News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

A farce or an impasse? - The Quali-flyer looks at the events of the 2005 United States Grand Prix. Full Article

I agree with the Quali-flyer.

Were I in an agreeable mood I would probably agree, however at the moment I am not agreeable so I won't agree. I prefer to remain blindly bigoted against the FIA because I find it moreagreeable when feeling so disagreeable. My head hurts

julian mayo wrote:Were I in an agreeable mood I would probably agree, however at the moment I am not agreeable so I won't agree. I prefer to remain blindly bigoted against the FIA because I find it moreagreeable when feeling so disagreeable. My head hurts

I'm not sure your's is the only head that hurts Julian. How would you like to be employed in PR at Michelin USA ?

The Qualiflyer wrote:

julian mayo wrote:Were I in an agreeable mood I would probably agree, however at the moment I am not agreeable so I won't agree. I prefer to remain blindly bigoted against the FIA because I find it moreagreeable when feeling so disagreeable. My head hurts

I'm not sure your's is the only head that hurts Julian. How would you like to be employed in PR at Michelin USA ?

I would be on an extended overseas holiday, address unknown

So most of what the Qualiflyer says is reasonable and moderate, qualities we all agree are the very heart and soul of auto racing

Of course when one of the suppliers stuffs it, everyone (including people who hate their guts! ) should rush to rectify the problem --especially when they only find out about the problem hours before the race is to begin!

My wife --who is only barely reconciled to my mad devotion to racing and who only comes to the F1 event because our seats are far enough back that the noise is acceptable and because the F1 race doesn't take very long-- asked me, as we left in disgust to have an early lunch: "Are they expecting us to believe that they couldn't find ANY tires to race on? In Indianapolis?"

And I had to say, "Yup. They expect us to believe that."

Evidently the Qualiflyer believes it too.

Even though Mushlin CLAIMS (and it is important to point out that it is ONLY THEIR CLAIM!!) that neither the tires they brought (to the FIFTH RUNNING OF THE RACE HERE), NOR the ones they "rushed to the scene" as soon as they realized their original sets were worthless, were able to race. [What, I would like to know, would have been their argument had it rained and, oops, they forgot to bring rain tires?!]

And even though the tires they SAY were unsafe to race, were, evidently, safe enough to QUALIFY on. And even though... blah. blah.

There was an obvious and perfectly logical solution. One ordinary people manage all the time: borrow what you need. Yet, the Qualiflyer says it was impossible for all the cars to run on Bridgestones.

Why? Because they wouldn't "fit"?

Because it would embarrass Mushlin?

Because it would be contrary to Max Mosely's rules?

NO. The reason has nothing to do with Jean Todt. Or Ferrari. Or the FIA.

It's because the "Senior Mushlin person" doesn't have the brains God supplied an earthworm.

He (or she?) imagined that if they could only spin the situation somehow so that they could put the blame on the track, or the difficult Jean Todt, or the absent Max Mosely, or even on the always obnoxious Minardi Team Principal Stoddard, the public wouldn't NOTICE that, in spite of their superior technology and exhaustive research and development, nobody at MUSHLIN GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE THEIR PRODUCT. Nobody at Mushlin realized that the millions of people watching them wouldn't realize that the roll out and parade lap were legal maneuvers implemented to cover up their guilt and pass the blame to someone else.

"Yup!" I had to say to my wife: "They expect us to believe that."

And only today do I learn of Paul Stoddard's agonizing conflict of interest! He had to choose either to do the right (and sportsmanlike! GAG!!) thing and park his machines thus risking being "targeted" by FIA, or suffer the terrible embarrassment of running his pathetic entries the entire 73 laps!

I'm sorry, Qualiflyer, I know you're not responsible for Paul Stoddard, but really, can you believe his Ego? Like Max Mosely gives a damn about what happens to ... Minardi!!??

What is much MORE interesting to me is why Peter Sauber didn't run. At very little risk he could have grabbed a podium and some good points for his team. I know, I know -- he'd be discounting the advice of Mushlin! But why in God's name would you take the word of a team that has just stuffed it BEYOND BELIEF!!?? Why would you think Mushlin's "advice" is any more valid than Paul Stoddard's version of events?

It was a farce all right. But what is most beautiful about this particular farce is that neither Jean Todt, nor his buddy Max Mosely, nor Bernie E., could do a damn thing about it! Mr. Stoddard seems to think Jean Todt could have "fixed things." But suppose Jean Todt had been leading the charge, demanding a chicane, demanding that full points be given to his arch rivals, demanding even that Minardi be started from the front row all in the interest of fairness and sportsmanship. What difference would it have made? What REAL DIFFERENCE?

Once you have qualified all the cars and certified the race course, how can you change the rules and have a fair contest? Period. ANY CHANGE is UNfair BY DEFINITION. Because ANY change advantages some and disadvantages others. When it is a natural change, like Australia's weather this year, we call it "racing luck." When it is monumental human incompetence, well I could tell you what it's called, but I'm too polite.

Enough. F1 doesn't need more rules or more lawyers. F1 needs a leader. And his (or her!) first rule ought to be: "Whiners WILL BE penalized points for every [public] whine they make." The second rule should be even clearer: "Miss a race, for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, and you forfeit the next three contests. That should give you time to put your team in order."

Cheerio and on to France, home of those pesky Mushlins!

Jim Watt

Feels better now, doesn't it Jim?

I agree with Jim as well

I am not suprised that I agree with Jim as such, more that such fine pieces were written up, and agreeing fully with the both of them.

Makes me an oxymoron I guess.

K-D wrote:I am not suprised that I agree with Jim as such, more that such fine pieces were written up, and agreeing fully with the both of them.

Makes me an oxymoron I guess.

.........................................................nah...............I can't do it

Jim Watt wrote: ... My wife --who is only barely reconciled to my mad devotion to racing and who only comes to the F1 event because our seats are far enough back that the noise is acceptable and because the F1 race doesn't take very long-- asked me, as we left in disgust to have an early lunch: "Are they expecting us to believe that they couldn't find ANY tires to race on? In Indianapolis?"

And I had to say, "Yup. They expect us to believe that."

Evidently the Qualiflyer believes it too.
........

Even though Mushlin CLAIMS (and it is important to point out that it is ONLY THEIR CLAIM!!) that neither the tires they brought (to the FIFTH RUNNING OF THE RACE HERE), NOR the ones they "rushed to the scene" as soon as they realized their original sets were worthless, were able to race. [What, I would like to know, would have been their argument had it rained and, oops, they forgot to bring rain tires?!]

And even though the tires they SAY were unsafe to race, were, evidently, safe enough to QUALIFY on. And even though... blah. blah.

There was an obvious and perfectly logical solution. One ordinary people manage all the time: borrow what you need. Yet, the Qualiflyer says it was impossible for all the cars to run on Bridgestones.

Why? Because they wouldn't "fit"?

Because it would embarrass Mushlin?

Because it would be contrary to Max Mosely's rules?

...........

I'm sorry, Qualiflyer, I know you're not responsible for Paul Stoddard, but really, can you believe his Ego? Like Max Mosely gives a damn about what happens to ... Minardi!!??

What is much MORE interesting to me is why Peter Sauber didn't run. At very little risk he could have grabbed a podium and some good points for his team. I know, I know -- he'd be discounting the advice of Mushlin! .........
Jim Watt

Jim,

Some interesting points there. Lets look at them:


I do, indeed, believe there were no tyres at Indy that the Michelin teams could run. Micheln would not approve any of the tyres because, basically, they could not recreate the failures they experienced therefore could not put limits onto the use. The tyres on your car are rated at a particular speed because that is the speed below which normal running (with a safety margin) does not generate catestrophic failure. If you know a failure has occurred and you can't replicate it then you can't apply a rule that says "If you don't do XXX (eg maintain a min tyre pressure) this won't happen.

As for running Bridgestone tyres on all cars - The teams are contracted to their tyre suppliers and are obliged to either use their product or not run. Even with a dispensation from Michelin (which would not have been delivered) the teams would not have switched to Bridgestone. Those Donuts are an integral part of the vehicles suspension system, in a way that simply does not apply to a road car, and the characteristics of the vehicle would have been monumentally changed. Without time to work on the set-up the vehicles would have been unsafe at any speed. The teams do thousands of miles of testing (primarily of tyres) to get the handling dialed in to the car and driver. Have you ever taken bald retreads off your car and replaced them with slicks - or vice versa? The changes to these cars would be of a similar magnitude.

Paul Stoddart would have been crucified by the FIA - he had tyres that were safe and chose not to race. It would take a week for the FIA's lawyers to write out the charge sheet. Paul was prepared to do that as part of a protest movement of 2, knowing the implications, - as a sole focus and easy target of the FIA (who want to blame someone to get the attention off themselves) he was not prepared to do it. Theres a willingness to gamble - then there is being dumb!

Finally Peter Sauber didn't run for the same reason the others didn't - Any incident would have resulted in a law suit where he was not covered by his insurers and at best a 'reckless endangerment' charge would stick. at worst he could have been facing murder charges (and would likely lose).

Michelin bought two tyres to the circuit and they were both too marginal - Bridgestone were more conservative and the results speak for for themselves. Michelin have been more agressive in their approach to tyres all along and the failure rate shows that - It has been a strategy that worked (barring a few injuries that were 'acceptable collateral damage') - till NOW.

julian mayo wrote:

K-D wrote:I am not suprised that I agree with Jim as such, more that such fine pieces were written up, and agreeing fully with the both of them.

Makes me an oxymoron I guess.

.........................................................nah...............I can't do it

KD - Now you have got me blushing. Nobody as astute as you obviously are could be a moron of any colour!

Julian - Just as well you aren't a Michelin executive, people would say you were indecisive!

The Qualiflyer wrote:

julian mayo wrote:

K-D wrote:I am not suprised that I agree with Jim as such, more that such fine pieces were written up, and agreeing fully with the both of them.

Makes me an oxymoron I guess.

.........................................................nah...............I can't do it

KD - Now you have got me blushing. Nobody as astute as you obviously are could be a moron of any colour!

Julian - Just as well you aren't a Michelin executive, people would say you were indecisive!

Or too kind

Jim,

Why would Michelin embarass themselves if they had a safe tyre ?

Running on Bridgestones, well as the Qualiflyer said, it isn't as simple as switching tyres. There are major design issues
And more improtantly, do you think Bridgestone would give Michelin their tyres ? and reveal a lot of their secrets ? That was not an option

With the increasingly bad press the FIA, Michelin and F1 Mgmt. has had to endure following the farcial USGP @ Indy, it wouldn't surprise me if any of them were currently in the witness protection program(or something like that), what, with all the expected lawsuits and bad, bad press they're going through.