The F1 suicide

[a_greer]

F1 is now dead. at least in the states with this crime of a start. the smartest most advanced racers in the world cant handle a ~4 degree bank? that is fucking hilarious! those guys would shit if they saw the track at Bristol Tenn that Nascar uses 2 times per year.

So glad I decided not to get a basic standing room pass to the USGP that woulda been a waste of money, and I can damn sure tell you that I will not go next year either

info if you arent watching:
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33185

[stustanley]

i dont really think you can blame the teams (appart from ferrari), you need to blame the fia. I will explain:

Mitchelin brought the wrong tirea with them. Ok, big mistake on someones part. But the triedto get some new ones, but the fia wouldnt let them use them.
They then tried to put a chicane in at the last corner, all the teams agreed execept ferrari, so it dodnt happen.(i think it was ferrari anyway.)

The fia were toltally unwilling to make a comprimise at all, and i think the teams were right to pull out as it was a matter of safety, not only the drivers, but the stewards, pit crews and spectators.

There were almost only the two ferraris starting the race.

Formula one ay well now be dead in america, but it never reallly took off to start with.
It will be fine in the rest of the world, but the fia is doing the sport a great dis-service.

The fia has far more money than sense.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by stustanley
i dont really think you can blame the teams (appart from ferrari), whats the problem with ferrari? they just tried to put on a show, had everyone parked, there would have beeen mob riots in indianapolis!

also the local announcers on wibc AM, indianapolis said a lot of sponcers were already ticked at the FIA and on the fence, as was BMW, and this may have been the shove that they needed to get out

[Omega]

Rumour is that 9 out of the 10 teams were looking to have a chicane put into the course to solve the problem.

Guess which team was not included.

Yes Ferrari is in the "right", but was it worth it?

[a_greer]

Originally posted by Omega
Rumour is that 9 out of the 10 teams were looking to have a chicane put into the course to solve the problem.

Guess which team was not included.

Yes Ferrari is in the "right", but was it worth it? why change the track layout minutes before the race when the teams (at least the responsable ones) were preparing for the track as it was, also, the word on the radio was the teams were not inflating the tires to the manufacturer spec, and if that is true, then it is soley the Michelin teams fault, not the manufacturer its self

[hardeeharhar]

What the fuck is a chicane?

[Omega]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What the fuck is a chicane?

Two sharp corners designed to slow the cars done

eg a sharp left right corner

[Omega]

Originally posted by a_greer
why change the track layout minutes before the race when the teams (at least the responsable ones) were preparing for the track as it was, also, the word on the radio was the teams were not inflating the tires to the manufacturer spec, and if that is true, then it is soley the Michelin teams fault, not the manufacturer its self

The proposal was not made "minutes" before the race. There was sufficient time to build a temporary chicane according to most parties involved.

I do find it amusing that BE puts all these restrictions on the tyres that can be used and now will sanction Michelin for non-performance. Michelin had a tyre that could have been used. They were not allowed to use them according to the rules BE implemented.

From most accounts the Michelin runners would have been happy to race today with the new tyres and not receive any points, giving the fans a spectacle that in the very least was better than this.

It would have also been interesting if Jordan had not raced and honoured the agreement to not race unless a chicane had been in place. Minardi only went out because Jordan did (they are racing each other in the constructors).

This would have only left Ferrari on the track. Would it have been black flagged?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Omega
Two sharp corners designed to slow the cars done

eg a sharp left right corner

Ah....

That is more or less what I thought it was...

[stustanley]

whats the problem with ferrari?

the problem i had with ferrari is that they wouldnt agree to put in the chicane when the other 9 teams would, im suspecting that they knew this would mean the other teams couldnt race, giving them 18 easy points in the constrructors champ.


There was plenty of time for a number of options to be carried out, and as a fan of the sport i am extremely dissapointed at the show given today.

[Gilsch]

It was ridiculous...but not for the "reasons" the poster stated. Either way, I'd almost* rather watch 6 Formula 1 cars going around a circuit than 40 cars going around and around and around in an oval/circle for two or three hours.
:no:

[danielctull]

Sorry a_greer, but I guess you don't know too much about the sport? Completely the FIAs fault for not giving any kind of show. I'm guessing you are American? Not stereotyping or nowt, but many Americans I speak to just don't get formula 1. However I completely agree with Omega's and stustanley's posts in this thread.

Hopefully all of the people in the grandstands will get a refund and the circuit managers will sue the FIA for such a stupid waste of time and money for them. So the losers here are the fans, and the winners seem to be the FIA. Of course the fans pay the cash and the FIA makes it. The FIA need to tread carefully now and stop mucking with our rules every year (or every few months on some occasions).

But yes F1 would seem sadly dead now for the US. It's a shame to lose an interesting and different circuit - which I would guess is guaranteed.



As an aside, I didn't know why the Indycars needed a perfectly dry track to run on when I saw them over here a few years ago. I also couldn't work out why then they held the British race in September (as opposed to a dryer August)... Hey ho.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by danielctull
But yes F1 would seem sadly dead now for the US. It's a shame to lose an interesting and different circuit - which I would guess is guaranteed.

As an aside, I didn't know why the Indycars needed a perfectly dry track to run on when I saw them over here a few years ago. I also couldn't work out why then they held the British race in September (as opposed to a dryer August)... Hey ho.

I almost cried when I saw what happened today. As an F1 fan, an American, and someone who works (peripherally) in the auto racing business, I was hoping that F1 would start to catch on more in the states.

I don't know if the blame can be placed squarely on anyone's shoulders, but, with this year's travesty and last year's generally bad race, it does feel like Formula 1 was trying to sabotage its existence in the USA. I don't believe that's the case, but it feels like it. I'm inclined to bet, though, that the reason for the problems has more to do with the relative uniqueness of the Indianapolis road course itself. In order to foster a better F1 climate in the US, the US tracks should be bread-and-butter F1 tracks over which the powers-that-be can sleepwalk through their preparations. The fact that all of this confusion over chicanes and downdraft and everything else exists at all is really, in my eyes, the root of the problem. F1 teams, the suppliers, and the admin have the luxury to worry about little more than the big events, which the US grand prix is unfortunately not.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by danielctull
Not stereotyping or nowt, but many Americans I speak to just don't get formula 1.

It's not our cup of tea. We don't really care for road racing and we despise elitism which are both intertwined in Formula One. To us, the racing is very boring and besides Montoya we really can't stand any of the drivers.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
It's not our cup of tea. We don't really care for road racing and we despise elitism which are both intertwined in Formula One. To us, the racing is very boring and besides Montoya we really can't stand any of the drivers.

That's a pretty broad statement. Clearly, the 145 thousand people who went to the US grand prix wanted to see some road racing. But I'm really curious how you find slower, oval track racing in less optimized cars to be more exciting [or less boring] than F1. Most of Nascar's success can be pinned on the fact that International Speedway Corp found that generally-Southern males, a demographic that enjoys getting toasted for three day weekends, would be happy to drive long distances and pay a lot of money if the drivers were also generally-southern males. ISC and Nascar have done a brilliant marketing job, and "Generally-Southern" has now expanded to "middle-American," but for folks like me who have grown up East coast cities, the cosmopolitan flair of F1 is still a much more comfortable ambiance.

Lastly, you speak of elitism. The elitism is there for sure, just the other way around: At Nascar I take plenty of guff for being a "city boy F1 fan." Also, despite the myth perpetuated by "Days of Thunder," there's plenty of aristocracy in Nascar. Fuck: people cheer when "Junior" does so much as start his engine.

F1 clearly has an audience in America. The guy who figures out how to market it, especially after having to clean up the mess from this incident, will be a rich man.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
The elitism is there for sure, just the other way around:


++

Nascar driver's are just a bunch of hill billies, with not much sense (eg. rusty wallace). The cars travel at the same speed for the entire duration of the race, and only turn in one direction. Not much of a sport, auto racing wise.

[Omega]

They were saying that Bernie was trying to get a race on the Strip. Wonder where this debacle leaves that plan......

As for F1 being elitist, I think we can say that to drive a car competively for a job you are already elitist, whether F1, Indy cars or Nascar.

This is no longer about being a sport, it is a business.

[audiopollution]

If Michelin had supplied the correct tires (read: tires that didn't shift the belts when subjected to vertical g loads), then the race would have continued as it should have. The only blame Ferrari have in this is not compromising the fact that they showed up with all of the correct equipment to race and, as such, not agreeing to slow down the corner for the other teams who were not ready.

It's not like they added the corner-banking on Thursday night. Michelin were asleep at the wheel, so to speak, and will feel the pain of this if the FIA go ahead with one tire supplier in 2008.

[Omega]

Originally posted by audiopollution
If Michelin had supplied the correct tires (read: tires that didn't shift the belts when subjected to vertical g loads), then the race would have continued as it should have.

I was under the impression that even the new tyres they shipped over (and arrived Sunday morning) were not going to perform safely on this circuit, which leads you to believe that maybe that they had NO tyres suitable for this circuit.

Looks more and more like a control tyre will be back in the future, and no guesses who it comes from.

[danielctull]

Originally posted by audiopollution
If Michelin had supplied the correct tires (read: tires that didn't shift the belts when subjected to vertical g loads), then the race would have continued as it should have. The only blame Ferrari have in this is not compromising the fact that they showed up with all of the correct equipment to race and, as such, not agreeing to slow down the corner for the other teams who were not ready.

It's not like they added the corner-banking on Thursday night. Michelin were asleep at the wheel, so to speak, and will feel the pain of this if the FIA go ahead with one tire supplier in 2008.

In fairness, they don't do any testing at Indy to get full info on it. And you're right Ferrari don't have any blame, no-one sympathised with them when they had tyre problems, so why should they stop when they have an advantage.

Also I can see the interest in Indycars, they all have the same spec and from what I've seen fewer rules about what they can do. They usually have closer races, which any F1 fan has been dying for, and we are only just getting now.

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by the cool gut
++
Nascar driver's are just a bunch of hill billies, with not much sense (eg. rusty wallace). The cars travel at the same speed for the entire duration of the race, and only turn in one direction. Not much of a sport, auto racing wise.

I would love to see an F1 Driver try and handle a 3400 pound stockcar with 800 horsepower and none of the technology that he is used to. I highly doubt that that driver could handle himself with such a heavy and poor handling racecar (compared to F1 and IRL) in a 43 car pack at 190 mph - not to mention bump drafting and racing three and four wide into a corner.

As for the hillbilly reference, Rusty is from St. Louis, point leader Jimmie Johnson is from the San Diego area, yesterday's race winner, Greg Biffle, is from Oregon.

I think your disdain for Nascar is blinding you from its reality.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by danielctull
In fairness, they don't do any testing at Indy to get full info on it.

Although the track was just resurfaced this year, F1 has raced on the banking for the past 5 years. Michelin deserve all of the blame in this incident.

Here's the statement that the FIA released this morning:

"Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.

At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.

The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams’ lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that “tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances”.

A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally – from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.

The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.

It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules."

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Although the track was just resurfaced this year, F1 has raced on the banking for the past 5 years. Michelin deserve all of the blame in this incident.

Here's the statement that the FIA released this morning:

Well in a technical point of vue, I think that slowing down at the 13 is very difficult to achieve in a race. Drivers do not look at their speed meter while driving. By instinct most drivers would have not reduce their speed in the turn 13 if someone was behind them. An accident could have occur and the drama will be there.

All party involved are right here, it's unfortunate that the people who paid to see the race where screwed.

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
I would love to see an F1 Driver try and handle a 3400 pound stockcar with 800 horsepower and none of the technology that he is used to. I highly doubt that that driver could handle himself with such a heavy and poor handling racecar (compared to F1 and IRL) in a 43 car pack at 190 mph - not to mention bump drafting and racing three and four wide into a corner.


First off, don't confuse all of us as nascar haters. I think Nascar is fine: i just like indy more, and i like F1 more than indy. But to get to the point, Jeff Gordon made the conversion from open to closed wheel racing pretty quickly. Good drivers are good drivers, but since the F1 circuit draws from a much larger pool of top racers than any other circuit, logic dictates that its drivers are the best overall. That's just statistics -- no snobbiness intended.

Red Bull was supposed to be cultivating an All-American F1 team. I'm not sure if that's still in the works or not, but if there ever is an American team, I'm sure we'll see some top American prospects, and perhaps even established racers in other divisions, jump at the chance to race with the world's best. Nascar drivers included.

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's just statistics -- no snobbiness intended.

Red Bull was supposed to be cultivating an All-American F1 team. I'm not sure if that's still in the works or not, but if there ever is an American team, I'm sure we'll see some top American prospects, and perhaps even established racers in other divisions, jump at the chance to race with the world's best. Nascar drivers included.
Thanks for the clarification, Cool Gut's original post had an edge to it.

As for the American F1 deal and Nascar drivers, I think it comes down to money. Nascar is this country's largest spectator sport and there are billions of dollars associated with the Nextel Cup, as you know. What is the incentive for a Nextel Cup driver to leave for F1? Even when F1 races are broadcast here in the US, what kind of ratings do they draw? Other than guys like Borris Said and Robbie Gordon, who are already established road racers, I can't think of any Nextel Cup guy who would jump ship.

[Aurora]

F1 is for Pansies,Fairy's and Lightweights, you want a real car get into a Nascar and dont cry about ovals they also have some tracks for you like Sears, etc. This crap of one kind of tire to Qualify and another for Racing is more Pantywaist where is my mommy kind of crap. Nascar dont Play those games. I like the #15 car.:smokey: What do you expect from a bunch of non rednecks? Racing?:smokey:

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
What is the incentive for a Nextel Cup driver to leave for F1? . . . I can't think of any Nextel Cup guy who would jump ship.

You're absolutely right. It's all about the money. If someone with deep pockets wanted to breed F1 interest in the states, though, his best opportunity in doing so would be to grab a guy like Gordon or Hornish Jr. and try to get him into an F1 car. Both of these guys have established careers in Nascar and Indy respectively, and both, I'm pretty sure, have actually driven F1 cars before, just not in any sort of competition.

Anyway, that's just a pile of hope and dreams without substance.

Out of curiosity, do you plan on getting VIP section tickets to any NASCAR or Indy races in the near future? I'm on the long-term product dev side of things, so I don't make it out to many of the events, but I might be at Homestead in November. (If you ever put on an RFID wristband at a race, that's me. . .)

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
I can't think of any Nextel Cup guy who would jump ship. What makes you think they're good enough for F1?

"Ah cain't handle all them instramants on mah wheel Billy Bob".

NASCAR is the most retarded sport on earth. And those fugly piece of shit cars are 3400 pounds?? No wonder they have to race them in oval tracks. lol

I think they even have horns. :D

[a_greer]

Originally posted by Splinemodel
First off, don't confuse all of us as nascar haters. I think Nascar is fine: i just like indy more, and i like F1 more than indy. But to get to the point, Jeff Gordon made the conversion from open to closed wheel racing pretty quickly. Good drivers are good drivers, but since the F1 circuit draws from a much larger pool of top racers than any other circuit, logic dictates that its drivers are the best overall. That's just statistics -- no snobbiness intended.

Red Bull was supposed to be cultivating an All-American F1 team. I'm not sure if that's still in the works or not, but if there ever is an American team, I'm sure we'll see some top American prospects, and perhaps even established racers in other divisions, jump at the chance to race with the world's best. Nascar drivers included. I was at the Brickyard 400 like 2 years ago and the PA guy interviewed Gordon, he talked about making a special trip into indy durring F1 testing and trying out an F1 car on the road course, and the driver of the f1 car (I don't know what driver it was) drove a Nascar that Gordon brought in and Gordon said somthing like "I would love to race F1 ifr I didn't have it so good here in Nascar" and the F1 driver according to gordon liked the Nascar and said that it was fun to drive in a differant way, no whistles and bells, just the driver and his skill.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by Aurora
F1 is for Pansies,Fairy's and Lightweights, you want a real car get into a Nascar and dont cry about ovals they also have some tracks for you like Sears, etc. This crap of one kind of tire to Qualify and another for Racing is more Pantywaist where is my mommy kind of crap. Nascar dont Play those games. I like the #15 car.:smokey: What do you expect from a bunch of non rednecks? Racing?:smokey: Hate to pop your bubble, but Nascar uses (or at least used to use) several compounds of goodyears. A very slick compound is used to qualify, it is all about speed. In the race, a differant, beetter handeling, longer lasting compound is used to race.

Also: IIRC F1 allows one set of tires per race baring a tire failure...Nascar changes tires like 3-4 times per race. so tires are more of a key for F1

[ThinkingDifferent]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
As for the hillbilly reference, Rusty is from St. Louis, point leader Jimmie Johnson is from the San Diego area, yesterday's race winner, Greg Biffle, is from Oregon.


Maybe hick is a better description.

[Aurora]

Euro's dont know what they are saying except some excuses for a bunch of sissy's making more excuses because they cant race on the P.O.S. French Tire. Nascars have more dents and scrapes in one race then F1 gets in a whole season of ..of ....i was going to say racing........:lol:

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Aurora
Euro's dont know what they are saying except some excuses for a bunch of sissy's making more excuses because they cant race on the P.O.S. French Tire. Nascars have more dents and scrapes in one race then F1 gets in a whole season of ..of ....i was going to say racing........:lol:

I wouldn't call 'dents and scrapes' a sign of a good driver. Sloppy, perhaps.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Aurora
Nascars have more dents and scrapes in one race then F1 gets in a whole season of ..of ....i was going to say racing........ That's because those heavy and ugly piece of shit cars can't turn for **** and the drivers aren't good enough for anything else. Except maybe demolition derbies. :lol:

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Maybe hick is a better description. lol I'm quite fond of the term redneck myself.

NASCAR= NECKCAR

[brandnewfatboy]

When you have 120 000 people ready and waiting to watch some racing, you have to put aside rivalries and put on a show.

Maybe the bridgstone runners could have started at the front. or the other teams could have had a time penalty. or both.

I suspect heads will roll at michelin, as they will have to pony up £ millions compensation.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I wouldn't call 'dents and scrapes' a sign of a good driver. Sloppy, perhaps.

No, they just have to actually drive the car. It's not like formula snooze where they have so many driving aids that the car practically drives itself.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
No, they just have to actually drive the car. It's not like formula snooze where they have so many driving aids that the car practically drives itself. True, Also what the Euro's dont know is we have Infineon this weekend. Not a Oval but lots of corners and they arent driving little airplanes as F1 they are driving 3500lbs of auto that hit 200mph! Watch out im coming through!

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
No, they just have to actually drive the car. It's not like formula snooze where they have so many driving aids that the car practically drives itself.

Hey, NASCAR, 1940's calling ... they want their cars back.

[danielctull]

Originally posted by brandnewfatboy
I suspect heads will roll at michelin, as they will have to pony up £ millions compensation.

Why Michelin? When it was the FIA that just wouldn't budge on the matter. Michelin brought along working tyres and the FIA should've let them run the new tyres but have no points for those guys...

Michelin made a mistake, but the FIA couldn't bring it to themselves to create a workaround. Michelin were right to tell it's team's drivers not to race for safety. The FIA were right that it is braking the rules, but there should have been a workaround.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by danielctull
Why Michelin? When it was the FIA that just wouldn't budge on the matter. Michelin brought along working tyres and the FIA should've let them run the new tyres but have no points for those guys...

No, Michelin brought tires that would be well suited to driving around town but not for driving around the speedway. The new tires that Michelin shipped in prior to the race were also unsafe.

Michelin made a mistake, but the FIA couldn't bring it to themselves to create a workaround. Michelin were right to tell it's team's drivers not to race for safety. The FIA were right that it is braking the rules, but there should have been a workaround.

Why penalize the teams who were ready to race?

[danielctull]

Originally posted by audiopollution
No, Michelin brought tires that would be well suited to driving around town but not for driving around the speedway. The new tires that Michelin shipped in prior to the race were also unsafe.



Why penalize the teams who were ready to race?

Well there were other options open to the FIA. Giving a race to the punters should have been their number one priority.

Who said anything about penalizing the Bridgestone runners? Give them the points, but not Michelin runners.

The Michelin runners would jump to give the punters a race, because then they would get their sponsorship money.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by danielctull
Well there were other options open to the FIA. Giving a race to the punters should have been their number one priority.

What other options? Create a chicane that could have affected the Bridgestone tires? Slow the Michelin teams in turn 13 which would have created a hazard for the faster Bridgestone cars? Make the Michelin teams drive through the pits every lap which would have been a complete waste of time for both the teams and the fans? Make the Michelin teams pit every 10 laps to change their tires, against the rules, and suffer enough penalties to make the race an exercise in futility?

Since the FIA rules only permit a team to change an engine after every two races, the Michelin teams were best to sit this one out and save their engines.

Who said anything about penalizing the Bridgestone runners? Give them the points, but not Michelin runners.

The Michelin runners would jump to give the punters a race, because then they would get their sponsorship money.

Again, why should the Bridgestone teams be penalized because Michelin couldn't supply the correct tires? The Bridgestone teams were set up to run on the course as is, not with an added chicane. They certainly shouldn't have to dodge Michelin cars dawdling and crashing around the track.

There was a race. Unfortunately the Michelin teams were screwed by Michelin, not the FIA, and they didn't participate.

Go to the FIA website (www.fia.com) and read the regulations.

[DanMacMan]

I have no empirical evidence to prove Nascar's number one spectator status but do a simple Google search for "Nascar America's number one spectator sport" and see what you get. It seems that more folks than I agree with this idea.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Hey, NASCAR, 1940's calling ... they want their cars back. No kidding. NECKCAR is for rejects from demolition derbies.

Notice how this is being made into a "With US or Against US™" thing. :lol:

I'm American. NECKCAR is retarded and boring.

[iMac David]

The suggestions made to 'come up with a solution to make sure the show goes on' misses one vital point: F1 (and Nascar, Indy etc) is not a show, it is a sport. Sports have rules to stick to.

Imagine if 5 teams turned up with 5 litre turbo engines one race weekend because they packed the wrong engines - should they be allowed to race 'to make sure there is a show'?

The concept of letting the Michelin runners race but without gettibng any points is equally bizarre. Imagine Schumacher leading, Alonso second and coming up fast. Michael would gently pull over, let Alonso go, in the knowledge that he's still on the 10 points, and Alonso didn't have the chance to perform a risky overtaking manouver that might have put Micheal out.

In any case, why would Alonso push his car for no points? He's on suspect tires (would you like to be in a car when you're told 'if you drive at 200mph it's likely to burst, but stick to 170 and you should be OK'?), with the requirement that his engine has to last for the next race too.

The bottom line is that FIA were spot on. Michelin failed to bring tires to the race that could be used. As such, Michelin should have the book thrown at them.

Finally, Ferrari. Quite why Ferrari should be lambasted is again beyond me. Ferrari have gone on record as saying that they were never asked about a chicane, but if they had of been, they would have rejected it. Two things - firstly that makes it clear that it was the FIA that said no to the chicane (quite correctly), and secondly, Ferrari want to race by the rules, and not be penalised for no fault of their own.

Build a chicane! What, put a few tires down and say - try not to hit them boys! Paint some lines - stick to being inside them! Do me a favour.

What happened on Sunday was a farce, and probably damaged F1 in N America for years to come. But put the blame where it lies - Michelin. Not the FIA, who are there to uphold the sporting rules. Not Ferrari, who turned up with the proper equipment to race.

David

[Aurora]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It doesn't take much "empirical evidence" to expose the claim as bogus. Even if you assume 4-12 million people per year, it hardly competes for any season long attendance records for sports. Baseball draws about 70 million people, NBA and the NHL about 20 million. Sure, packing in 100,000 people at once is an accomplishment that deserves some kind of claim-- "largest spectator sport" just isn't it. Funny, I know Lowes Motor speedway hold 50,000 folks but thats just the infield the otherside of the track holds more then 150,000 more;) Just for your info

[almostwise]

Everybody is missing the point of what happened this weekend.

This is pure F1 politics. Bernie Ecclestone "owns" Formula One. The various race teams are not happy with the arrangement anymore and want more control, or they are talking about starting a competing series (kinda like the whole "Indy Car" "Champ Car" thing). Ferrari at first was aligned with the other teams, but this summer became the only team to sign a new "deal" with Bernie Ecclestone and F1 (probably some back room money).

So you have 2 camps, Bernie Ecclestone and Ferrari, versus everybody else. This weekends "show" was the race teams way of showing they are unified in their desire for real change in the series, or they will leave. This became a perfect place to pull a power play, because the Indianapolis race is probably the least important on the F1 circuit.

[iMac David]

Almostwise,

so what did the weekend prove in terms of a power struggle? Did the teams force through an illegal chicane at the last minute? No.

You're right about the fact that ther is a power struggle, but you are wrong that this weekend was about that.

This weekend was purely about a supplier, Michelin, getting it wrong, and the FIA refusing to break their rules to accomodate that.

Ferrari, Minardi and Jordan arrived with the proper equipment to race, and did so. The other teams failed to do so.

David

[almostwise]

iMac David,

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" if you want but I think the teams took advantage of the tire situation to prove that they have unprecedented "solidarity" between them. As valuable as championship points are in the series, not one Michelin team even attempted to race. Instead they used this situation to try and make the current F1 management look bad. They could have raced, maybe not for first or second, but at least for some points. All they would have had to do was not charge hard through that one corner. That's what a "chicane" would have done, slowed down their entry speed to the banked corner.

My questions are:

Why are the teams painting Ferrari as the bad guy, for not agreeing to a chicane? The teams have really been gunning for Ferrari all year since the Ecclestone deal, critisizing them and how they are "ruining" the series. Just see the "testing contoversies" for this one.

Why are they blaming FIA as the bad guy for not relaxing the rules? They know this is self defeating, and just makes the whole series look bad.

Not a single team blamed Michelin. This, to me, was all about making a very big, expensive, statement.

[iMac David]

almostwise,

i disagree with you when you say that no team blamed Michelin. In fact, I think all teams did blame them, but are deflecting that blame to FIA (and Ferrari to lesser extent) because they 'wanted to put on a show'.

The blame they are now seeking to place relates to solving the problem that Michelin caused.

I also disagree when you mention that it was a show of unity. Firstly, both Jordan and Minardi stated that they wouldn't race unless all Michelin runners were there too. 10 minutes before the start, Jordan informed Minardi they were going to race after all, so Minardi had to follow suit (as they are battling at the tail end). So solidarity failed.

What I think you fail to appreciate is that in a lot of people's opinion, mine included, that no solution was available (with the possible exception of all the Michelin runners voluntarily slowing down in turn 13).

Every other solution is a farce - you cannot have cars that cannot gain points 'racing' with cars that can. Should there be a collision the ramifications are enormous.

You cannot build a chicane in a few hours, and expect the various insurance companies to be happy. Race course need homogulisation (sp?), and a slapped together set of tires (or whatever) won't wash. As for painting a chicane - yeah, right, like race car drivers are going to follow the lines!

to comment on your tire testing comment: I have sympathy for Ferrari. Michelin supply 7 teams (5 competitive - Maclaren, Williams, Renault, Toyota and BAR), Bridgestone 3, only 1 of which is competitive. If each team has exactly the same mileage allowance, Michelin has in effect 5 times the data to work on than Bridgestone does. How is that fair?

Ferrari's compromise was to limit the mileage per tyre company. Still not perfect, as Ferrari would end up with far more time testing tires than, say, Williams.

Somewhere between the two is the answer.

Finally, I keep in mind that F1 is about a sport with rules, and these rules can't be changed just because a competitor turns up with poor equipment. That way lies a sport more akin to professional wrestling, where the show is far more important than the sport (if indeed there is a sport beneath the show).

Cheers,

David

PS I was reading recently that the idea of a single tire for qualifying and the race came not from the FIA, but from Michelin! Ironic, really, seeing how some people are blaming the FIA single tire for the race rule for this fiasco.

[almostwise]

Hey iMac David!

Good points. Never really thought about the Ferrari testing reasons that way before. However, what the teams are trying to do with new testing rules is level the playing field a little bit, to make the sport a little more economical. Ferrari has, I believe, the largest F1 budget by far. They won't agree to "testing" limits, and spend far more time testing than any other team, testing a lot more than just tires. (Wind tunnel tests, etc.)

I also just can't shake the feeling that this is about the threat of a "breakaway series" There was a Monday meeting between FIA and the 7 teams that boycotted the race, where they were chastised for their actions. Curiously, Michelin was not chastised. There is a great article about this at Planet-F1.com about this, that can be found here:
www.planet-f1.com (http://www.planet-f1.com/features/editorial/story_20028.shtml)

Minardi boss Paul Stoddart also gives a detailed minute by minute account here:

Minardi's Statement (http://www.planet-f1.com/features/race_features/story_20035.shtml)

I did make one important mistake though, apparently FIA president Max Mosley is the one behind this fiasco, and not Bernie Ecclestone. Bernie was apparently on the side of finding a solution.

With regards,
Raimo

[iMac David]

Hi Raimo,

I haven't got time to read the Planet f1 article right now, but I will do later this evening. I did read Minardi's statement earlier today.

One question for you, though. If you were Max on Sunday morning, what would you have done?

Cheers,

David

PS Agree with Ferrari having the biggest budget - they even own two racetracks.

PPS Since you now agree that Bernie was on the side of the teams, how does that square with your theory that the teams flexed their muscles to get a bigger slice of the pie, when the FIA is NOT the commercial arm of the sport, Bernie is?

PPS I guess the FIA spoke to the teams, and not Michelin, because it was the teams that didn't race, the teams that didn't retire as per the rules. As far as the FIA are concerned, Michelin is a parts supplier, like Brembo or Shell. Nothing to do with the FIA.

PPPS sorry about the PSs!

[almostwise]

Hey iMac David,
Love the PS'S!

The only point I'm trying to make is that this co-ordinated action between the teams, just re-fueled the fire to change how Formula One is run. They made their point that they can work togther when pushed. They could have raced, albeit at a disadvantage, but chose not to.

Sure Bernie as "Commercial Arm" wanted to make this race go, he's not an idiot, he knows that what happened this weekend makes it even harder to "break into" the USA market. But even 2 of the 3 "Bridgestone" teams were going to boycott the race, but decided against it at the last minute, due to worries about sanctions. The only team that wouldn't budge at all was Ferrari (who knows how the conversations between Ferrari and Bernie Ecclestone went...).

I know, meaningless, because the FIA and Mr. Mosley had final say anyways, but the whole situation just spotlighted why the teams are frustrated. They aren't happy with the FIA, and they aren't happy with Bernie Ecclestone "owning" all the commercial rights, and his back room dealings with the likes of Ferrari. Both the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone thought that any talk of a competing series was "dead" after Ferrari was signed on through 2012, however this punch in the nose shows that the other teams can take dramatic action when pushed.

Yeah, Michelin screwed up. But a lot of politics definitley came into play as well.

[audiopollution]

Excellent Q & A with FIA President, Max Mosley, is here (http://www.planet-f1.com/news/story_20039.shtml).

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Official figures put the total attendance for Nascar at just 6.7 million, which doesn't even approach the number of people who attend MLB (70 mil), NCAA Div-I Football (33 mil), NCAA Div-I Basketball (25 mil), NBA (20 mil), NHL (20 mil), or NFL (20 mil) games. It's probably not even the 8th largest spectator sport in terms of...spectators. Maybe the sport claims an outrageous number of "fans" but I would wager that the total television audience for Nascar ranks among the middle of the pack too.
2005 Fox Sports Nascar ratings numbers. (http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/thatsracin/11958584.htm)

[almostwise]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
2005 Fox Sports Nascar ratings numbers. (http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/thatsracin/11958584.htm)


I hate to burst your bubble here, but having a 6.1% share of the daytime audience, is not so good. I mean what is their competition at that time frame? In my market they are up against old movies, infomercials, and golf, and they are only getting a 6.1 share.

Also realize that this is an average number. look at the numbers, events like Daytona get a much higher number, which means that the rest of the races are actually much lower.

[Powerdoc]

Michelin declared that they will pay back the spectator of the Indianapolis Grand prix.
That was the least they can do.