RE: Indianapolis F1: eye-witness report
Discussion
Several people have referred to times past when the leather helmeted brigade would probably have raced on with no tyres on their wheels.
Very true. But back then F1 was a pretty obscure sport, as indeed the IOM TT event is today as far as the general public are concerned - unless a few people die and the press get interested.
However in the last 40 years or so attitudes have changed somewhat and drivers and owners realised that safety was something that could be achieved - at least to a substantially higher degree than ever before.
Now you can still have accidents and you can still have unexpected failures. Those are the reasonable risks of the game, though the incidents of tyre issues at some circuits this year seem to have been somewhat more prevalent than for some time and affect both suppliers. Perhaps the unintended consequences of the current rules.
However, starting a race with a known risk and an an unknown cause when the majority of the cars could be at risk was clearly something that was unacceptable. No matter what the image of F1 is likely to be in the future it wouold surely not have been better if someone in the pack had blown a tyre on the third lap and taken out half the field. If it's a racing accident or driver error or a previously unseen failure of equipment it's a risk to be taken. But to go in knowing there might be a problem, especially in the USA with its high liability damages, would be unthinkable.
You might just go for it anyway at somewhere like Dubai since the distance to be travelled before the accident can hit anything very hard builds in a degree of additional safety. Indy is obviously less forgiving in that respect and I suspect that F1 chassis' are less likely to be designed with the safety of a driver after hitting a concrete wall so much in mind. Hence Schumacher, R's shunt looked very sudden compared to a typical oval circuit accident which suggests that comparisons of open wheel formula racing at the same track might not be reasonable either.
No matter how you look at it it was a farce. Maybe F1 should have only one controlled tyre. Ferrari would then not be 'disdavantaged' by being the only team testing for Bridgestone and it the tyre were unsafe there would clearly be much more likelihood of all the teams agreeing a compromise solution.
Seems to make sense to me. But then I don't suppose this sort of tyre thing will ever be a regular occurrence - unless the rules tend to make it so.
Very true. But back then F1 was a pretty obscure sport, as indeed the IOM TT event is today as far as the general public are concerned - unless a few people die and the press get interested.
However in the last 40 years or so attitudes have changed somewhat and drivers and owners realised that safety was something that could be achieved - at least to a substantially higher degree than ever before.
Now you can still have accidents and you can still have unexpected failures. Those are the reasonable risks of the game, though the incidents of tyre issues at some circuits this year seem to have been somewhat more prevalent than for some time and affect both suppliers. Perhaps the unintended consequences of the current rules.
However, starting a race with a known risk and an an unknown cause when the majority of the cars could be at risk was clearly something that was unacceptable. No matter what the image of F1 is likely to be in the future it wouold surely not have been better if someone in the pack had blown a tyre on the third lap and taken out half the field. If it's a racing accident or driver error or a previously unseen failure of equipment it's a risk to be taken. But to go in knowing there might be a problem, especially in the USA with its high liability damages, would be unthinkable.
You might just go for it anyway at somewhere like Dubai since the distance to be travelled before the accident can hit anything very hard builds in a degree of additional safety. Indy is obviously less forgiving in that respect and I suspect that F1 chassis' are less likely to be designed with the safety of a driver after hitting a concrete wall so much in mind. Hence Schumacher, R's shunt looked very sudden compared to a typical oval circuit accident which suggests that comparisons of open wheel formula racing at the same track might not be reasonable either.
No matter how you look at it it was a farce. Maybe F1 should have only one controlled tyre. Ferrari would then not be 'disdavantaged' by being the only team testing for Bridgestone and it the tyre were unsafe there would clearly be much more likelihood of all the teams agreeing a compromise solution.
Seems to make sense to me. But then I don't suppose this sort of tyre thing will ever be a regular occurrence - unless the rules tend to make it so.
flemke said:
If Ferrari had sided with the other nine teams, do you think that the FIA would have persisted in their (Max's) childish and hypocritical refusal to install a chicane and thus required the race to be cancelled?
So Ferrari are at fault for not getting involved? This is not a Ferrari issue no matter how much some people try to involve them. Ferrari turned up with a competitive package, avoided the politics (for once) and raced. Personally I think the chicane idea was always going to be difficult to implement, but the decision not to allow it was taken by the FIA. Not Ferrari and not Bernie.
Michelin should be blamed for this fiasco. They supplied the wrong tyres for the race and rather than let their teams be humiliated by running at a speed their tyre could sustain chose to force the withdrawal of those teams from the race.
david_s said:
Michelin should be blamed for this fiasco. They supplied the wrong tyres for the race and rather than let their teams be humiliated by running at a speed their tyre could sustain chose to force the withdrawal of those teams from the race.
That is the crux of the problem. Michelin failed to provide the correct tyres. Ok, so they didnt quite anticipate the issues - track temperature etc. But, as a few people have commented, this is big business. Failure for a global manufacturer like Michelin to apprechiate the issues is, quite frankly, shocking.
So they didnt bring the right tyres - yeah, but they should have had contingency to cover this. No if's or but's.... they should have had this covered. I mean, how much "stuff" do they have to shift about? Surely couldnt they have stuck a few sets "just in case". Considering the issues which might arise, I would consider this essential... its risk management at the end of the day.
But, what is the outcome? I feel that F1 in the USA is dead. I suspect that even Canada may suffer, but thats a seperate issue. However, its Michelin that will pay for this. Ok, its unlikely that Michelin's business will be affected in the short term. But think 6-12 months in the future.... when an enthusiast owner of an M3 for example comes to replace his tyres. The seeds of doubt have been sown and, rightly or wrongly, they may choose to not go with Michelin this time. They may try an alternative...... customers are a fickle bunch at the best of time, and once the rumour passes into folklore its unlikely to be broken (see petrol station explosions due to mobile phones for example). This will haunt Michelin for years...
In the meantime, expect to see a bucket load of Michelin ads on TV as an attempt to limit the brand damage that this has caused....
So now the FIA has filed charges against all the Michelin teams for not running. I suppose we'll see them up before the FIA's pet court next and all banned... That'd really be good for the sport.
I think the FIA realise that there is a real chance they're losing control of the sport and they're trying to demonstrate how powerful they are. With any luck that attitude will ensure their own downfall and we'll be able to get back to some real racing in a couple of years time. In the meantime, the politics are quite entertaining too.
I think the FIA realise that there is a real chance they're losing control of the sport and they're trying to demonstrate how powerful they are. With any luck that attitude will ensure their own downfall and we'll be able to get back to some real racing in a couple of years time. In the meantime, the politics are quite entertaining too.
www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15080.html Makes for some interesting reading too. Whats the betting that the current Michelin tyres are found to be inherently 'dangerous' and so get banned. This hands the advantage to Bridgestone and Ferrari so they can get on with winning the world championship. Its just like 2003 all over again.
well im afraid i was at indy for the weekend fortunately i am working over here so did not have the expence some had, i'm afraid i have read this report and think i was at another race WHAT A LOAD OF SHI** i think whoever wrote it must have been drunk or on drugs. i sat at turn 1 throughout the race i wittnessed 4 maybe 5 cans hit the fence only 2 managed to make it over and these were clear of the racing line the biggest farce of the day was the lack of information available to the public i had access via phone to some good sorces so was informed its a shame di** heads like this get the chance to put pen to paper
Did you ever think F1 was about sport? Think again... The effort to level the chances because Ferrari was winning too often proves it. They should get back to grass root rules, tracks without open spaces, and less rules and limits...But hey, this is the same reason that I think that Aussi style football is more interesting than American football...its just more realistic....
off_again said:
In the meantime, expect to see a bucket load of Michelin ads on TV as an attempt to limit the brand damage that this has caused....
Sorry, there is NO brand damage in the USA. 99% of the US population didn't see the race or intend to and therefore didn't care anyway, and those that do know that it was far more responsible to admit an error and be cautious than have a lot of very adverse publicity from a serious injury or death.
Those of us who have worked with Michelin on OE Engineering for tyres know them to be a first rate company. It really won't make a difference to their sales for OE or aftermarket; definitely for the USA, but almost certainly for the rest of the world too.
>> Edited by GavinPearson on Wednesday 22 June 00:23
thirsty said:
mrloudly said:
"In the stands it felt as though they wanted to kill someone."
How unusual for the Americans
Oh yeah right !! ... Let's not talk about British football yobs that leave a wake of destruction every time their team loses....
That touched a raw nerve, say anyone seen any english footy yobs invading other countries lately???
>> Edited by sgt^roc on Tuesday 21st June 22:48
simonrockman said:Thanks, Simon, for sharing this link.
www.fia-amd-survey2005.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/210605-01.html
For the FIA now to point the finger so chastisingly at the teams is at the same time nauseating and entirely predictable.
Over the last several years as he has become ever-drunker with power, Mosley has on numerous occasions violated the terms of the Concorde Agreement. Indeed this was the reason that Williams and McLaren sued the FIA two years ago.
Changes to the rules regarding technology require unamimous agreement amongst the ten teams. Whenever Son of Oswald has wanted to cram down the teams' throats his latest cockamamie idea, he has got round the unanimity rule by invoking the only exception to it: SAFETY.
Eight-cylinder engines, two-race engines, even one set of tyres per race - all dictated to the teams under the pretext of safety.
If safety is truly the paramount concern of the FIA, can anyone explain how it would be safe for fourteen Michelin-shod cars to drive side-by-side around turn 13 for seventy-whatever times just a bit more slowly than they would do on a normal qualifying lap?
How much more slowly? More slowly starting where? More slowly ending where? What if the track temperature changes during the race? What if the track's abrasiveness evolves during the race, either increasing or decreasing?
And of course the Michelin runners wouldn't have the opportunity to practice the go-slow technique, have the engineers study the tyre degradation, and make intelligent assessments about how to manage the situation. No, they would just have to wing it.
That's really safe.
Just read through some of the correspondece from FIA, and gone through a quite a few reports on the matter.
It seems FIA actually offered to allow Michelin teams to race a different set of [Michelin] tyres, albeit having to accept a penalty for doing so.
I couldn't find out what the penalty was (perhaps someone out there can tell me?) but why didn't they accept this proposal, among others? After all, the teams already offered to race without earning points. What penalty could have been so bad that they weren't willing to fall on their swords "for the interest of the sport?"
Seems to me the Michelin-based teams have only succeeding in slapping the (totally unsuspecting) punters in the face by doing a parade lap, then diving into the pits - just to make a point. They had the option to accept proposals that stayed within the established rules and didn't penalise teams who had nothing to do with Michelin's inadequate tyre design.
Why should the FIA change its rules to accommodate Michelin's cock-up (though they dealt with the situation correctly, IMHO)? If some other wealthy team was on Bridgestones instead of Ferarri, would we still be slagging off that team in the same way?
It's true we'll move on from this quickly, but how pathetic it is. I hope it's nice and cozy way up there in their bungholes.
It seems FIA actually offered to allow Michelin teams to race a different set of [Michelin] tyres, albeit having to accept a penalty for doing so.
I couldn't find out what the penalty was (perhaps someone out there can tell me?) but why didn't they accept this proposal, among others? After all, the teams already offered to race without earning points. What penalty could have been so bad that they weren't willing to fall on their swords "for the interest of the sport?"
Seems to me the Michelin-based teams have only succeeding in slapping the (totally unsuspecting) punters in the face by doing a parade lap, then diving into the pits - just to make a point. They had the option to accept proposals that stayed within the established rules and didn't penalise teams who had nothing to do with Michelin's inadequate tyre design.
Why should the FIA change its rules to accommodate Michelin's cock-up (though they dealt with the situation correctly, IMHO)? If some other wealthy team was on Bridgestones instead of Ferarri, would we still be slagging off that team in the same way?
It's true we'll move on from this quickly, but how pathetic it is. I hope it's nice and cozy way up there in their bungholes.
@ LongQ : you may be right, but what also has changed since the leather helmet brigade is that F1 used to be the pinnacle of car technology. Now it is the pinnacle of making up rules to hold back technology.
Once the public notices this, the image will be gone too -as will the reason to participate.
@ sgt^roc : Iraq springs to mind
Once the public notices this, the image will be gone too -as will the reason to participate.
@ sgt^roc : Iraq springs to mind
david_s said:David,
If Ferrari had sided with the other nine teams, do you think that the FIA would have persisted in their (Max's) childish and hypocritical refusal to install a chicane and thus required the race to be cancelled?
So Ferrari are at fault for not getting involved? This is not a Ferrari issue no matter how much some people try to involve them. Ferrari turned up with a competitive package, avoided the politics (for once) and raced. Personally I think the chicane idea was always going to be difficult to implement, but the decision not to allow it was taken by the FIA. Not Ferrari and not Bernie.
Michelin should be blamed for this fiasco. They supplied the wrong tyres for the race and rather than let their teams be humiliated by running at a speed their tyre could sustain chose to force the withdrawal of those teams from the race.
I am just trying to reply to your question.
Everyone accepts that Michelin screwed up - they alone caused the problem. Furthermore, no one has suggested that the rules should have been skewed to compensate the Michelin teams for their faulty equipment. Ergo, it was conceded at a relatively early stage that Ferrari would come away with maximum points (even the most cynical of us didn't expect the two red cars to nearly take each other out).
The criticism that some such as I direct towards Ferrari is not whether they deserved to win and get their eighteen points, nor is it whether they deserve credit for being better prepared than the others.
Our criticism is centred on Ferrari's apparent indifference to the fans. If the only teams that could potentially compete against Ferrari were prepared to concede maximum points (while forgoing any at all for themselves), why exactly was Ferrari unwilling to take the high road that Minardi and Jordan initially took?
To be sure, Ferrari had nothing to do with creating the problem. At the same time, looking from the outside, it appears that Ferrari had the opportunity to salvage the situation, and to give a great service to the truly innocent - those people who, by the way, were paying for the whole thing. Ferrari could have grasped that opportunity, with no cost to themselves, yet they spurned it.
For an outfit that claims to have earned the most exalted place in motorsports history, and which actually gets subsidies from the other nine teams for its "historical contributions to the sport", Ferrari chose a course that was entirely legitimate, but was selfish and weak.
If you want to be treated with respect, you have to earn it.
thirsty said:
Oh yeah right !! ... Let's not talk about British football yobs that leave a wake of destruction every time their team loses....
[/quote]
British fans don't do this anymore. I don't like football but my kids do and I've now been to quite a few matches. There is a genuinely good atmosphere. I wouldn't take a seven year old to a match if it wasn't 100% safe.
Although at Indy the chap who most got up my nose was a drunk Liverpuddlian.
Simon.
What if the FIA decides to impose penalties on the teams?
Unless it is miniscule the teams will tell the FIA to take a hike.
If the FIA sues the teams they will lose in court.
If the teams are banned there is no series and F1 is forever dead, as would be the FIA.
I thought Balestre was bad, but these actions are going to kill a sport with an already weak pulse.
Unless it is miniscule the teams will tell the FIA to take a hike.
If the FIA sues the teams they will lose in court.
If the teams are banned there is no series and F1 is forever dead, as would be the FIA.
I thought Balestre was bad, but these actions are going to kill a sport with an already weak pulse.
Interesting exchange of letters from the FIA website. Before the US GP.
www.fia.com/resources/documents/914355186__20_06_2005_FIA_Michelin_letter.pdf
www.fia.com/resources/documents/914355186__20_06_2005_FIA_Michelin_letter.pdf
Max and Bernie have gone too far surely this time with their beloved rules. Thanks to the good work by one J Stewart look how safety has become critical in motorsport especially F1. Yes Michelin messed up, yes they should have been allowed to change tyres for SAFETY, not being allowed to change tyres the teams had no choice but NOT to run at least we are not discussing another Senna here. I detest F1, FIA and Bernie I hope this is the catalyst for the motor manufacturers finally to have the ba!!s and set up thier own series as proposed for the last 2 years. For me best motorsport at the moment is MotoGP - sensational, so easy to see the absolute talent on show, fantastic shoulder to shoulder racing and a megastar who doesn't need the biggest team behind him to win.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff