Thoughts on the United States Grand Prix

lemon_martini2 · Post by **lemon_martini2** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:11 am

Just a thought....the FiA makes the rules for Championship races. If it was a non-Championship race,then they could change the rules for that race to permit the Michelins a tyre change.Would have much rather seen it as a non-Championship race than what we got today.And that would get round any complaints that FiA was inconsistent during the season

Kev Mac · Post by **Kev Mac** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:12 am

my team scored 7 points. I dont think we've scored 7 points in total for the 10 years ive been supporting Minardi.

Part of me is excited and thrilled, the other half is deflated that we got the points by default.

Its a strange strange situation!

Graham Ross · Post by **Graham Ross** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:41 am

Just had a bad thought,

What if the FIA ban Michelin and force the other teams to use Bridgestone tyres.

Didn't they do something similar in 2003

F1greyhound · Post by **F1greyhound** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:19 pm

The BRIDGESTONE teams would have found even less support or sympathy, after all it would have been much less of a loss with only FERRARI as a top team, would anybody even have discussed building a chicane for them?

However there is absolutely no excuse for MICHELIN why they did not even suggest to their teams to race with slightly restricted speed, e.g.by reducing the revs to 17000 or similar. That way all the top teams on the french rubber still would have raced possibly for 3rd, at least for 5th place. Thats also what Charlie Whiting offered and pretty reasonably.

The chicane idea was a total joke and wouldnt probably even have reduced the top speed sufficiently.

Altogether a farce, but neither BRIDGESTONE nor FERRARI can be blamed. Think of it, they had such a degree of bad luck this season that the Indy result at least is not unjust. Both JORDAN and MINARDI shall have these points, thats all not the problem.

The question is, will Indianapolis survive as a GP venture? And will MICHELIN survive the financial consequences of this debacle?

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:00 pm

sgd wrote:bad michelin, but even worse FIA... why not just permit a tyre change for all the teams, just for this race???????
FIA stinks!
anyway I doubt ferrari would accepted it...

Y should Ferrari agree,sgd

Would the likes of Mclaren,Renaults ,Williams have agreed if the situation was reversed.

Isnt it easy to blame Ferrari for everything.

This is i think the 6th race here & Michelins couldnt get it rgt,so its Ferrari's fault.Y? Only cos they didnt allow to build the chicane??If Ferrari had suggested a chicane in Bahrain,would the other teams have agreed??
Can i please have ur comments here ,Mr.SGD!!!

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:07 pm

Graham Ross wrote:Very dissapointed. I still don't believe what happened actually!

Michelin stuffed up but if what I've heard and read is to be believed the Michelin teams offered to race with a chicane for no points. That would have been a good way out of this crisis.

Would that have been safe for the cars?Would the race hage been competitive when nothing is at stake?Would Michael & Rubinho be at risk(read safety) from rival drivers,when he knows he has nothing to lose if he crashes in a Ferrari?
Michelins are making these statement for their reputation only.Guys dont get carried away.

JayVee · Post by **JayVee** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:55 pm

Oh no!!! Silly me, taped the race and avoided hearing the news all day and then I see 6 cars going round!

I am really angry

I think they are all to blame. I feel for all those who went to the race it was unfair for them.

I'll try to put some thoughts a bit later

CB619 · Post by **CB619** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:01 pm

1/4 of the blame should go to Michelin for not doing their homework
1/4 goes to the teams
1/2 should go to the FIA, one for not relaxing the rules to suit the teams and/or fans and another by making these rules in the first place

My take is back when the FIA figured for the "one-race" tire solution, I suppose that neither the FIA, Bridgestone, Michelin, nor the 10 teams were thinking about Indy and the unique circumstances of the loads on the tires. I believe, when they came to Indy for the first time Bridgestone brought significantly harder tires and suggested that teams run high, staggered tire pressures (23psi for the left and 19 for the right). (I don't know if the tire manufacturers still do the staggered pressures, it was just a thought as I was watching.)

For this year, the Indy tire sounds like it had to be a hard tire to last the race and cope with the loads but soft enough to provide mechanical grip so the cars can run low wings for the straight. Too much of a compromise.

CB619 · Post by **CB619** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:09 pm

lemon_martini2 wrote:Just a thought....the FiA makes the rules for Championship races. If it was a non-Championship race,then they could change the rules for that race to permit the Michelins a tyre change.Would have much rather seen it as a non-Championship race than what we got today.And that would get round any complaints that FiA was inconsistent during the season

Run for fun sounds stupid to me. Unless the made the race with huge cash incentives, like the Winston/Nextel All-Star Race. Even then it still sounds stupid.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:11 pm

CB619 wrote:1/4 of the blame should go to Michelin for not doing their homework
1/4 goes to the teams
1/2 should go to the FIA, one for not relaxing the rules to suit the teams and/or fans and another by making these rules in the first place

My take is back when the FIA figured for the "one-race" tire solution, I suppose that neither the FIA, Bridgestone, Michelin, nor the 10 teams were thinking about Indy and the unique circumstances of the loads on the tires. I believe, when they came to Indy for the first time Bridgestone brought significantly harder tires and suggested that teams run high, staggered tire pressures (23psi for the left and 19 for the right). (I don't know if the tire manufacturers still do the staggered pressures, it was just a thought as I was watching.)

For this year, the Indy tire sounds like it had to be a hard tire to last the race and cope with the loads but soft enough to provide mechanical grip so the cars can run low wings for the straight. Too much of a compromise.

Bridgestone had the benefit of the data from their subsidary, Firestone which raced there just recently

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:15 pm

True.But Michelin stuffed up big time,mayb they got last year tyres,& must have forgotten that they need to last the entire race distance

CB619 · Post by **CB619** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:17 pm

julian mayo wrote:
CB619 wrote:1/4 of the blame should go to Michelin for not doing their homework
1/4 goes to the teams
1/2 should go to the FIA, one for not relaxing the rules to suit the teams and/or fans and another by making these rules in the first place

My take is back when the FIA figured for the "one-race" tire solution, I suppose that neither the FIA, Bridgestone, Michelin, nor the 10 teams were thinking about Indy and the unique circumstances of the loads on the tires. I believe, when they came to Indy for the first time Bridgestone brought significantly harder tires and suggested that teams run high, staggered tire pressures (23psi for the left and 19 for the right). (I don't know if the tire manufacturers still do the staggered pressures, it was just a thought as I was watching.)

For this year, the Indy tire sounds like it had to be a hard tire to last the race and cope with the loads but soft enough to provide mechanical grip so the cars can run low wings for the straight. Too much of a compromise.
Bridgestone had the benefit of the data from their subsidary, Firestone which raced there just recently

I don't think they got a lot of benefit since the IndyCar is going 225-230mph to enter the turn and the F1 car is maybe going 150.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:23 pm

maybe an F1 car doing 150 is exerting as much lateral pressure on the sidewall as a champ car doing 220

Graham Ross · Post by **Graham Ross** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:26 pm

Kapel you are being critical. So you enjoyed the race ?

What would you have done ?

I can't see many putting the blame entirely on Ferrari!

On the chicane, it happened before. Had the teams agreed, it could have been called a non championship race and the teams given 30 minutes to get used to the chicane. It could have been the best race we've had.

But in the current environement, there is no way that would have happened.

David Coulthard may not be the greatest driver but I respect what he said

The reality is that mature adults were not able to come to a resolution that would have allowed us to put on the show that everybody wants to see in Formula One. We wanted to go racing. It is a very sad day for this sport, I would have to say. I am so, so sorry for what we?ve done, because there was a way out. There was a way to create a solution to let us go racing. Yes, it wasn?t the fault of Bridgestone that Michelin had a problem here, but we are all traveling the same circus together and we are all working together, and there has to be a compromise that allows a way of penalizing the Michelin runners and benefiting the Bridgestone runners because of the fault that Michelin had

ianm777 · Post by **ianm777** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:27 pm

What a sad fiasco... Indy 500 will face a considerable set-back as a result

1. Tough call for Michelin but I think they did the right thing in the inerest of SPORT and the safety of the drivers. I complement them.
2. Flying new tyres out would have made life very complicated and could be indicative of favouring Michelin for the race.
3. Team owners (Michelin ones) also did the right thing in terms of favouring the safety of the drivers. BUT they could have done a lot more by forcing Ferrari's hand to join their cause!!
4. The FIA and George and Co. COULD have put in a chicane (a few hours work) and ALL teams would have faced the same challenge and the SPORT of F1 could have been preserved.
5. Shame on Ferrari once again. Their selfish COMMERCIAL attitude was taken to give their failing championship a badly needed boost. They can have NO pride in their action and once again have contributed significantly to destruction of the SPORT of F1. Any respect I had left for Todt has now gone. If they had joined the other teams in the interest of SPORT instead of satisfying their own ego the FIA would have been forced to get on and build that chicane. Its been said before ahame, ahame, shame.
6. If the FIA were even remotely interested in THEIR SPORT (rather than Ferrari) they would study the lap times, called for the team radio transcripts in full and ruled Ferrari out of the results on the basis of team orders.
7. I personally may well revert to V8SuperCars in Australia and give up on the political and COMMERCIAL farce that F1 has become (like I am sure most of the USA have decided to do!). Sad because I have been following F1 since 1960 when Stirling Moss was kind enough to let me have a spark plug for a failing Anglia 105E at the South African Grand Prix in East London.

Finally I guess the maufacturers might just as well get together and have their own F1 equivalent. At least everyone will know that is COMMERCIAL and not trying to act like a SPORT (when convenient).

Cheetah (ianm777)

News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Thoughts on the United States Grand Prix

Driver of the day

There is blame