US GP fiasco caused by F1 management not Michelin (Opinion)

[gmcg28c]

It is my opinion that the sad situation of the US GP was caused by the governing bodies of F1 and not with Michelin.

I do not believe Michelin or any other component manufacture would resort to a strategy of technical failures in order to promote their products.

The situation has occurred in my opinion by an inadequate set of regulations to deal with such problems.

From time to time in F1, it has often occurred to me that there is not enough thought given to the "what is the action plan, if an atypical situation occurs" when new regulations have been formulated. Like when weather changes during one-lap qualifing sessions or while in parc-ferme leading up to racing, are a few of many examples.

The question begs for me with all that money that is splashed around F1. Is there anybody in the governing bodies whose task it is to think of possible problem scenarios and develop a contingency plan to deal with them if they arise? doesn't seem to be.

This situation of teams withdrawing from races due to safety issues with components occurs regularly in motorsport, only this time two thirds of the race field were dependant and effected by the same shared components.

The arguement of using a control tyre has gained profile since, but I ask how would the situation be addressed if the manufacturer of the control tyre fell into the same problem as Michelin did at this US GP? I would suggest that if there were several different tyre manufactures involved in F1, the situation that Michelin found themselves in would of had a much reduced impact on the event.

I do not believe in a control tyres or other control components for F1. F1 is a premier international league of motorsport and should always be conducted in an open format within a specified design perimeter. Control tyres etc. are for less major categories of motorsport. To introduce a control tyre would slice off one facet of race stategy and consequently slice off a topic of spectator interest about the sport. So far this year with the current tyre rule we have seen much variabilty in the competition and its race outcomes from event to event. I believe F1 is on the right track with this rule, however it is too strictly applied.

As regular spectator I am not privy to the real complexity of the management of F1, however I would like to see a configuation of some of the regulations like this;

keeping current rules basically as they are except;

Reduce with parc-ferme rule to allow minor servicing such as refueling, handling adjustment, wet weather setup, etc, This will allow morning warm up to be re-introduced. also will allow teams to re-adjust race stategy due to changed climate conditions from Saturday to Race day, or because of unexpected performance in qualifying.

Keeping current number of tyres allocated per event but allow the compound choices, and tyre changes during race, but perhaps some restriction on tyre changes while conducting refueling pitstop. This means teams can freely changes tyres as they see fit, however are restricted to carefully managing their ration of tyres for the meeting.

Keep single one-lap dash qualifying session, however convert some of or, all of the 'free' practices into 'recorded timed' practices, as a preliminary qualifying with the best times of these sessions determining the starting order for the one lap qualifying session. This I believe will result in following outcomes;
- Encourages cars to circulate more during these practice sessions
- Do away with 'results from previous race determining starting order for qualifying' rule.( tis' a silly rule, a bit like having drivers run a foot race across the track to cars parked on the other side to start a motor race)
- Restores the 'pure speed' evaluation of light fuel load pace between competitors.
- If one-lap qualifying session is disrupted by major climate changes then the race grid can be declared by reverting back to times recorded in timed practice.
- I believe one-lap qualifying increases the 'driver ability factor' within the sport.
- Creates a low key level of competition during these practice sessions that would increase spectator and media interest for the Friday and Saturday.

[polo2028]

FIA makes F1 fans lose their interests in Formula One.
Firstly, they create this dumb one-lap qualification system.
Then, they set new rules to lower the true speed of F1 cars.

If this continues to happen, I hope all teams would pull out from the FIA Formula One Championship, and set up a new championship not under FIA anymore.

FIA disappoints F1 fans who want to see real racing.

[F1greyhound]

Altogether this season has shown great F1 racing. The new rules look good if Indy was an exception. One lap qualifying makes sure you see each qualifying lap of each driver which is good. However low fuel qualifying would be better. F1 is certainly fast enough to get killed, so why would you want it faster?

FIA might have made more use of their power to make the M teams race Indy. But who knows exactly what would have happened?

FIA most definitely shouldnt have penalized BAR for more than the Imola GP but the team accepted the penalty so ok.

Apart from that they reacted on the negative effect of 2 added laps in Qualifying. So they dont necessarily do a bad job, except Max whose comments are occasionally funny.

GPWC - new name, same problems, less experience, worse result - dont hope for that...

[Julian Mayo]

It is my opinion that the sad situation of the US GP was caused by the governing bodies of F1 and not with Michelin.

I do not believe Michelin or any other component manufacture would resort to a strategy of technical failures in order to promote their products.

The situation has occurred in my opinion by an inadequate set of regulations to deal with such problems.

From time to time in F1, it has often occurred to me that there is not enough thought given to the "what is the action plan, if an atypical situation occurs" when new regulations have been formulated. Like when weather changes during one-lap qualifing sessions or while in parc-ferme leading up to racing, are a few of many examples.

The question begs for me with all that money that is splashed around F1. Is there anybody in the governing bodies whose task it is to think of possible problem scenarios and develop a contingency plan to deal with them if they arise? doesn't seem to be.

This situation of teams withdrawing from races due to safety issues with components occurs regularly in motorsport, only this time two thirds of the race field were dependant and effected by the same shared components.

The arguement of using a control tyre has gained profile since, but I ask how would the situation be addressed if the manufacturer of the control tyre fell into the same problem as Michelin did at this US GP? I would suggest that if there were several different tyre manufactures involved in F1, the situation that Michelin found themselves in would of had a much reduced impact on the event.

I do not believe in a control tyres or other control components for F1. F1 is a premier international league of motorsport and should always be conducted in an open format within a specified design perimeter. Control tyres etc. are for less major categories of motorsport. To introduce a control tyre would slice off one facet of race stategy and consequently slice off a topic of spectator interest about the sport. So far this year with the current tyre rule we have seen much variabilty in the competition and its race outcomes from event to event. I believe F1 is on the right track with this rule, however it is too strictly applied.

As regular spectator I am not privy to the real complexity of the management of F1, however I would like to see a configuation of some of the regulations like this;

keeping current rules basically as they are except;

Reduce with parc-ferme rule to allow minor servicing such as refueling, handling adjustment, wet weather setup, etc, This will allow morning warm up to be re-introduced. also will allow teams to re-adjust race stategy due to changed climate conditions from Saturday to Race day, or because of unexpected performance in qualifying.

Keeping current number of tyres allocated per event but allow the compound choices, and tyre changes during race, but perhaps some restriction on tyre changes while conducting refueling pitstop. This means teams can freely changes tyres as they see fit, however are restricted to carefully managing their ration of tyres for the meeting.

Keep single one-lap dash qualifying session, however convert some of or, all of the 'free' practices into 'recorded timed' practices, as a preliminary qualifying with the best times of these sessions determining the starting order for the one lap qualifying session. This I believe will result in following outcomes;
- Encourages cars to circulate more during these practice sessions
- Do away with 'results from previous race determining starting order for qualifying' rule.( tis' a silly rule, a bit like having drivers run a foot race across the track to cars parked on the other side to start a motor race)
- Restores the 'pure speed' evaluation of light fuel load pace between competitors.
- If one-lap qualifying session is disrupted by major climate changes then the race grid can be declared by reverting back to times recorded in timed practice.
- I believe one-lap qualifying increases the 'driver ability factor' within the sport.
- Creates a low key level of competition during these practice sessions that would increase spectator and media interest for the Friday and Saturday.

V8 supercars have a rule that says you can change tyres, and refuel, but not at the same time. Just a thought

[gmcg28c]

As an Australian I am quite familar with V8 supercars. Yes that right about tyres and fuel at the same time, their rules though vary from meeting to meeting.

V8 Supercars management are very focused on spectator entertainment and have succesfully formulated this categaory to appeal to the local tribal rivalary between Holden(GM) vs Ford. The cars have been carefully developed to have equal parity which includes a control tyre. Infact the cars borrow and share some of the same components to acheive this. teams are virtually only left with a small amount of technical interpretation and the dialling in the cars setup for the circuit to gain a competitive edge.

This created a new problem, the cars all have pretty much the same pace, same handling, the cars circulate around the circuits like a freight train with drivers only opportunity for passing through opponents driving errors. So artifically devised compulsory tyre pitstops were introduced into the sprint races to spice up the action a bit.

One version of the pitstop rule for longer sprint round races is that only two tyres can be changed at a refuel stop with pit entry closed until lap eight. Pitstops at enduros like Bathurst 1000 are unrestricted and are conducted as teams see fit.

V8 Supercars also use an additional one-lap qualifing session after the main qualifing session for the top ten qualifers of that session. This has proved to both media friendly and popular with spectators.

This kind of qualifying format could also work in F1 except by conducting a lap dash session for say the top eight qualifers from an open qualifying session. although this may be complicated with the one engine rule.

[/quote]

[Julian Mayo]

sounds just like the new regs the FIA are proposing for F1, doesn't it!

[Graham Ross]

gmcg28c!

Have you seen the draft 08 regs ?

Julian runs a top 10 competition in the V8's forum, you might want to join in with us. We don't have our scores yet though

[Julian Mayo]

gmcg28c!

Have you seen the draft 08 regs ?

Julian runs a top 10 competition in the V8's forum, you might want to join in with us. We don't have our scores yet though

I suggest you all pm ED every 5 minutes until we get a table

[gmcg28c]

sounds just like the new regs the FIA are proposing for F1, doesn't it!

Yes, I have had I look at them. Does seem as though they are heading down that path.

I agree with the majority of the suggestions, but do not agree with a control tyre (as I have mentioned in to opening post of this thread) or control gearbox's or brake systems that are provided by single FIA designated supplier.
Any component can be made to conform to meet a specified requirement, just the same as the current engine rule. So gearboxs or brake systems or any other component can required to last a number of meeting. This forces the engineers to design these components to function as a good allrounder, rather than a specifically designed to suit only a particular circuit.

I do agree with the proposed control ECU, I think this is a good option for the empiring of the sport.

I agree with testing restrictions. V8 Supercars are heavily restricted when it comes to testing. Perhaps all the testing could be done at each event similar to the third car rule on the Friday or even include the Thursday beforehand.

One proposal not mentioned was the number of pit crew allowed to service a car at a pit stop, In V8 Supercars I think only 6 persons can be in the pitlane to attend to a pitstop. and the V8 boys can do fuel and tyres in the same sort of times as F1. At Bathurst 1000 they must do a brake pad change at some point in the race as well.

There are ways to reduce costs, without eliminating the teams options of competitive strategy.

[Julian Mayo]

I am sure the techno boys in each team will strive to exert their "individuality", to get an advantage.

[BOB]

Fact (1) Michelin is a global corporate bully.
Fact (2) Be under no illusion, that most of the michelin-shod teams wanted
to race but were under duress of the said company. Had they raced, their
life expectancy, comercial and sporting value would have been deminished
and possibly extinguished.
Fact (3) Who would run this new F1 world order ? The manufacturere's ?
Have they not proven themselves for what they are ?
I follow Minardi, a minnow in F1 waters. I follow M. Webber, a driver who
most likely will never be a world champion. Like many followers of F1,
I am biased to a certain degree, but I must defend FIA and Ferrari.
Why should Ferrari allow itself to be dissadvantaged ?
Why should FIA bend itself backwards and break its own rules to
please Michelins political agenda ? Because that's what it is, nothing
to do with the sport we love. Someone enlighten me ?

[Julian Mayo]

Fact (1) Michelin is a global corporate bully.
Fact (2) Be under no illusion, that most of the michelin-shod teams wanted
to race but were under duress of the said company. Had they raced, their
life expectancy, comercial and sporting value would have been deminished
and possibly extinguished.
Fact (3) Who would run this new F1 world order ? The manufacturere's ?
Have they not proven themselves for what they are ?
I follow Minardi, a minnow in F1 waters. I follow M. Webber, a driver who
most likely will never be a world champion. Like many followers of F1,
I am biased to a certain degree, but I must defend FIA and Ferrari.
Why should Ferrari allow itself to be dissadvantaged ?
Why should FIA bend itself backwards and break its own rules to
please Michelins political agenda ? Because that's what it is, nothing
to do with the sport we love. Someone enlighten me ?

In the cool harsh light of day BOB, the problem I have with the FIA and " Mad Max" is that IMHO, they are charged with the duty of administering the sport in THE BEST POSSIBLE manner for the competitors and fans alike. They have consistantly failed., eg in drafting commonsense administerable regulations. At Indy the FIA had the opportunity to show leadership and solve the problem caused BY MICHELIN. That is, The FIA should have discharged their duty by negotiating a solution to the best possible satisfaction of ALL the teams, and the FANS. They did not. Again this is my IMHO.

[tullain]

FIA did offer a solution. Michelin cars you can race and will have to adjust your speeds in turn 13 to ensure your cars can complete the race. This isn't any different from any other race meeting where you arrive with the wrong setup under the current rules to be competitive. ( the rules may be dumb, but they are still the rules and all teams are aware of them.)

Even if they raced at 1 km/h at least 2 of the 14 Michelin cars would have scored potentially vital World Championship points.

So.. the question is really what was the larger political motivation of the players in effectively trying to stage a strike at what everyone knows was a huge profile event for F1. Tyres was just a convinient issue for the teams to flex their muscles over Bernie and the FIA , this showdown has been brewing for ages.

This was clearly Michelin's fault for bringing the wrong equipment. And just as clearly the Michelin teams fault for then playing their game of brinksmanship with FIA and then effectively striking.

[Julian Mayo]

FIA did offer a solution. Michelin cars you can race and will have to adjust your speeds in turn 13 to ensure your cars can complete the race. This isn't any different from any other race meeting where you arrive with the wrong setup under the current rules to be competitive. ( the rules may be dumb, but they are still the rules and all teams are aware of them.)

Even if they raced at 1 km/h at least 2 of the 14 Michelin cars would have scored potentially vital World Championship points.

So.. the question is really what was the larger political motivation of the players in effectively trying to stage a strike at what everyone knows was a huge profile event for F1. Tyres was just a convinient issue for the teams to flex their muscles over Bernie and the FIA , this showdown has been brewing for ages.

This was clearly Michelin's fault for bringing the wrong equipment. And just as clearly the Michelin teams fault for then playing their game of brinksmanship with FIA and then effectively striking.

Are you hinting that Michelin might have, knowing they did not have a competitive tyre, asked Toyota to select a crash dummy ( who else but Ralf?)then staged the whole thing to be the single tyre supplier for the Manufacturers when they split? OOOOOhhhh, I luv a good conspiracy, and there really has not been a good one since JFK

[tullain]

Not at all. I think Michelin stuffed up and brought the wrong tires. Somewhere someone within Michelin was getting a right royal kicking on Monday morning. I am sure they have in their inventory some F1 tires capable of running that course and surviving the requisite number of laps.

Realising the level of their stuff up decided with the team principals to try to bully FIA into a last minute rule change to get them off the hook. I would assume they thought with 70% of the cars at risk they had a strong enough bargaining position to get their way.

I absolutely am sure that the very last thing Michelin wanted was to in front of the multi-billion person audience claimed for F1 to have to stand up and say "sorry our product is defective and isn't capable of working safely at all unlike our arch competitor Bridgestone". Equally I am sure that nobody would ever intentionally send a driver out to crash into a concrete wall at any speed let alone the speeds through turn 13 at Indy.

No conspiracy sadly, just a huge stuff up, and then a very bad miscalculation by the Michelin teams on how far they could push FIA that I am sure is part of the bigger push for who will control F1 going forward (there's where your conspiracy probably is... ).