Safe Speed Forums

Of course they had a point.

But in the interests of the sport, if the FIA really wanted to they could have put a solution in place to allow a race to go ahead.

What was wrong with
1. Allowing the Michelin runners to use different tyres, on the agreement that they would score no points if they did so (or perhaps be awarded some other penalty agreed by all). There was I believe unanimous agreement from the Michelin runners to do this.
2. Admit protests from all the teams, so that the whole issue could be thrashed out on appeal later, without the need to destroy the race on the day.

In the absence of them taking an easy option as above, I lean towards the conclusion that Bernie made the choice he did for political advantage, as mentioned in my earlier post.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Ultimatley it boiled down to
1. Do we enforce the rules no matter how damaging it might be for the sport overall
2. Do we step back from the recriminations and who may or may not have been previosuly penalised, pull together and put on a race for one of the most highly critical audiences in the world.

Option 1 won the day, and ultimately it will be F1's loss.

By the way, there's a blame poll at http://www.itv-f1.com/Home.aspx. The FIA are winning something at least.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

No prob mate. It just becomes a little predictable that's all.

Going back to the issue, it seems obvious to me that anything the teams can't manufacture for themselves and which can have a significant effect on the cars safety should be sourced from a single supplier. Thus, a problem that may affect one team then affects them all - they then have to pull together or just not race.
Tyres are one of the most obvious components that fall into this category.
I think Mitchelin are finshed with F1 for now.

Just as an aside, imagine the pressure on the Mitchelin rep responsible for making the declaration that their tyres could not be used in the race. He must have realised he was signing away their contract with F1 teams, if not at that point then later on when it became clear the FIA were not going to compromise.

The final compromise offered by the Michelin running teams was that they would forego their championship points if the chicane was put in place, so the above point is invalid.

The idea of deliberately slowing at a part of the track that is capable of carrying some cars considerably faster is in itself a safety concern. How slow would be safe? Would some of the Michelin drivers be tempted to push the envelope?

The chicane and points foregoing would have allowed at least a semblence of a 'race' to continue for the benefit of the spectators while achieving probably the same 'result' as actually happened. The only good reason for not implementing this solution was to embarrass the teams involved and show them who is boss.

It backfired!

Yeah exactly. Supposing Alonso is pushing Raikkonen..how far would each have been prepared to go to grab the points?

The absurd thing is that this was a clear safety issue. Just 11 years ago Ayrton Senna died horrificaly in front of a world-wide TV audience. You'd think these lessons would sink through the thick skulls at the FIA wouldn't you? But no, they offer a mish-mash of solutions at least two of which could have ended in disaster.

Not really (IMO).

Ultimately it boiled down to the FIA bowing to legal threats from Ferrari. And who could blame them for that when Ferrari would have a winning case?

I've had to read between the lines to draw this conclusion, but it seems clear enough to me.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Well Ok, perhaps this was a significant factor but ultimately the 'rules' won the day over sportsmanship and the bigger picture.
Ferrari, for all of their continuous chicanery, inflexibility when it suits them, and flexibility (rule bending - remember the Schumacher drive-through penalty completed on the last lap at Silverstone?) again when it suits them are deserving of nothing but contempt. They will be repaid in spades one day.

What grounds would Ferrari have had to threaten legal action if the 'punishment' of relinquishing their championship points had already been metered out to the teams Ferrari would have a complaint against? The Bridgestone teams were even offered the compromise of being allowed to go to the front of the grid to avoid a 'start-line' accident that might have jeapordised their guarenteed points.

Ultimately, Ferrari arrived at Indianapolis with an unfair advantage and pre-knowledge of the track conditions, but the FIA wanted everyone to think it was an error by Michelin....

That still doesnt' really work does it though? Either the other cars are racing or they aren't. Would they be guaranteed to get blue-flagged should a pit-stop put one ahead of a "points eligible" car? What if a "racing incident" should result in a Michelin car accidentally and unpredictably taking out a Ferrari? You can't really have a track filled with 14 cars testing, and six others fighting for World Championship points.

No, whilst Ferrari's insistence was clearly harsh and contrary to the best interests of the sport, you can hardly blame them. It's not really their fault that the sport has been systematically pruned away from it's roots in gentlemantly sportsmanship and transplanted into the current commercial cesspit that is the FIA. After all, they are in business to make money.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Okay, I see what you're saying. But in the end Michelin brought substandard tyres, so in their position I wouldn't feel I had the right to dictate the terms of the compromise solution. Suggest by all means, but in the end accept what's offered. I don't think any of the proposed compromises (from either side) were ideal, many of them would more or less neuter the event as far as an exciting spectacle went, but I was least keen on Michelin's proposals. Bugger up the single stand out feature of the circuit because they'd brought cack kit? Cheeky sods. They could have raced and scored points if they'd been prepared to change tyres in the pits probably three times in the race. And God knows the pitstops need livening up some this year.


Maybe that went on behind a very firmly closed door, but we'll never know and I doubt it. The Ferrari bod they spoke to on what passed for race coverage said that they were up for a race with or without a chicane, and that they'd abide by whatever the FIA decided. I suspect some sucking up to the FIA who have created many of these daft regs in an attempt to halt the Ferrari dominance. I think Ferrari were hoping that not siding with the other teams against the FIA would get them a small gold star for when the next set of rules are drafted. Were they acting in self interest? Yeah, sure, I expect so, but no more than anyone else.

I'm quick to damn Ferrari when they screw up and embarrass the sport, mainly because I'm a twenty year Ferrari fan rather than in spite of it. They drove me round the bend in the late 80s and early 90s. Williams and McLaren were taking it in turns to win for a few years at a time and Ferrari could just about make a car that usually wouldn't fall apart until the end of the race. In recent years it's been Williams and McLaren producing crap and Ferrari have made decent cars, which suits me fine mostly. But the silly bastards will keep creating bad press for themselves, and they're getting close to the point where their fans will be shamed into following other teams. They've done it so bloody often, like at Indianapolis and Austria in 02, they shouldn't be surprised that fingers are pointing at them now even when it's the FIA and Michelin who created the situation. IMO Brawn and Todt should have binned it once they saw the Michelin runners go in, but greedily took the give away points. They tried to keep their heads down and out of the row, but they're so desperate for points this year they took advantage in the end and have come up covered in shit yet again . They had a slight chance of coming out of this looking good, or at least no worse than before, but they botched it. A pointless exercise all round as I think Ferrari's cars just aren't good enough to win this year.

As for having an unfair advantage... again, we'll never know. Ferrari have been absolute also-rans this year, and have looked second or third rate behind Renault and McLaren. They got cocky thinking last years car would do for the first few races, took too damn long getting the new car out and the new car still hasn't been good enough? Would that have been different yesterday in a proper race. Ferrari are saying yes, and that they'd have won anyway. I say corporate bullshit! For the first time in several years they haven't built a good enough car and are having a hard time facing the fact. I don't think they had an unfair advantage going in as the surface change wasn't exactly a state secret. What they certainly did do was take an unfair advantage when the Michelin teams offered it by retiring. Whoever it was at Ferrari who made that decision wants kicking out on their arse, along with Ecclestone, Mosley, DuPasquier (sp?) and everyone who was busy turning the race into a pissing contest.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Actually, I think Gatsobait does have a point there - even if there weren't any points up for grabs, I suspect any of the Michelin-shod teams would have been more than happy to claim the race victory and get their driver (and sponsor logos) on the podium for the world to see.

Who scored what points at which race is something for the statisticians to ponder over, ultimately I think the racing fans are only interested in two things - the winner of each race and the winner of the championship. Would it have taken much, if anything, away from a Michelin-shod victory if they hadn't picked up any points? I don't think so.

It was Pedro de la Rosa, third driver for McLaren, who hinted at the issue regarding preparation for the changed characteristics of the Indianapolis circuit when he was interviewed before the race start and mentioned that Michelin had nowhere in Europe with the same conditions to test their tyres in advance.

Bridgestone had had the experience of running their tyres on the circuit's new surface three weeks previous and had to make modifications to their tyres then. By benefit of supplying tyres to teams in another race series (where they actually experienced the same problems as Michelin did) they inadvertently benefitted and effectively circumvented the rules over tyre supply introduced in F1 this year.

I see what you're saying, but I still don't agree that any advantage was unfair. I don't know how much the difference in the two series would water down the value of that knowledge, but there's a better reason why it was not an unfair advantage. Had Michelin gone in blind or had there been any efforts made to keep Michelin from finding out, then any advantage would certainly have been unfair. But the change of surface was public, and Red Bull, Honda and Toyota all competed in the Indy 500 on Firestones and would have been aware of the issues. Even if Michelin had been fast asleep and not heard about the Firestones at the Indy 500, Honda, Red Bull and Toyota would surely have told them. Failing to do so would be cutting your own throat. So if Michelin knew about the new surface and the tyres at the Indy 500, and I can't believe they didn't know, then it would have been prudent to send a bloke in a white coat out to have a shufty. I'd be very surprised if this didn't happen, but if they didn't go or if they did but got their sums wrong, then I'm sorry but they disadvantaged themselves. Could be a corporate thing - the ITV mob, who are less than enthusiastic about Ferrari's dominance, did say that Michelin and Bridgestone construct tyres in different ways, Bridgestone tending to be "more conservative" (I think that was the phrase).

In any event, advance knowledge of circuit conditions is hardly unprecedented. We heard the same noises last year at Sakhir and Shanghai. IIRC Williams had a car out for the opening ceremony of the Sakhir circuit, which Ferrari had a whine about. And at Shanghai Ferrari were there for the opening ceremony, and everyone who wasn't had a whine about that. Given last year's Ferrari I don't think any of it changed a damn thing, and a difference that makes no difference is no difference. Going back to this weekend, Bridgestone and Ferrari, and to a lesser extent the other two Bridgestone teams certainly would have had some advance knowledge and therefore some advantage, but I don't think that this qualifies as unfair if Michelin knew about it, which they surely did. What Bridgestone and Ferrari (and to a much lesser extent the other two teams) did do was take an unfair advantage the minute they carried on racing after the Michelin teams retired. And the way Ferrari handled it afterwards was pretty bad too. Greedy, shameful and embarrassing and not what Ferrari fans want to see. Well, certainly not this one.

I've supported Ferrari through thick and thin for over twenty years, and in that time there's been more thin than thick. They were the undrdogs when I started watching, which is why I started supporting them. But some of their recent behaviour has made me think about chucking away my red hat. I can forgive them when they lose but it's harder to forgive them when they tarnish an historic name. Austria and US GPs in 2002 spring to mind - I haven't quite forgiven them for those two particular displays yet - and those aren't isolated incidents sadly. But fair dues, not every criticism is deserved. Last year's boredom, and 02s come to that, was the fault of their competitors building crap cars. I don't recall the same criticisms when Williams dominated most of the 80s or when McLaren dominated most of the 90s (winning every single race bar one in 92 IIRC). And this weekend Ferrari's disgrace comes solely from captilising on the cock ups of others. Ferrari bashing is fashionable at the moment, and I'm ashamed to say it's often deserved. But I want to see 'em bashed for the right reasons.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I've read through the posts with interest, waiting to see if somebody asked "Why do we watch Formula 1?"
Is it to see the best cars piloted at high speeds around challenging tracks, or is it to see who is the best driver on the various tracks?

Over the last two seasons, I have barely watched 6 races - restricting myself to watching highlights of races where I had seen race reports first.
Frankly, it has become boring and predictable. If you have SKY, you can watch Kart racing, Indycar racing, and European Saloon Car racing - all of which are ten times more thrilling than F1.
This season, after the starting races, I felt the new rules had finally put a new wrinkle of entertainment in the mix, but as it has progressed, it has become all about beating the rule book once more - hidden fuel tanks, weights etc.

Bring back the DUNLOP-ROVER TOURING CAR Championship for some REAL excitement. Seat gripping stomach lifting EXCITEMENT guaranteed!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I watch it to see close competitive racing, which is why I barely watch it these days, like Ernest restricting myself to the edited highlights on a Sunday night, though I find this barely keeps me from nodding off!

As little as five years ago I'd have directed disenfranchised F1 viewers to go and watch the pinnacle of my beloved sport - the World Rally Championship. But alas this too has now been turned into a commercial circus these days and is no longer worthy of the name. Where F1 has Bernie Ecclestone, the WRC has Dave Richards!

So these days if I want to see exciting rallying I go and watch a good club level event (or take part myself - no better place to spectate than in the navigator's seat!). If I want to see good racing I stick to watching either the World Superbikes or the MotoGP, and wonder how long it will be before these excellent spectator sports also prostitute themselves to corporate greed.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Just to add a little twist to the tale - Frank Williams, interviewed by PitPass revealed that Bernie Ecclestone actually backed the building of a chicane, and called the FIA representative Charlie Whiting on the Saturday night before the race and told him to "get on with it".

Now, it seems that Ferrari weren't consulted over the building of a chicane as the FIA refused to entertain the idea, despite there being several precedents for it, but Jean Todt stated that if he had been asked he would have refused anyway.

Ferrari's permission wasn't needed though as the FIA could have imposed the changes on the grounds of safety as the rules allow this, but they chose not to. So it appears that the FIA were indeed protecting the interests of Ferrari - the chicane could have been built and a race would have gone ahead and Ferrari could have contested the result later if they felt a rule had been broken (which indeed it wouldn't have).

Both sides played by the rules, Bernie backed a race going ahead, and it seems that the FIA chose which side to come down on.

The list of trumped-up charges the FIA are now trying to haul the seven Michelin teams up for are petty and subjective. The issue of failing to bring adequate tyres is a performance related one - does this mean that in future a team that fails to bring adequate engines/suspension/brakes that result in a potentially dangerous failure could find themselves on a similar charge?

What unbelievable arrogance.

Yup, as I feared. The FIA screwed up and are "charging" Michelin and their teams with bringing the sport into disrepute and other crap that they themselves are at least as gulity of, and IMO far more so. For "charging" I think we can read "decided on their guilt on the plane home". So that's BAR-Honda probably kicked out on there arses then having been banned already this season and warned to toe the line.

Unbelievable arrogance describes it exactly. Who charges the FIA over the damage they've done to the sport? If the Michelin gets hammered or there are further bans I'm turning off for at least the rest of this year. And after reading Jean Todt's remarks the red hat is hereby in the bin until the arrogant arsehole learns to wind his f ing neck in or leaves the sport.

Edit: I've just seen what the FIA is charging the teams with. Some creative use of the rule book there. So let's see, when BAR-Honda do some creative interpretation and the stewards allow it, the FIA chuck a wobbly, change... er, clarify the rule retroactively and punish the team. But the FIA can creatively use the rule that says a team intending to withdraw for safety reasons has to tell the stewards at least 45 minutes before the start. There might have been no official notification but for crying out loud, the teams had been in meetings with the FIA about it all bloody day. ITV knew it was a possibility at the start of their program nearly an hour before it hit the fan. The FIA can hardly claim it came as a surprise when the TV mob were telling the world about it

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

1 - true, with the track changes whose fault that is, is open to debate still i think.
2 - subjective, see 3
3 - subjective & arguably a safety issue for the teams as discussed
4 - parade lap is part of the race, technically they all started and then retired on safety grounds.
5 - possibly, see 4!