fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              7       end
  

Archive 2005 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?

  
 
Don Price
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Ferrari would not agree because it gave Micheal S. a chance to win with little problem... and he won his first of the year.. Lets hope at the end it'd not settled by 1 piont (;-(.
When was the last time the french did anything to help the american people? they know this track ..
Feel sorry for the fans (tickets + travel cost)



Jun 22, 2005 at 10:36 PM
isaacw
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


gio64 wrote:
I repeat that this was a bad thing. But, once again, things like these happen in different forms in different sports all the time. I remember a few years ago one instant replay in FootBall that was misjudged and that sent the wrong team to the SuperBowl. Things happen. In the last 22 years this has happened to F1 once. That means that F1 had 1 problem over the course of approximately 350 races. I wouldn't lose my mind over it or condemn the sport because it happened. Everyone screws up sometime.


VERY well put.



Jun 22, 2005 at 11:11 PM
strikeback03
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


But what if the carnival forgot to bring the big top, and it is raining? they have still set up the petting zoo in a small tent and that is open as planned, and you can sit in the rain and the acrobats will do tumbling routines, and the bearded lady will take a stab at stand-up comedy.

Nobody is comparing IRL or Champ Car to F1, except to say that if F1 splits then both sides might end up losing fans, such as many people who used to watch CART now watch neither. And NASCAR is not comaprable either, but it is the racing series that lots of people in this thread are most familar with. One important aspect of NASCAR though is that most races at least half of the field can compete. This is the most competitive F1 season in years. And interesting you should mention the finishing behind the pace car thing, since NASCAR fans disliked this, so NASCAR changed the rules to the green-white-checkered finish. Are a few teams gonna get screwed? maybe, if they had just enough fuel to finish the scheduled distance. However, NASCAR realizes that it is better to keep the fans happy than the teams happy. I am an engineer, i admire F1 cars and the driving from a technical perspective. As far as racing action goes watching everyone follow Schumacher for a few hours is not too exciting. We end up waiting for the pit stops to see if someone can use a good strategy to win. My favorite form of racing is with production based cars, series such as grand am. Different makes of cars, loosely regulated to be somewhat competitive. As such you get very different strategies (corvettes fly on straights, 911s take corners, etc) and interesting action on the track.

F1 is easily the most watched motorsport. However, FIA does have a problem if they keep placing their rules above fan interest and the fans start deciding to take their money elsewhere. Your opinions seem to be formed on the premise that FIA can do whatever it wants and the fans will continue to watch. This was the attitude taken by CART/IRL, now hardly anyone watches either. Hockey is Canada's sport, and I'm sure the NHL will still do fine there. Down here however, there are a lot of people who will no longer go to NHL games whenever they resume playing. They were already falling off the casual fan's radar, and the lockout has pushed them even further.



Jun 22, 2005 at 11:22 PM
strikeback03
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Plus, unless you are a Raiders fan, the right team was sent to the super bowl. The tuck rule might be stupid, but the refs did interpret it correctly.


Jun 22, 2005 at 11:24 PM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Well, I might have pushed the issue to bring the point across.
I agree with a lot of what you say, in the fact that you cannot ignore the fans, for instance. And I said before -many times- that this was a disgrace. But one disgrace in 22 years cannot possibly stand for "the sport is in disarray", that's what my other point is. And as well, F1 has had some Ferrari domination in the last few years, but here's what I say/think:
1) only 2 years (2004 and 2002) were actually dominated by Schumacher. the other years that saw him winning the titles were not dominated by him/Ferrari, so I feel it is a bit exaggerated to say that when you watch a race you watch 19 cars following Schumi.
2) Had they raced on the same tires, we would have seen different seasons in the past few years. I am a Ferrari fan, but I will be the first to tell you that if they had all raced on the same tire, Ferrari/Schumacher would not have dominated any of the aforementioned seasons. I am not saying that in the end the German would not have won anything, but -even if he had won as much as he has in terms of championships- it would have been a lot closer.
You see, I have followed F1 for most of my life, without ever missing a race (mostly on TV and sometimes at the track Indy being one of them, which BTW I really liked in terms of overall show). And as some of you possibly know, Ferrari has never been as good as it has been in the last 6 years. So, when somebody talks about their domination killing F1, I sort of smile, because I remember living through the 1979-2001 years, when no Ferrari driver ever won a championship. I also remember the years between 1969 and 1975 (I believe) in which Ferrari also did not win anything (and that starvation period had started in 1964, which is when I was born, so I don't really remember those years).
As far as the decisions that FIA made and/or will have to make, I don't want to suggest that they should screw the fans and go on their way. But I also firmly believe that they have to maintain the legality and propriety of the sport. I think this helps a lot with the "die hard" fan base, which is there for the reasons I put forth before (understand the technicality of the sport, can see when a car misses the apex by 5 cm, looks at the sector times on Formula1.com while watching the race, can tell a healthy engine from one that has a small crack on one exhaust...) and that is the sport's safety blanket, because they will keep coming anyway even if Schumi wins 10 championships, even if Ferrari is not there anymore, even if there are no more overtaking moves for 10 consecutive races (you understand I am forcing the point here).
I see solutions like the safety car or the "building the chicane" as "sell-outs", like the singer that goes commercial, sells a lot, but destroys the quality of his/her art.
I am not saying that FIA should not make any changes to the regulations for next year, in the light of what has happened in F1. I will be the first one to say that they are a bunch of idiots if they don't. I will add, they are the ones that brought this upon themselves, because with one tire for everybody there would have been no problems. But I wouldn't have liked them to have made exceptions to the rules just 'cause the show must go on.
I am not a Raiders fan, but I can tell you about lots of friends that I have (football experts much more than I am) that will fight you on that 'til the end of the world. I don't have enough knowledge of the details of the football rules to argue on that, so I'll surrender.
I too love real stock cars racing it out on the track! I think it holds the fascinating question that everyone always has in his/her mind: is my car better than yours? Those races often give us the answer. They are fun because they are rough and there are many cars that look quite different from each other. It would be much nicer if they could expand their fan base!



Jun 23, 2005 at 12:38 AM
DaveEP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #6 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo comments....

Hard to argue really.....



Jun 23, 2005 at 10:48 AM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Followed the link.
I agree with you (and Montezemolo).
I think several people (me included) have been ranting about the absurdity of the tire wars that raged over the last few years.
Montezemolo, however, was very diplomatic towards Michelin. As I said, they carefully steered away from any provision that would have covered their name with ridicule. In that I condemn them.



Jun 23, 2005 at 03:39 PM
jomor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Wow this has been one long thread. gio64 you seem to have a good head on your shoulder, and I agree with you 100% about the differences between F1 and racing in the U.S. As for Football it still bothers me when a team wins the Super bowl and the call them selves the world champs.....umm how many other countries participate in the NFL? Hockey, yes it will be back. I'm not sure where in the U.S. the numbers have been dropping but not in the Northern states! After all it is a winter sport I can understand Arizona , or Florida losing teams but not NY or Boston! F1 has had some ups and downs. They will survive, maybe not in the U.S. but they have always struggled to gain that market anyway. Only a hand full of drivers from the U.S. have competed and some became Champions....Hill, Andretti. I'm Canadian so my allegiance was with Gilles V. and now his son...god help me. But even here in Canada the F1 coverage is very poor, unless of course your a French Canadian then it's pretty good. We came very close to not having a GP this year beacuse of Cigerette sponsorships. Intelegence prevailed and we had a great weekend. It's the Largest sporting event in Canada and rakes in millions of dollars for the local economy. If what happen in Indy happened here it would have still been a big deal but not to the same degree. This market is still strong and hopefully will stay that way. If it runs next year I will be in Indy for the race...but only for F1...Oval racing is boring! Just my oppinion.


Jun 23, 2005 at 06:10 PM
strikeback03
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #9 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


OK, this is long, and we know that Stoddart doesn't like Mosley. Still some useful info though.


Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix
A personal account of US Grand Prix events


Quote:
Paul Stoddart faces the media at Indianapolis

What follows is a press release from the MinardiF1 team giving the views of Paul Stoddart.

"Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.

While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, affect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.

Background

For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday’s United States Grand Prix.



The Facts

Friday, June 17
I noticed that Ricardo Zonta’s Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumacher’s accident, both on the monitors, and more significantly, I could see what took place from my position on the pit wall. This necessitated a red flag, and in the numerous replays on the monitors, it looked very much like the cause of the accident was a punctured rear tyre.

Throughout the afternoon, numerous people in the paddock suggested it was a tyre failure and commented that it was similar to the serious accident which befell Ralf Schumacher during the 2004 US Grand Prix. Later that evening was the first time I was aware of a potential problem with the Michelin tyres at this event. In all honesty, I didn’t pay a great deal of attention, as our team is on Bridgestone tyres.

Saturday, June 18
On arriving at the circuit, the word throughout the paddock was that there was a potential problem with the rear tyres supplied to all Michelin teams for this event, and it became evident as the first and second sessions were run that most of the affected teams were being very conservative with the amount of on-track running they were doing. In addition, Toyota announced that it had substituted Ricardo Zonta for Ralf Schumacher, who would take no further part in the event. Speculation was rife in the paddock that some Michelin teams might not take part in qualifying. Also, during the practice session, I was informed there would be a Team Principals’ meeting with Bernie Ecclestone at 1430 hrs after qualifying, which I incorrectly assumed would centre around the Michelin issue.

Qualifying took place, and indeed, all 20 cars qualified for Sunday’s Grand Prix.

At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise, and in fairness, it was not discussed in any great detail. I personally found this strange, but as I have stated, it did not affect Minardi directly, and therefore I had no reason to pursue the matter.

Throughout Saturday evening, there was considerable speculation in the paddock that the tyre issue was much more serious than at first thought, and people were talking about a fresh shipment of tyres being flown overnight from France, and what penalty the Michelin teams would take should those tyres be used. By the time I left the paddock, people were taking bets on Minardi and Jordan scoring points!

Later that evening, I checked with our Sporting Director on what developments had occurred, and was told that the issue was indeed very serious, and the possibility existed that the Michelin teams would not take part in the race.

Sunday, June 19
I arrived at the circuit at 0815 hrs, only to find the paddock was buzzing with stories suggesting the Michelin teams would be unable to take part in the Grand Prix. I was then handed a copy of correspondence between Michelin, the FIA, and the Michelin teams that revealed the true extent of the problem. By now, journalists were asking if Minardi would agree to a variation of the regulations to allow the Michelin teams to compete, and what penalties I felt would be appropriate.

A planned Minardi press briefing took place at 0930 hrs, and as it was ending, I was summoned to an urgent meeting, along with Jordan, with Bernie Ecclestone, the two most senior Michelin representatives present at the circuit, IMS President Tony George, Team Principals, and technical representatives from the Michelin teams. At this meeting, Michelin, to its credit, admitted that the tyres available were unable to complete a race distance around the Indianapolis circuit without a change to the track configuration, so as to reduce the speed coming out of the last turn onto the banking. Much background information was provided as to the enormous efforts that Michelin, with support from its teams, had undertaken in the preceding 48 hours to try and resolve the problem, but it was clear that all those efforts had failed to produce a suitable solution that wouldn’t involve support from the non-Michelin teams, and ultimately, the FIA.

What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to the only sensible solution – a chicane. During this discussion, a technical representative with specific knowledge of the Indianapolis circuit, together with representatives from IMS, were tasked with preparing the design of a chicane, and Bernie Ecclestone agreed to speak with the one Team Principal not present, Mr Todt, and to inform the FIA President, Max Mosley, who was not present at Indianapolis, of the planned solution to allow the successful running of the US Grand Prix. With only a few hours now remaining to the start of the race, we agreed to reconvene as soon as Bernie had responses from Messrs Todt and Mosley.

At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith. These words had a familiar tone to me, as they were similar to those I had heard around midnight on the Friday preceding the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, when I was told by all the senior FIA representatives present that the Australian Grand Prix would be cancelled forthwith if I did not withdraw pending legal action between Minardi and the FIA. Once again, Mr Mosley was not present at that Grand Prix! It is fair to say at this point that the vast majority of people present in the room both felt and stated that Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence.

By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non- championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur.

By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his team and drivers to conduct themselves in the spirit of providing an entertaining race for the good of Formula One.

At this point, we called for all 20 drivers, and indeed, all 20 arrived, at which point we informed them of our plan. While I cannot testify that each and every driver agreed with what we were proposing, what I can say with certainty is that no driver disagreed, and indeed, members of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association discussed overseeing the construction of a suitable chicane. Jean Todt was the only significant team individual not present, and the Ferrari drivers stated this decision was up to Mr Todt.

I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster.

After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters.

I’m sure this sentence will be treated with contempt by Mr Mosley, but what must be realised is that there are various reasons that other Team Principals, and the most senior people in Formula One, will not say publicly what they openly feel privately about Mr Mosley, his politics and his governance of the sport. There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history.

Discussions then took place concerning the other telephone calls with Mr Mosley from, among others, Bernie Ecclestone, Ron Dennis and Tony George, and it was clearly revealed to what extent Mr Mosley was prepared to go in order to achieve his aims. To my total disgust, it was stated that Mosley had informed Mr Martin, the FIA’s most senior representative in the USA, that if any kind of non- championship race was run, or any alteration made to the circuit, the US Grand Prix, and indeed, all FIA-regulated motorsport in the US, would be under threat – again, exactly the same tactic that was used in threatening the Australian Grand Prix and Australian motorsport in March of this year.

By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix.

At this point, the pit lane had opened and a hasty discussion took place concerning whether or not the Michelin teams would go to the grid. A radio had been delivered to me by team personnel at this stage, and I was able to know which cars were going to the grid. It is interesting to note that the Jordan Team Principal was not present at this time, and indeed, it was the Jordans that first proceeded to the grid, followed by the Ferraris. After discussion with Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed the Michelin teams would go to the grid, but were absolutely prevented from participating in the race because of the tyre situation.



Three teams line up for the US Grand Prix

We then proceeded to the grid, at which point I asked Jordan’s Colin Kolles if he intended to stand by the other teams or participate in the race. In no uncertain terms, I was told Jordan would be racing. I was also approached by a Bridgestone representative, who informed me that Bridgestone wished us to race. This left me with one of the most difficult decisions I have had to take during my time in F1, as I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not. I made it clear to Bernie Ecclestone, and several Team Principals, that if the Jordans either went off or retired, I would withdraw the Minardi cars from the race.

It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt.

For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.

Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation.

Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!"

Press Release
MinardiF1



Jun 23, 2005 at 07:30 PM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


What an incredible load of... I am not going to say, since Stoddart could sue me for using a word he doesn't like.
A few objections:


1) "At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise,...Show more

Well, well. This is very interesting. Total disaster is about to take place and this topic is not the most important of the meeting? Why? Ist it Ferrari's fault? Or maybe Todt? Stoddart finds this "strange"?! I think it is a bit more than strange. Especially considering that Ecclestone becomes then the advocate of the chicane and the operations "save the GP".


2) "What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to...Show more

So, Michelin is really not sure the tires will last. According to Stoddart, FIA doesn't know what it's talking about, since everyone else seems to be sure that the slowing down is not going to work. Stoddart doesn't mention the possibility of going through the pit lane at all, I don't know why. He also doesn't tell us why the stopping every 10 laps was dismissed. He although tells us that the only sensible solution is to put a chicane in place. But how is it the only sensible solution if we don't know why they dismissed the going through the pit lane and the stopping every 10 laps?
And let me ask this: how is it sensible to put a chicane in for those that have good tires? Let me introduce another consideration: we all know how "calculated" these cars are. In other words, we know that a lot of components in a car ar tailored to the specific race, and they are not able to do any more than what the race requires (the tire problem is clearly a proof of this). The chicane would have added another severe braking point on the track, as a matter of fact probably the second most severe. This would have had to happen 73 times during the race without anyone having provided any data, any adjustment any change of materials or other characteristics. Can we say that a brake failure would have been a possibility? And beside the fact that it could have occurred in a dangerous place, what if it would have affected a team on Bridgestone tires? Nice sensible alternative, Stoddart, way to go.


3)"At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith."

OK. So Todt says he doesn't care; Boh hoo! Mosley has already said he'd cancel the GP, go figure how important is Todt's support! (but Stoddart continues to try to pull him back in constantly)


4)"Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence."

Why is asking to respect the rules "intransigence"? Go through the pit lane, change the tires every 10 laps and shut up. Once again, we're not told why these 2 opportunities were dismissed.


5)"By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non- championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur. "
Here's where the true problem starts surfacing: F1 teams (other than those bastards at Ferrari) feel entitled to make their own rules, they don't need FIA! They decide what's appropriate, if to score points and even who goes through the chicane and who doesn't (and Stoddart should explain to us how this last option would not cause a massive crash; actually, he should tell us first how they would have resolved this matter, because from my complete inexperience and ignorance, I cannot see them building a chicane in a way that you can still work your way around it without losing any time)


6)"By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his...Show more

Sure, just kick those bastards at Ferrari out. WE, THE F1 TEAMS ARE IN CHARGE, HERE! We are king of the world, judges, cops and law-makers. And those bastards at FIA won't give us what they supply for REAL OFFICIAL RACES, so we're going to make up our own. But the best is at the end, when they say to each other: we are gentlemen, we can rely on each other's honesty! Sure you can, you have showed how honorable you are right in this circumstance: the rules are causing problems, and you want to change them on the fly. Real honorable gentlemen stuff. Remarkable.


7) "I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster."

Like we saw later that day, some of those gentlemen that were relying on each other's honor decided to brake this pact and race anyway. This doesn't need any further commenting(shh! Stoddart was one of them). As far as the politics, I really see these 9 teams making politics, not FIA. As I have stated many times in these posts, sticking to the rules can be annoying, stubborn, ugly, difficult but it certainly IS NOT POLITICS. What is political, is to conjure against the rule makers, change the rules as you see fit and try to impose them on the rule makers.


8) "After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters."

Mosley is doing his job. I personally detest him, however, his job is to have the rules respected. So if he's sticking to his guns, he's perfectly able to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters. Stoddart still avoids to specify why going through the pit lane every lap or stopping every 10 laps is out of the question. IMO it's much better to have 1/2 real race than to race a farce for the sake of putting up a show.


8)"There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history."

Hang on a second; didn't Michelin provide crappy tires? Can we say that -probably- the tires were crappy because they have been trying to push the envelope a little too much? Can we say that they should have had a second tire there and didn't bother bringing it? The answer to all those questions is YES! And Mosley is responsible for the FIAsco? And I don't understand what kind of a "lesser degree" of responsibility Jan Todt has. Had he said yes, they would have run a farce no-point race. And risked all kinds of problems from safety coming from extra stress on brakes, to physical injuries on the drivers, from legal consequences in Europe, to legal hell in the US, had something gone wrong and had it been allowed to happen outside of the sport's regulations. And ultimately, why should a team that did nothing wrong give up an opportunity of making points?


9) "For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition."

Well well (again). What else could Michelin have said about who caused the problem? It is easy to be honest when you have absolutely no way to speak otherwise. Who, What, Where and When? I mean, Who tested the Barcellona spec tires? Where were they tested? When were they tested? I am going to assume here, but nobody as far as I know ran F1 cars on the track on Sunday morning with the Barcelona spec tires, so... How did they arrive to this conclusion? Stoddart doesn't say, isn't that interesting?


10)"Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation. "

Far more importantly, the teams also refused to accept any of the solutions offered to them. And this refusal was, I believe, political. Unlike the other one, which simply was caused by the observation of the rules. He did his duty! He is supposed to have the rules respected. And he did. But maybe, if he resigns, we can have a freak show instead of F1 from now on. When we run into a problem, we can maybe run the cars on natural gas, or maybe we can just borrow 20 cars from the parking lot and put the drivers in those. Or maybe, whenever Ferrari is going to have a problem with the tires, we can see if we can accommodate them so that they can be competitive regardless of the ability of Bridgestone to provide good tires.


11)"Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!"

I am sure the timelines and the actual events are accurate, I have no doubt. But as far as this being an honest account of the facts, I am not so sure. I have just written down what I find fishy and I don't really think the questions I raised are there because of Stoddart's forgetfulness. Furthemore, he expresses quite a few opinions along the way and -agree with them or not- they are opinions and not facts.



Jun 23, 2005 at 10:35 PM
jomor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #11 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Historically speaking how many atrocities have been committed by people who were just following orders? The rules are there for a reason but some times reason most outway the rules. Again the sport is there because of the fans not the other way around. If we all stopped going and stopped watching what would happen? Very simplistic true but there is some crap flying around that sometimes the simplest solutions are the quickest way to enlightenment.


Jun 24, 2005 at 09:14 AM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #12 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


jomor, I agree, but I think that's not the case here.
Let's review this.
The teams have to follow the rules. Are there alternative to the solution they proposed?
Yes.
1) Go slow through turn 13. FIA offered to help setup this operation so that it would be safe and effective. No reason to discard it, right? It was doable, it probably required to paint a couple of lines, no big deal. If they could have done the chicane, they could have certainly done that
2) Go through the pitlane. No reason to discard it, right? You might say it wouldn't have been a great race, but it would have been a race, much better than what happened.
3) Change the tires every 10 laps. No reason to discard it right? Nobody said this would be dangerous, (you can read the Stoddart post). Again, it would probably have been the best solution, since a lot would have happened during those numerous pit stops.
4) Use the Barcellona spec tires (maybe for 15 laps or so?) and have almost a normal race.
But the teams could not accept any of these solutions. They were all better than not racing, like it happened, right? So why would you buy their ranting about being willing to put on a show? Any of these solutions was feasible and would have been better than doing what they decided to do. If it is true that their position was the one of saving the show and the race, when they understood that their proposal was not accepted, why didn't they accept to race otherwise? I cannot believe that people don't see this.
If the options were not there and it would have been about not racing or doing a chicane, I could understand the point. But there were options and some of them would have saved 90% of the show. After all, the chicane option would have invalidated the race. If a fan prefers a farce to a bizarre true race, then I give up.
Fact of the matter is that people WERE NOT following orders, instead of the other way around.
As I posted before, there is only one difference between the FIA offerings (which by the way conceeded to the rules, because they would have penalized a team instead of disqualifying as it should be for a tire type change; they would have allowed as many substitutions as the teams saw fit; they would have helped setting up what was necessary to reduce the speed in turn 13. All things that are not in the regulations and they don't have to do) and the teams' proposal:the chicane would have saved Michelin's face, any other proposal would have made a joke out of their company. So, the only choice left, was to be proactive, announce that they were concerned about safety and pull the cars out of the race. Which in many ways, turns the tables, because they are now the good guys, they care about their drivers' safety! These are politics, not those that a lot of people are trying to call up on FIA and Ferrari.
Even if you don't like the ideas proposed by FIA, objectively you would have to agree that at least they were no worse than what the teams wanted. And since neither side gave up, I would like somebody to explain to me why the responsibility would sit on the federation (especially considering that the problem was caused indirectly by the teams in the first place, since they had received faulty equipment). This is simply absurd.
One last question. Let's say that the chicane goes in (and screw sports justice, which everyone seems to ignore here -another absurd thing-); let's say that it becomes an overtaking place; let's say that there is a massive crash and there are injuries. How do we resolve it legally, considering that the Federation had disobeyed to their own rules? Let's say the chicane goes in. Let's say that some cars brakes don't make it to the end of the race. Let's say somebody runs out of brakes right at that chicane on lap 67 and goes straight into the wall at well over 150 Km/hr (when Schumacher broke his leg, he hit the wall at 107 Km/hr). Who is going to take responsibility? Are we all fine with taking this risk so that somebody can be entertained as they wish (or so that Michelin can save their face)?
This would have been a very simple process, had politics not involved and had teams played their role as they should.
1) The problem arises.
2) FIA proposes the aforementioned alternatives.
3) The teams sit down, discuss the alternatives
4) The teams choose one alternative
5) The decision is implemented
6) The race goes on, certainly better than it did.
7) We can talk about how much or little we liked the show.
Simple.



Jun 24, 2005 at 11:15 AM
LDRider
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #13 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


For those of you who missed it....SpeedChannel will rebroadcast the race tonight at 11:30PM CDT

P.S. I was there; it was ugly.

Joe P



Jun 24, 2005 at 11:57 AM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #14 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Hi Joe,
Let me ask you this; if they would have chosen one of the proposals from FIA and raced, would it have been better than what you witnessed there (and I witnessed at home?).



Jun 24, 2005 at 12:08 PM
LDRider
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #15 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


To be quite honest...the viewers at home knew more about the situation and proposed compromises than the fans who were at the track did.
All we knew was that there was a tire controversy but had no idea as to the magnitude until the cars pulled into the pits after the warm-up lap. When that happened we all thought that there was a rule change which allowed the teams to change tires and that they would be a few seconds behind the starters. We had no idea that the tires, which we understood were being flown in, never arrived and we became painfully aware of the situation as the cars were rolled into the garages, not to come to the grid.
Allowing ALL teams to change tires(at any time) during the race would have been the only compromise I thought made sense. That said, if they did that they would have opened the floodgates to a mass of protests, particularly from the Bridgestone runners, who had tire issues early on in the season; As well as set a precident that all rules could be challenged for future races.
Interestingly enough...the first four fastest qualifiers were on Michelins!

Joe P



Jun 24, 2005 at 01:05 PM
DaveEP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #16 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


gio64 wrote:
But the teams could not accept any of these solutions. They were all better than not racing, like it happened, right?


Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one. Let's see:

We could go slow round the corner, causing problems for the other teams going at full speed. Err... No.

We could all go through the pits, and add 20 seconds per lap while the others whizzed round. That makes a great race doesn't it? Err.... No.

We go in and change tires every 10-15 laps? Erm... Ralphs tires had not done 10 laps before collapsing. So changing every 15 laps would be safe wouldn't it? Err.... No.

So, there is little point repeating these options ad infinitum, because none of them were really viable as a 'racing' solution.


This would have been a very simple process, had politics not involved and had teams played their role as they should.
1) The problem arises.
2) FIA proposes the aforementioned alternatives.
3) The teams sit down, discuss the alternatives
4) The teams choose one alternative
5) The decision is implemented
6) The race goes on, certainly better than it did.
7) We can talk about how much or little we liked the show.


How about they ALL sit around the table, and all throw in ideas, not just the FIA? Ask the drivers too. Then with all the options, not just the lame ones, they could discuss and chose one.

At the end of all this, we are all going to have to agree to disagree on almost every point made - except the sport lost out.



Edited by DaveEP on Jun 24, 2005 at 09:30 PM GMT



Jun 24, 2005 at 01:48 PM
gio64
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #17 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


We could go slow round the corner, causing problems for the other teams going at full speed. Err... No.
Like I said, this could have been resolved. Stoddart said they could have let the Bridgestone tires shod cars avoid the chicane, so there was obvioulsy a very simple and safe way to do this. Setup 2 lanes through that corner just comes to mind. But if they thought they could have put up a chicane and still have the other cars go around it at full speed, this option would have been much easier to accomplish and obviously, just as safe.
Would it be better than racing 6 cars? Yes.

We could all go through the pits, and add 20 seconds per lap while the others whizzed round. That makes a great race doesn't it? Err.... No.
Well, I don't know if it would be 20 seconds. In any case, you would be the one that screwed up, now you are paying the price. You don't have to like it, you are in no position to make requests or objections.
Is it better than racing 6 cars?
Err... yes!

We go in and change tires every 10-15 laps? Erm... Ralphs tires had not done 10 laps before collapsing. So changing every 15 laps would be safe wouldn't it? Err.... No.
I am afraid you didn't read what I wrote well. I referred to the possibility of running 15 laps on the Barcelona spec tires, assuming that they would have been more resistant but yet not quite up to the job. As far as you knowing exactly how many laps Ralph had gone on those tires... well I really don't know. Who told you? Is it a reliable source? Please let me know. Michelin said they were good for 10, so why are you now rejecting their professional opinion? If this was a possibility, obviously we were already passed the "is it going to work?" stage. Even on those tires, they could have chosen to do a few slow laps to extend the distance of a stint, hence going 15 laps. If you read the Stoddart Chronicles, he never mentions safety as the problem with going multiple stops. Not a word. He does use this argument to defend the refusal of the slowing down idea, but not for the tires. Unless you have a document that states that the 10 laps stints would have been unsafe, don't argue about it on grounds that -as far as you and I know- don't exist.
I see you don't mention the Barcelona spec tires. What happened to that?
These were all legitimate racing solutions. They suck compared to having a normal race, but the failure to provide decent tires from Michelin's side had shot that possibility down. You well know that there are just as many objections to a chicane as there are to any of these solutions, but the chicane is also unfair, and most importantly, illegal and dangerous
.
How about they ALL sit around the table, and all throw in ideas, not just the FIA? Ask the drivesr too. Then with all the options, not just the lame ones, they could discuss and chose one.
Interesting take. I am a teacher (among the other things) and at the school where I work there is a policy that deals with fighting. This policy says that if a student fights another (takes a swing, that is) he/she is automatically suspended.
Let's say that I catch two kids swinging at each other and I take them to the V.P.
The VP will verify what the facts are and, will then suspend both the students. It is a mere application of the rule. If it is the day before exams and it means they will fail their courses if they cannot attend, they still get suspended.
Now your suggestion of sitting around the table is the equivalent of telling the students that we'll sit around the table with them and discuss the punishment they should receive. Makes a lot of sense.
What you say is wrong at the base: this is not something that is decided by an assembly. That stage somewhat happened before the season, now the rules are in place and must be respected. Teams don't have a saying on how rules should be enforced. They agreed to go by those ahead of time and now they are trying to get away from them.
Once again, like them or not, those are the legitimate alternatives. There were no other choices. The teams refused to race because of Michelin image and because they were making a point with the FIA.
You also did not tell me how the issues raised by the chicane solution would not have been relevant (safety, legality and fairness).



Jun 24, 2005 at 03:07 PM
DaveEP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #18 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


This has all now been beaten to death..... and clearly there is no consensus .

Personally, I'm done with this one ..... over and out .




Jun 24, 2005 at 04:30 PM
monsoon
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #19 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


Here's my bit...

Started loosing interest in F1 for the last few years, got
excited again this year but this just kills it for me.

Maybe next year I'll have a look again.




Jun 24, 2005 at 07:53 PM
strikeback03
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #20 · Only 6 F1 cars running at Indy?


This seems to have elevated to the level of a religious discussion - everyone has an opinion and no one is going to change theirs despite any arguments presented.

gio64, you are obviously a very devoted fan of F1 and hold the rules in very high regard. I am very much a casual fan, and in my opinion, having the michelin cars race slowly is not any better than not racing at all. If they cannot race for the win I don't care if they are on the track. Safety would have been easy - require them to engage the pit lane speed limiter at the exit of 12 and keep it on through the exit of 13. If this is too boring, add a slalom or something. IMO this was the only way to make the race exciting. Give Ferrari their 18 points before the race.

Teams should have a say because the important elements of racing are a) the fans, and b) the teams. FIA has power only because the teams decided to give it to them. And if they carry out their threat to split off when the contract is up and form their own series, F1 will be left without a product.



Jun 24, 2005 at 09:35 PM
1       2       3              5              7       end




FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5              7       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account