs and problems. The issue and the events at Indy were actually caused by the lack of politics; FIA stuck to the rules (absolutely not political) and asked everyone to respect regulations. I sound like a broken record, but it just amazes me to hear that this is a political decision.
Now, since Ferrari has to be called back in even when I just demonstrated that they have nothing to do with this, I am going to have to respond to the accusations.
I will use just a couple of historical events, I could write a book with the many that happened, I will just not do it unless you guys will force me.
In 1983 turbos ruled. English manufacturers could not get turbos and were stuck with underpowered cars. They came up with the following solution: build a car way underweight; put 2 useless water tanks in the car's sides and claim they use the water in them to cool the brakes; race underweight (nothing is in the tanks), top off the fluids as per regulations at the end of the race, pass the scrutiny and steal points by cheating. FIA did not act for a while. Ferrari went to Long Beach with the most absurd rear wing (provocative because regular if you follow the letter of the regulations, but as a matter of fact irregular). Ferrari gets disqualified and loses the points. Later on FIA finally tells the chating teams to comply with the rules; the teams strike and refuse to race at Imola (I was there). Only Ferrari paid.
A few years earlier Colin Chapman (Lotus) raced with "miniskirts", which made his cars dominant. Eventually, everyone used them, but there was a rule that clearly stated that solutions of that type were irregular.
Move on a few years and the British constructors come up with a new idea to get around the minimum height for the cars: suspensions that keep the car up at the end of the race and keep it down to irregular position while racing. Move to the glorious days of Honda, McLaren and Senna: the mandatory boost pressure regulator is mounted in a point of the system (in the McLaren cars) that makes it highly ineffective, allowing them an unfair advantage. Go up a few more years, when Benetton has flexible front wing system (FIA eventually will have to intervene on that rule to prevent teams to play with that). Go to the illegal traction control on the Benetton (again) move on to the time when Ferrari goes and tries to get a braking system approved (sort of double pedal, the driver can brake more on the inside tires, helping the direction of the car) they get canned, it's irregular (rightfully so, it is against the rule that makes it illegal to use the rear wheels to steer the car). McLaren shows up with the same thing a few weeks later and... Bingo! they are allowed!
Let's go back to a few years before, when Jacques Villeneuve wins the championship and Schumacher gets disqualified for hitting him. Some data about that day:
1) McLaren and Williams have made a pact and they will use both teams' cars to obstruct Irvine's race and facilitate Villeneuve (not acceptable that 2 teams actually pair up against somebody else in a race)
2) Villeneuve and Schumacher have a very common race contact that causes the German to retire and allows Villeneuve to win the Championship
3) Schumacher is to this day the only driver that has ever been stripped of his points. He was driving a Ferrari.
Go back to Senna-Prost #2: Senna clearly drives Prost out of the race and the Championship, winning it that way. No investigation. One year later Senna admits to have purposely driven into Prost. No consequeces. BTW, Prost was driving a Ferrari.
I could keep going, just to show you how you people talk about things you have no idea about, but I will stop with these few examples. Note that the irregular Michelin tires of 2003 almost cost a championship to those that weren't cheating. Again, no punishment was delivered.
But hey, it's Ferrari's fault. They are unfair.
The Michelin teams agreed to great disadvantage situations to the Bridgestone teams in order for a chicane to be placed.
The FIA's solution to the faulty tires was to "go slower on turn 13" HA. How can 14 adrenaline rushed, point hungry race teams simply slow down for a corner and possibly forfiet a lead... they'll just keep pushing the envelope further and further which would probably result in a tyre failure.
YES Michelin screwed up bad.
BUT, the only way for a good race to be held under those circumstances would be the inclusion of a chicane. However the FIA disagreed, even with the Michelin teams agreeing to great disadvantage situations for the race. Hell even running the race WITHOUT the rewarding of points.
And now the FIA is trying to charge the Michelin teams?
F the FIA!
Clint, I couldn't agree with you more. No way a race car driver was going to lift in turn 13.....and chances are someone would have been seriously injured or killed due to a tire failure.
No one can argue that Michelin screwed up. The FIA could have penalized each Michelin team with a drive through penalty or heck even two. The point is to have an entertaining race for the fans and because of FIA inaction, the sport is probably dead in the US.
What happened to the "come in every 10 laps to change the tires?"
That would have solved all the adrenaline problems.
What happened to the new tires that were flown to Indy overnight?
Based on the information I gathered on Monday morning, the chicane would not have solved the problem, since apparently several Michelin driver have said that the tires would have let go regardless.
And even with a chicane before that corner, the cars would have approached it at a fairly high speed, fast enough to make the impact with a wall a pretty ugly thing.
You have not answered the safety question about the new chicane.
All these things would have rendered the race a farce anyway.
Michelin shod teams position is contraddictory; they would have agreed to not get points, but they could not change tires every 10 laps or try the new tires?
And how would the race be entertaining for a fan that knows 14 cars are there for show?
Now, let me ask you this:
What if the cars that would have been penalized or would have been taken away from the final standings would have influenced the race of those that were making points? What if say Montoya collided with Schumacher? How would you decide on that? And how competitive would any "non penalized driver" been, considering that the others were going to be taken away from the race?
You are simply ignoring the fact that any decision would have (one way or another) screwed up the show and its results.
And this would have been at the expense of changing very basic rules.
This was a shame, I will be the first one to admit it. But, I think everyone is making a big story to try to put the blame on anyone else but those that caused the problem.
sideslip wrote:
No one can argue that Michelin screwed up......
How can you say this. Michelin has had all year to prepare for this. All other series have tire testing at Indy. Indy is a different animal, but it has been there for almost 100 years. The Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared". Michelin was not prepared. Whether they should have raced or not almost doesn't matter. Their lack of preperation cost a lot of people a lot of money and cost F-1 a lot of face. I hope it costs Michelin a lot of money.
I agree.
All I am trying to say here is this: sometimes things don't work out. That's when you "take a loss" and start all over again. The last time this happened was over 22 years ago. I think this is a pretty good track record.
My second point is: anything other than a normal race would not have been normal. Let's accept it.
My third point is: everyone that points at FIA and Ferrari is malicious and shoud not talk. Not being willing to mess up with regulations (and not having the power either in case of Ferrari) hardly qualifies as being responsible for what happens.
Any change of the rules would have opened a can of worms. Let me give an example:
As everyone that watched the race knows, Minardi's engines run at about 17K rpm, as opposed to the top teams that run at 19K or so. Now, Minardi could run their engine at 19K and brake it within 10 laps. Minardi could say: "When I run my engine at 19K, I risk an engine failure which constitutes a hazard for everyone, since the oil of my blown engine could 1) cause my drivers to lose control and crash violently; 2) cause other drivers to lose control and crash violently. In the light of this, I request that all engines will have a rev limiter at 17K. To compensate for this, we'll accept to take the last 2 positions on the starting grid for 5 consecutive races."
How would that be any different from asking everyone to take a chicane and go slow because your tires cannot take the corner that fast?
I will give in to the fact that there should only be 1 tire manufacturer in F1 and that -had it been the case- this would not have been a problem. I will give in that this was a disgrace, but let's not involve people that have nothing to do with it.
The Firestone story that helped "unfairly" Bridgestone is a load of BS. Data coming from a different type of car in a different type of race with a different tire to observe sounds really far fetched. And how's that "unfair"? Should we say that -since Bridgestone only has 1 competitive team to test their F1 tires with- Michelin has an unfair advantage? It is up to Bridgestone to "recruit" other teams and cope with the problems caused by the lack of testing. Michelin has raced here last year and had the same problem, with the same driver in a different car. Obviously there is something wrong (under these circumstances) with their tire construction. What have they done to avoid it? Both tire manufacturers have played some fishy game with the way they build the tires (remember the failures on both sides last year, after the massive one that Ralf had?). This time Michelin screwed up. In every other race this year, they somehow got away with it (meaning they manage to finish, win and have a very flexible tire at the same time). This time it didn't work out. Get over it.
Scenario 1: Michelin teams agreed to race with their tires
Someone might have been killed or seriously injured and then the fans would have been pissed because the FIA allowed their "heroes" to race with inferior tires
Scenario 2: Bridgestone agreed to the Chicane
The race would be a fiasco in any case, as the cars would have been handicapped just because some of them screwed up. If Ferrari lost, then they'd be really pissed off. And, they deserved to win, because they brought the right tires (not the high-performance one, but the safer alternative, the opposite of what Michellin did). Ferrari fans would have been absolutely pissed.
Scenario 3: What actually happened
Safest, pissed off a lot of fans, but gave people plenty to talk about. Had it been a normal race, there wouldn't have been much human drama, after the event.
There was no way, the FIA could please everyone and maintain the safety of the drivers at the same time. If you guys want to see some photos of the place (not the cars, because of the stupid fence between where we sat and the track, but of the girls there and some interesting characters, check out this page.
Man, thanks for those pics...
I guess I would have been happy anyway.
I agree with you. But there was still the possibility of pitting every so often and change the tires for safety reasons.
Don't forget that -although Ferrari would have won- third was up for grabs! Being in the race would certainly have caused possible trouble for Ferrari (contacts, difficulty passing and what not) and, who knows, maybe they could have retired...
Like I said, it just happened that way. Take a loss, look forward to another 22 years without problems. How nice is it that a driver wins the race behind the pace car? I did not see anyone throwing bottles at that...
I highly doubt a chicane would have dire consequences. Do you think they'd put up cement blocks to make a chicane?
I *think* they were thinking more along the lines of this:
AND, the michelin teams agreed to race with circumstances that gave the Bridgestone teams a HUGE advantage (which they should)... even racing without the rewarding of points to the Michelin teams.
It's not about cement blocks.
The corner was approached at a certain angle and a certain speed (full tilt); this made it relatively safe and appropriate. When you put a chicane in, the angle of approach changes. Now the cars will approach the area heading straight into the wall, having to break from (I am guessing) 270 Km/h to 60, turn the chicane and accelerate again. You have 2 options:
1) Put the chicane right before the corner; this possibly resolves the speed in the corner problem (not according to what was said yesterday by some drivers). You have no (or hardly any) escape route before hitting the wall, which makes the chicane unsafe. One break failure, one engine lockup, it's all you need for a big smash.
2) You put the chicane closer to the corner that throws the cars on the oval; you have enough escape route, but now the cars will pick that corner up well over 200 Km/h, which kind of defies the purpose of slowing them down.
Usually, these decisions are taken by experts over a period of time, not overnight and by a tire manufacturer.
Let me repeat, FIA said right away that the race would have been invalidated, had the chicane been put in. So long for any letter signed by the teams that would have approved something that is not up to them to decide.
SonicZoom: how much of a race would that have been, having everyone known that only Bridgestone drivers would have collected points? And -I repeat myself again- what would Whiting have done about a "bound to collect no points car" banging into a "bound to collect points" car? How would Schumacher and the others have behaved in a race that they knew they would anyway won?
Why are you still ignoring the possibility of racing 10 laps and changing tires? Why are you still ignoring the fact that Michelin did not bother testing (or ask for testing) of the tires they flew from France?
Why is it that the only solution seems to be whatever breaking of the rules the Michelin shod teams proposed?
Edited by gio64 on Jun 22, 2005 at 03:13 PM GMT (Reason: missing verb)
gio64: regarding your post about technical innovations in F1... The way the rules are written means that the language that is used leaves a few grey areas that to be honest, the engineers quite rightly have exploited over the years. The pinnacle of motorsport is nothing without lateral thinking on a design and development front - else we would still be stuck with the same cars that were running in the very first World Championship.
While not exactly illegal according to the LETTER of the law, cars such as the Toleman TG181C, Brabham Fan Car, twin-chassis Lotus etc aren't in the SPIRIT of the law which is something quite different. If there is an edge to be gained, you can bet we will try and find it. I say we, because my day job is researching chassis materials for racing cars and evaluating them for impact resistance.
I believe very strongly in driver safety (the cousin of a friend was killed a few years ago in an avoidable accident, and I have friends who have walked away from really huge wrecks) and because of my personal experiences both as an engineer and as a motorsport photographer, I believe that Michelin were entirely correct in their actions if they could not guarantee the safety of the drivers that were using their tyres. Ultimately they were at fault for bringing inadequate rubber, but imagine the following:
If the Michelin-shod cars had raced, leaving a driver seriously injured or dead, then we would have to deal with those very consequences that I spend my time seeking to avoid. In the current day and age, a driver fatality could have a more damaging long-term influence on the sport than this entirely avoidable debacle that was witnessed last weekend.
Michelin made a grave error (avoidable or otherwise) and so did the FIA. I find it extremely unfortunate that the teams which did not race are being hauled up on disrepute charges when the blame so obviously lies elsewhere. It is a measure of how much F1 is a slave to politics and big business - unlike NASCAR, which really looks after not just the teams and drivers but also more importantly, the fans. It would not have taken much to install the proposed chicane, give the drivers 15 minutes to get used to the new layout and delay the start by half an hour or an hour to make sure that the race went ahead with a complete grid. F1 commands a global audience and I am sure that the TV networks and the spectators both on and off the track would have put up with the delay so that the show went ahead.
As an afterthought to someone else's post, I shoot oval racing (SCSA) - no, we don't race in the rain, but that is the risk of this kind of racing. Basically the speeds are too high and the grip too low to guarantee driver safety. If one of our meets gets rained off, the fans get a full refund or a voucher to the next event - we don't have rain days here in the UK... Mind, Avon are developing a special kind of wet to allow our boys in the Stock Cars to race in the wet - like our Pick-Ups already do!
Reynard:
I agree (mostly) with what you're sayng about pushing the envelope of the rules. You would have to agree with me though, that it is quite obvious to an intelligent engineer that a rule wants to accomplish something and when an escape route is found for that restriction, the spirit of the rule is not respected and (sometimes) safety is also at risk. The reason why I cited those examples was to simply demonstrate that things don't run the Ferrari way. I understand all the rest of what you say.
Like I just wrote, a chicane is not as simple as you make it sound. I posted before your post and you can see what I mean.
As far as the getting used to it before the race, Toyota had stated there was no way they could have done that (not enough fuel for the remainder of the first stint). And -once again- why should everyone else pay for their screw up?
The ROOT cause of this disaster, and yes by anyone's account this was a disaster, was that Michelin did NOT do any suitable tire testing at IMS. Did they have the opportunity to? Yes they did.
THEY (read MICHELIN) are the ones that put drivers and fans lives in danger...
PapaG wrote:
ROOT cause of this disaster, and yes by anyone's account this was a disaster, was that Michelin did NOT do any suitable tire testing at IMS. Did they have the opportunity to? Yes they did.
When? (This is an inquiry not a disagreement )
I understood the diamond cut surface was only done a few weeks earlier, and Indy is not a test track for F1. When could they have tested an F1 car on these tires on the Diamond cut surface?
Don't get me wrong, I am not deffending Michelin, and I am curious.....
DaveEP wrote:
When? (This is an inquiry not a disagreement )
I understood the diamond cut surface was only done a few weeks earlier, and Indy is not a test track for F1. When could they have tested an F1 car on these tires on the Diamond cut surface?
Don't get me wrong, I am not deffending Michelin, and I am curious.....
I believe the diamond grinding of the new oval surface at IMS was done in early April of this year. I have photos of IRL tire testing which I took in mid-April in which the surface was already ground. I have walked on the new surface all of the way from the exit of turn 1 to the start finish line (USGP turn 12 and 13). The surface is full of little grooves and is very uniform but rough like sand paper. The IRL people said it has tremendous grip.
I do not know whether Michelin was given permission to test at IMS or not. I am sure that there are some stupid rules regarding tire testing. I am sure that as far as IMS was/is concerned, they F-1 teams or Michelin could test any time.
PapaG wrote:
The ROOT cause of this disaster, and yes by anyone's account this was a disaster, was that Michelin did NOT do any suitable tire testing at IMS. Did they have the opportunity to? Yes they did.
To point out - IMS is NOT one of the designated test venues for F1, so how could Michelin do any kind of suitable evaluation? Yes, they had the data from previous years, but both the surface and the cars (particularly the aerodynamics) have changed since last year. Would you explain when and where you think that adequate tyre-testing could have taken place.
There are very few other tracks in the world which replicate the conditions that an F1 car meets at Indy - the only one to my knowledge is the Oval where I work as a photographer, which is Rockingham in the UK. It does have an F1 test license, and hosted a Minardi event back in 2003. The crucial difference however is that at Rockingham, the cars run anti-clockwise, i.e. they take the oval sections of the circuit the way they are meant to be taken. However, the degree of banking (7.5) is pretty comparable to Indy.
gio64: if the rules were written in plain English as opposed to the convoluted language that they are currently expressed in, then there would be far fewer grey areas for the engineers to exploit. And with the quest to find that elusive extra tenth of a second being so competitive, you really can't blame those lateral thinkers who try to squeeze every advantage from these loopholes. But don't you ever think that safety is being compromised - if anything, the safety criteria for F1 cars (which is what I am involved with) gets tighter every year and driver survivability in an impact is a major priority.
Ten, twenty, thirty years ago that would not necessarilty have been the case; back then, being quick was everything. The lack of safety features on cars prior to 1988 is enough to make your hair stand on end just thinking about it. Hell, Colin Chapman used to drill holes in most of the components that went onto the Lotus F1 cars - his philosophy was that if it didn't break, it wasn't light enough.
Ralf's wreck on the Friday was a typical oval accident - the back end got loose and he bit concrete. A big hit, yet he walked away. Ten years ago he wouldn't have. You try telling me that safety isn't a priority. But when there is the risk of not one car, but fourteen, all having the same sort of high-speed impact with the wall, statistically the chances of injury are high no matter what.
Although Michelin were responsible for the bad batch of tyres, you cannot fault them for not permitting the cars to race without the chicane. As for difficulties installing it - that sort of thing happens in club racing. At Rockingham we have mixed oval and road course meetings, and the layout is changed and barriers switches in a matter of minutes...
Peter Windsor said on Wind Tunnel Sunday night that the two Michelin drivers who tested were Felipe Massa and Anthony Davidson at Indy earlier this Spring. All of the Bridgestone teams were involved in the test. But that was still after the resurfacing. So while Michelin may have not tested enough, they should have at least brought a backup compound, which they didn't. If that harder/safter backup compound still failed, well at least they would have done more on their part to be prepared for their teams. Also, Michelin does run another seires at IMS, the Porshe Supercup, which had no problems that weekend.
My 2 cents on this situation: Michelin is solely at fault for not coming prepared. No doubt about it. But you do have to factor in the FIA/F1 in their decision for not putting the fans before racing, because this kind of racing ONLY exists because of the fans. Everyone says that if it was Bridgestone who had the problems, everyone would be saying "tough luck, deal with it since you came unprepared". True, but if all Bridgestone runners were out, you'd still have 70% of the field racing. When 70% of the field is affected and potentially can't race, then of course people are going to try to make an exception to the rules in an attempt to have a race (because 30% of the field racing is not a race). The teams had no other options since they rely on Michelin, which is why I can't believe the F1 is calling the teams for a hearing and charging them with the blame. They could have run at reduced speed, but that would have been just as worse and more dangerous, to have 2 lines running turn 13, one at full speed and one at half the speed. They could have changed tired every 10 laps, but the officials have to verify the current ones are damaged. With such a mysterious problem as this, how the hell do you know if the tire is truely on it's last lap?
Formula 1 is a sport!
People seem to be forgetting this important fact.
In order for a sport to maintain its credibility it must have a set of rules that cannot be bent or broken in order to create a better “show”. As much as people love to follow F1 and see it as entertainment they cannot forget it is first and foremost a sport. The FIA made rules in conjunction with all of the teams before the season started and all of the teams agreed. Breaking the rules would only serve to discredit the FIA as a governing body of a sport. Imagine a team shows up for the superbowl andsays their star player is injured and can only run 10 yards so they will need the length of the field shortened to make the game more fair and put on a good show for the fans. Absolutely absurd!
The FIA sent many compromises to Michelin and its teams, which included driving slower through turn 13 with the FIA monitoring speed for the Michelin drivers and giving penalties to those who break the limit, driving through the pit lane, using the new unapproved tires which would incure a penalty, change the tires often on the grounds of safety. All were rejected by Michelin because it did not handicap all of the teams. Michelin made a huge mistake by bringing substandard tires. As the party who made the mistake they should not be the ones making demands. Michelin and their teams should be the ones making compromises, not those teams who came prepared. What if a team discovered their brakes were not able to withstand the punishment of a course (as happens often in Canada)? Should the FIA change the layout of the course minutes before the race in order to put all of the teams on a level field or should that team just go out and take it a little easier though some of the most demanding braking zones? The answer is quite obvious. F1 teams have wildly varying levels of performance from their individual components. Some manufacturers have engines that do not match up well against other teams. Do these teams pull out in protest at each event? Minardi is basically guaranteed of finishing last at every race and yet they are out there race after race doing their job. What is the point of preparing a car for a track anymore? Just bring your car the way it is and demand the FIA change the track layout to suit your car.
The FIA had stated from Friday night that a chicane would not be placed on the track and yet Michelin held out and tried to force the FIA to bend to their will for three days. It was not just a last minute ordeal. A chicane would have grossly violated sporting and technical regulations of the sport. It would have also presented more safety issues than it would have solved and the FIA would have been responsible for any accidents resulting form the chicane. Cars were not set up for the course change, drivers were not prepared, there were also those who stated the track itself might have not sustained the braking and cornering forces applied to where the chicane would have been set up.
Ferrari had nothing to do with the decisions made at the USGP. They were there to race and that’s what they did. The FIA never consulted Ferrari when they told the Michelin teams a chicane was never going to happen. You can confirm this by reading the correspondence on the FIA website from Friday night and Thursday morning. All of the other teams have stated that Ferrari are not to blame here. Why do people keep directing this toward them. Ferrari was one of the only teams who actually raced for the fans! They have made many enemies because of their success over the past 6-7 years this is normal. Nobody like the guy who wins everything all the time it gets boring. Their blatant team orders also angered those who love the competitive spirit of F1 even if team orders have been around in F1 for a very ling time. However, they have fallen this year. Michael S. has not been competitive in most races this year and yet he does not whine about it and ask for rule changes. He goes out and does the best he can do with his equipment. He sees no shame in finishing mid-pack with as many points as he can get. He is certainly not trying to make some sort of political statement. People need to stop blindly accusing Ferrari of things it is not responsible for.
Michelin is hiding behind the “safety” issue. Sure it would be absolutely irresponsible to allow their drivers to race with unsafe equipment. However, Michelin and its teams are simply using this issue as a smoke screen and to point the finger at someone else. The tires were not unsafe to race on except at high speed through turn 12/13. The teams could have complied with any of the compromises presented by the FIA, which were within the rules, to safely field their cars. Michelin refused. Why didn’t Michelin investigate all of their tire failures from a year ago? If they are so safety oriented they would have found the reason for the failures a long time ago. Poor Ralf has been the victim of this. The Michelin teams should have fielded their cars and raced for 7th and 8th place. I would have actually been very interested in the strategies they would have employed to get around the lack of performance through turn 13. It would have been an interesting race. Some argue that the resurfacing and lack of testing caused the problem and Bridgestone had an advantage because its sister company raced the 500 and gave up the holy secrets of the track. After IMS resurfaced the track they had an open F1 testing session at the racetrack. Only two drivers showed up for the tests and they were both Michelin runners. Nobody is commenting on how Michelins involvement with race events such as the 24 hrs of Le Mans has given them a huge competitive advantage with the one tire rule this season. Michelin also has over five times the test data from its teams. Testing was no the issue here. Turn 13 has been there since 1909 and there have been 5 USGPs run before this one. Another interesting point is that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tire manufacturers two weeks before the USGP and warned them that they need to not overlook safety in the name of performance especially regarding the tires.
The blame for this rests on Michelin and the teams it supplies. The retirements were less in the name of safety and more in the name of making a political statement. The teams tried to make the FIA bend to their will and the FIA refused. The teams had the obligation to race on the equipment they had. Michelin is simply hiding behind the “safety” issue instead of confessing to their mistake. For the pathetic display they put on at the USGP I think the teams and Michelin absolutely deserve to be punished for their actions. They proved they do not care about the fans or the sport as a whole whereas the FIA stood up for the credibility of the sport.
Finally, the fans who threw stuff on the track were just plain idiots and deserve to be arrested and prosecuted for what pretty much amounts to attempted murder. That kind of display was absolutely disgusting!
?
)