Formula One officially shoots itself dead in the US.

[BrianG]

Sorry if this is a spoiler to a "race" but F1 just proved that the governing body is the most outrageuosly out of touch human beings in motorsports. The world's larget consumer market doesn't deserve a compromise!

I am sick to my stomach. I am so firggin' pissed right now.

[msxyz]

Yeah the FIA leadeshrip is comprised of idiots.

And those six pilots who accepted to run (even if they use a different brand of tires) are complete morons.

[intercede007]

Why are you mad at the FIA?

Michelin has had 5 years of track knowledge to bring the right tyres. And Bridgestone did their homework and brought the right tyres. Why penalize their hard work by putting a chicane into a corner they planned for? Why did Michelin only bring *ONE* tyre choice for teams when typically, there are two (as an aside, Bridgestone brought two tyre choices for their teams) allowed by the rules?

Seriously. It's no ones fault but Michelin. And F1 in the United States is going to pay dearly for the screw-up. Sure, I guess the FIA could have given into their demands, but why screw Bridgestone?

What happens if, at Silverstone in a couple weeks, the Bridgestone teams find themselves coming up short in the tyre department. Should they not be allowed to scream "FOUL!" and have Club Corner truncated to allow for a higher speed section?

Seriously. Michelin screwed up. BIG.

[msxyz]

This year rules that are totally screwed. By not allowing to change tires during a race you're endangering the pilots and many grumbled already at the beginning of this season.

Maybe noting would have happened but if there's even the slightest chance that fatigued tires may cause serious incidents, then Michelin did the right thing issuing that warning and the pilots/teams made the right decision. Is Bridgestone so confident that their tires are superior or it's just that three second-tier teams this year are using its tires ?

And finally, if the vast majority of the pilots (who actually earn the money the hard way and risk neir necks unlike the FIA leaders ) ask for better security FIA *should* listen to their plead.

[BrianG]

Why are you mad at the FIA?

Michelin has had 5 years of track knowledge to bring the right tyres. And Bridgestone did their homework and brought the right tyres. Why penalize their hard work by putting a chicane into a corner they planned for? Why did Michelin only bring *ONE* tyre choice for teams when typically, there are two (as an aside, Bridgestone brought two tyre choices for their teams) allowed by the rules?

Seriously. It's no ones fault but Michelin. And F1 in the United States is going to pay dearly for the screw-up. Sure, I guess the FIA could have given into their demands, but why screw Bridgestone?

What happens if, at Silverstone in a couple weeks, the Bridgestone teams find themselves coming up short in the tyre department. Should they not be allowed to scream "FOUL!" and have Club Corner truncated to allow for a higher speed section?

Seriously. Michelin screwed up. BIG.
Agreed, but the compromise could have been made to allow a real rae to occur. That is on the FIA and the silly one tire rule. Michelin had a replacement tire that could have been brought in. Bridgestone runners could have been given all of the points, a chicane installed and there would be the impression that Formula One genuinely wants to be a presence in the US market.

Instead, we get Mosley being an ass and Ferrari's stooge. Let's get down to brass tacks. WE KNOW that Max wants a single tire manufacturer. WE KNOW mosley has ruled in favor of Ferrari in a number of technical legality issues. Formula One did not ahve to screw over all the fans.

David Coulthard said there could have been a way to compromise, letting Michelin runners get the replacement tires and the Bridgestone runners to get the top six but still have a race for the thousands of race fans there. He came across the team radio just before the formation lap and said he wanted to race. He followed that up by saying that he was sick to his stomach and pissed. DC is my new favorite person in F1. The rest fo the broadcast interviews have been political BS. At least he had the balls to come out and say that they could have and should have put on a show, even if it wasn't for points.

[subbo]

Blame Bernie for being the tubborn old fart that he is. Michelin was at fault but they did the right thing and not risk lives of drivers, track crew and spectators.

[intercede007]

Agreed, but the compromise could have been made to allow a real rae to occur. That is on the FIA and the silly one tire rule. Michelin had a replacement tire that could have been brought in. Bridgestone runners could have been given all of the points, a chicane installed and there would be the impression that Formula One genuinely wants to be a presence in the US market.

What compromise? Change a track layout mere hours before a race and after the teams who are not experiencing technical problems have successfully completed testing, practice and qualifying? Race tyres are to a razor edge spec; no two compound tyres are built similarly from race to race. They are all unique. Bridgestone built a tyre able to cope with the high-heat generated in the banked turns. Michelin didn't. Why then give them an advantage during the race because they screwed up? Don't you see? Bridgestone's cars would have been unfairly penalized for having a tyre designed *specifically* for that course layout. That's not a compromise; that's stealing from Peter to pay off Paul.

Instead, we get Mosley being an ass and Ferrari's stooge. Let's get down to brass tacks. WE KNOW that Max wants a single tire manufacturer. WE KNOW mosley has ruled in favor of Ferrari in a number of technical legality issues. Formula One did not ahve to screw over all the fans.

Here's some more brass tacks. Michelin didn't bring a second tyre. Their first tyre ignored 5 years of track data. They didn't do any testing this season at Indy.

That's the reality of the situation. Michelin screwed up. The FIA did what was fair to Bridgestone and what was in the rules.

David Coulthard said there could have been a way to compromise, letting Michelin runners get the replacement tires and the Bridgestone runners to get the top six but still have a race for the thousands of race fans there. He came across the team radio just before the formation lap and said he wanted to race. He followed that up by saying that he was sick to his stomach and pissed. DC is my new favorite person in F1. The rest fo the broadcast interviews have been political BS. At least he had the balls to come out and say that they could have and should have put on a show, even if it wasn't for points.

Michelin and the teams were more then welcome to come in and pit for a tyre change during the race. It would have been a penalty, but they could have showed up. And what's wrong with going slower through the bank? Are the cars brakes not incapable of slowing the car down to a safer speed before the turn?

It's not the FIA's fault that Michelin couldn't bring a proper tyre. It's not Ferrari's fault that they tested, practiced and qualified on the same track-layout that has been present for 5 years. It's not Bridgestones fault for designing a tyre for that same layout that didn't wear prematurely.

It is Michelins fault for not bringing a second tyre. It is Michelin's fault not bringing a safe tyre in the first place, period. Nobody is to blame but Michelin, because had they done thier job, this wouldn't be an issue.

[intercede007]

This was just released by the FIA

The FIA have just released the following correspondence between Michelin and Race Director Charlie Whiting...

Race Director:
Saturday June 18 2005
Indianapolis

Charlie Whiting, FIA Race Director and Safety delegate

Dear Mr Whiting

Having analysed and fully evaluated the tyre failures that have occurred over the Indianapolis Grand Prix practice sessions we have been unable to identify a root cause.

The current rules and timescale do not permit the use of an alternative tyre solution and the race must be performed with the qualifying tyres.

Michelin has in the sole interest of safety informed its partner teams that we do not have total assurance that all tyres that qualified the cars can be used unless the vehicle speed in turn 13 can be reduced.

Michelin very much regrets this situation, but has taken this decision after careful consideration and in the best interests of safety at the event.

We trust that the FIA can understand our position and we remain at your disposal if you want any further information.

Pierre Dupasquier
Michelin Motorsport Director

Nick Shorrock
Director of Michelin F1 activities

Cc:
Bernie Ecclestone
Michelin teams
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)


Letter from Charlie Whiting, the FIA Formula One Race Director, in reply to above letter from Representatives of Michelin:

19 June, 2005

Dear Mr Dupasquier,
Dear Mr Shorrock,

We have received your letter of 18 June.

We are very surprised that this difficulty has arisen. As you know, each team is allowed to bring two different types of tyre to an event so as to ensure that a back-up (usually of lower performance) is available should problems occur. It is hard to understand why you have not supplied your teams with such a tyre given your years of experience at Indianapolis.

That the teams you supply are not in possession of such a tyre will also be a matter for the FIA to consider in due course under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code.

No doubt you will inform your teams what is the maximum safe speed for their cars in Turn 13. We will remind them of the need to follow your advice for safety reasons. We will also ask them to ensure their cars do not obstruct other competitors.

Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.

Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams’ allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.

Finally, it has been suggested that a chicane should be laid out in Turn 13. I am sure you will appreciate that this is out of the question. To change the course in order to help some of the teams with a performance problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct tyres.

Yours sincerely,

Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Race Director

cc: Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)
Jean Todt (Scuderia Ferrari)
Colin Kolles (Jordan Grand Prix)
Paul Stoddart (Minardi F1 Team)

[BrianG]

What compromise? Change a track layout mere hours before a race and after the teams who are not experiencing technical problems have successfully completed testing, practice and qualifying? Race tyres are to a razor edge spec; no two compound tyres are built similarly from race to race. They are all unique. Bridgestone built a tyre able to cope with the high-heat generated in the banked turns. Michelin didn't. Why then give them an advantage during the race because they screwed up? Don't you see? Bridgestone's cars would have been unfairly penalized for having a tyre designed *specifically* for that course layout. That's not a compromise; that's stealing from Peter to pay off Paul.



Here's some more brass tacks. Michelin didn't bring a second tyre. Their first tyre ignored 5 years of track data. They didn't do any testing this season at Indy.

That's the reality of the situation. Michelin screwed up. The FIA did what was fair to Bridgestone and what was in the rules.



Michelin and the teams were more then welcome to come in and pit for a tyre change during the race. It would have been a penalty, but they could have showed up. And what's wrong with going slower through the bank? Are the cars brakes not incapable of slowing the car down to a safer speed before the turn?

It's not the FIA's fault that Michelin couldn't bring a proper tyre. It's not Ferrari's fault that they tested, practiced and qualified on the same track-layout that has been present for 5 years. It's not Bridgestones fault for designing a tyre for that same layout that didn't wear prematurely.

It is Michelins fault for not bringing a second tyre. It is Michelin's fault not bringing a safe tyre in the first place, period. Nobody is to blame but Michelin, because had they done thier job, this wouldn't be an issue.
I suppose you are missing the point that F1 just ruined almost any chance of big money support from the US. The reason for the race at Indy was to get into our pocketbooks. By not ahving a race, and adding the formation lap insult to injury, F1 as a whole, not just Michelin, screwed up.

The previous post shows options were presented. There should have been a full field of 20 cars.

[intercede007]

I'm not all that distraught about it.

If anything, the actions of Mr. Whiting and his staff showed me that there is much integrity to be found in the ranks of the FIA.

For the purposes of entertainment, the wrong decision was made.

From the standpoint of Motorsports and the sporting attitude, the absolute right things happened this weekend at the USGP. And as a racing enthusiast, while I lament the possible backlash that will inevitably follow Michelin's screw up and the teams boycott, I do appreciate the fact that the FIA stucked to the rule book on this one.

[NAZCA M12]

All right, i didn’t want to interfere here but after reading some of the stuff posted i will cause some things have got to be cleared:

First of all, there was no direct proof that there was 100% something wrong with Michelin's tyres. The concern was solely based on the two accidents suffered by Zonta and R Schumacher. If one says "they were both running on Michelin tyres" i could tell them "they were both racing a Toyota". No problems were reported by the rest of the teams. It could in theory be anything, like indeed a tyre problem, a coincidence, or perhaps both drivers had previously used too much kerb and damaged their tyres? Nobody knows, but the whole thing was based on uncertainty, practically on nothing, or on "maybe there's a problem here" if you wish. Michelin's stance was the "right" one, aka the convenient one for them: they don't admit there's a problem, they don't take the blame directly, and they consult their teams on the basis of safety, a very sensitive word for the FIA as you all know.

There were plenty of solutions to the problem: I'll touch on the chicane thing being out of the question first. If a chicane is interpreted as "helping certain teams" it could also be interpreted as "a temporary stop gap for safety measures", two key words that would in theory make all team principals raise their hands in the air and say: "if it's for the sake of safety, we agree". I am very surprised Whiting didn't interpret it as a precautionary measure since we all know how touchy the federation is with safety measures. I'd hate that idea too actually, but has this thing happened again, i mean to artificially cut speeds down on a certain part of a track in the name of safety? No. Shall i call "horse****" or "Spain '94" here? Stacked up tyres anyone? No? Okay then.

Let's move to the other solutions: Michelin intended to fit the cars with a Barcelona specification tyre. Let's see, we're in the middle of a tyre war, that means we have new constructions in every race, you guys know what a Barcelona spec tyre would mean? Older, harder construction, a more durable but (here comes the important part folks) slower rubber. It would sort of be more convenient for Bridgestone since Michelin wouldn't use their primary tyre but a much worse one. The rate at which tyres are improved during heavy competition is incredible, imo Ferrari would have a sickening good chance of beating their rivals if they were on old spec tyres.

What is more, with a bit of good faith from the FIA and taking as a standard that all Michelin shod cars would loose (rightly or not is up for discussion) a bit of performance with the older spec tyre, the FIA could make things easier/allow a bit more time for all teams to carefully inspect the situation by giving them say 2 1-hour extra sessions (same thing can happen in case of abrupt weather changes). That way the Bridgestone teams would get even more time to fine tune their cars, the Michelin teams would get some time to start all over and set up their cars again and in the meantime, all teams would have more data and time to examine the situation. I repeat, it is not as if there was 100% evidence that Michelin had a problem (if you see two Toyotas hitting the wall in France will you put the blame on the tyres again?) and these type of things concern both companies. As much as i hate to disappoint intercede007, the Bridgestone guys weren't like "**** them, lets go for a drink, our tyres are mighty fine". They are no angels but i think they were just as concerned. I think the other scenario of pitting in the warm-up lap, change the tyres with the older spec would be perfect, no rules would be broken, they'd get their penalties and the Ferraris would cruise to victory with no pressure. At the end of the day, if they wanted very much to run the race, they could choose the hard way of doing the race at another date, take the criticism but try to make that up with proper racing. It has happened for safety reasons many times with the Indy 500 race (although that happens if its raining only). What I’d really like to know was that since they decided to do what they did, why the hell did the Michelin teams do the warm-up lap? I think most people were aware of the situation but I found it hideous that the teams got on the track and then went bye bye people, and straight into the pits. Would it not have been more correct to just stay in the pits and not get out on the track at all? For me they simply played with the spectators, particularly the ones in the track who must have thought "looks like they reached an agreement, and the race will start as planned".

It's no ones fault but Michelin. And F1 in the United States is going to pay dearly for the screw-up. Sure, I guess the FIA could have given into their demands, but why screw Bridgestone?

That's a very good question. Now, lets go back to the weekend before Monza '03. A certain Michelin shod team is going from strength to strength through the summer races (Williams-BMW), a certain Bridgestone team called Ferrari has just lost the constructor lead prior to their home race (coincidence), Montoya is starting to apply pressure on Schumaher on the drivers championship and just at that timing when it looks very unlikely that Ferrari can stop them there's an accusation of Michelin running illegal tyres. That results in Max Mosley going down to Maranello prior to the Monza race (coincidence, he probably went for dinner although others are still screaming scandal since it has never happened), next day the Michelin guys aren't told directly that the tyre is illegal (besides, if it was illegal wouldn't they have been thrown out of the previous races by the FIA post-race inspection?) but are told to construct a new tyre or risk being thrown out of the race. They did, they lost their momentum, and Fearrari won their ****ing race etc etc. You know what your "pure" Bridgestone had to say about the "shady" Michelin? They said they knew about it from the Monaco grand prix but never talked about it. Jeez, how nice of them. Bull**** of course, and that blunder showed their true colors, if you know about sth like that in Monaco, you don't say it days before Monza after half the frigging season has passed and (careful here, coincidence coming) choose to do it just at the time that you have conceded the lead in the constructors and just when it's looking increasingly obvious that you cannot respond otherwise it will be deedmed either suspicious or ( :D ) coincidence. I had the same question with you back then: why screw Michelin? I think today a certain company was too eager to finally get a victory in a season that they have been completely destroyed. Don't accuse me of being a Michelin fanboy, i've got a Bimmer outside sitting on Bridgestones and having tested Michelins on it, i can honestly say i'll go back to Michelin when i go back to ATI from nVIDIA. That doesn't mean they can't be shady just because they're my company. I've told you that story just to make you see the situation in a more open way. I'll never forget the bull**** that Michelin has been saying in the years they had their asses kicked by Bridgestone (indirectly they were going along the lines of "yeah we got owned by them and only won a race or two all year long, however it's not our fault. In fact we're so far ahead of them it's not even funny"). I will not forget about the Bridgestone crap either.

Agreed, but the compromise could have been made to allow a real rae to occur. That is on the FIA and the silly one tire rule.

I agree on almost everything you said but "silly one tire rule"? Weren't you saying in the European GP thread that "like it or not it has made for better racing"? Well has it? It wasn't so difficult to predict we would reach that point. Tyres are getting softer and softer as there is competition between the two companies, each track has different demands and stress them in a way even the best technicians with the best simulations cannot predict with almost 100% accuracy, at least not in the first year . As it is, I feel like drivers are acting as guinea-pigs. I think a few former drivers like Lauda had expressed their concern about where the one tyre per-race rule would lead to. We saw it in Germany, we saw it here, i still believe that the chances of seeing tyre failures in say Spa or Monza are a possibility.

...that they tested, practiced and qualified on the same track-layout that has been present for 5 years.

Excuse me, tracks are frequently resurfaced. Resurfacing a track will usually alleviate many problems, mainly bumps/poor grip, but it could create new ones, particularly if kerbs are reworked which can often be the case in the event of adding a new layer of asphalt. In short, if the layout of the track looks the same to us viewers, conditions do change particularly from a tyre technician's viewpoint therefore the "unchanged" track is bull. Now, guess which famous American track was partly resurfaced recently and you'll be awarded a new, shiny set of Michelin tyres :D

[NAZCA M12]

Yeah the FIA leadeshrip is comprised of idiots.
And those six pilots who accepted to run (even if they use a different brand of tires) are complete morons.

I disagree with the drivers who participated being morons. It's safe to say they were against it, but they were just doing their job, they had a contract to race under certain circumstances and they couldn't back off.

I think a few good words have got to be said about Ferrari. Now there is no doubt, some guys who understand little from proper racing might be saying tomorrow "at least there was some racing between the Ferrari drivers, did you see Barichello having a go at Schumacher a couple of times?" That was disgusting, fooling with the crowd. Do they think we’re all ****ing 10 year olds that don’t know **** from racing? I don’t know whose idea was to let Barichello change lines at the end of the straight to make it look like he was having a go at Michael but it sure as hell was real nice artificial racing. You can’t attack the car in front from a mile back, just by taking the inside line. Were they told to make it look like a bit of an internal fight? I think it would be better if they told him to just slot behind Michael and never put his nose pretending he’s trying to pass. Even the crap that someone could say about Barichello changing lines in order to cool his engine instead of being right behind Schumacher’s hot air and overheating it, is not correct since he was too far back, and he didn’t take a different line down the whole straight, just before the first corner (which you do when have a go at the guy infront). That was really sick but I’m sure it passed as proper, honest racing in a few people’s eyes.

Let me move on to some FIA bashing for good measure :D because i just cannot believe they went on and started the race. It's funny that some of you characterized them as idiots. Having been watching all the changes in the past 20 years (and i don't mean just watch a race, but also testing, what happens in the background, off-season etc) i'd say that to call them idiots is like one member in here calling another one a genius. Please, they aren't so stupid, they're worse. Of course like many i have my own theory why they let Ferrari do a walk in the park today but regardless if they are in bed with them, or they wanted to "cleverly" put them back in the game for the championship and add even more interest into a great championship fight, are they so short-sighted to understand what they have done for the future of that race? The contracts with the TV stations are enormous, the track spectators, there was a ****load of money there. And when there's money, there's pressure too, which is why i'm surprised they didn't impose a solution that would allow all teams to run instead of that half-arsed tour we got. The possibility of a second American event in the F1 calendar (provided that this event kept attracting lots of people which i thing it did) should have persuaded not to **** around with the Indy race. About a potential 2nd event, can we all say "highly unlikely" after today’s events?

For us, it was no problem, we just switched channels in disgust and that was it? What about the poor fellows who went there by car or stayed there for the night? It's not just the cost of a ticket for them? Is it enough to write in a racing magazine about their negative experience? Would it be enough to never watch a race? I really hope that some of those people will sue the organizers (don't know if it's possible, i'd like to think it is) and ask their money back.

This is not the first time, it just showed again that there are some very low IQ guys ru(i)nning the sport, they deserve all the criticism they can get. When i talk to a "noob" who only watches F1 for about 4 or 5 years and he tells me (and this is very rare, usually they are misinformed and don't know squat of what it was like in the past) stuff like "dude, i've been watching some videotapes with races from the 70's and 80's and wow. What the **** is that junk they advertise today and dare to call it racing. Who changed all that?" i really get pissed. Even a young guy understands some principles of racing better than people with 30+ years of experience? The standard procedure for FIA is like this: First they **** up almost every rule they can, they take two steps back. Every team will complain for a while then say "we agree". After a few years, when those ****heads who insisted on the new rules realize their mistakes or just see that they just plain won't work, they take one step ahead and "improve" them. Unfortunately most morons say "bravo", "that's the right thing, way to go". Why? Because they partly unscrewed what they shouldn't have touched in the first place? I've said it in the past, they are experts in making equivocal rules, rules that can be interpreted any way you want. Look at the tyre situation. This year they upped the front wings and made the cars look like a grasshopper in order to cut downforce (and thus slow them down by a second or two) but they still allow a second manufacturer to enter the arena (when the past has showed us that without a control tyre, times will get 2s faster a year just by tyre competition alone)? See the freezing conditions inside their heads? I better not say more about the technical blunders/scandals of the past. Remember the Jo Bauer situation for example? Wasn't that funny? It went a bit like this:

- (FIA) Ferrari, you're illegal. You're thrown out of the race.

and after a few hours of ? , the tune changes to this:

- (FIA) No you're not!!

A few days ago, there was a rough schedule of some new cost-cutting features/improvements for F1 supposedly to be imposed from 2008 onwards. Of course its very rough still, alterations will be made but its nonetheless interesting and in accordance with what i've been saying (two steps back, then one step forward). Check this **** out:

* wider cars. Oh my, weren't they saying that the narrow cars (that look like F3 with fat tyres btw) would make for (dang!) easier passing? Why did they change their minds?
* wider tyers. Well mother****er, we'll go back to the proper, pre-1993 iirc rear tyres? How come and that u-turn FIA?
* ban of automatic shifting, traction control etc. The driver will have to do the shifting manually, gear knob and all like the old days. Damn, more emphasis on the driver? Why? Why not introduce "mind control gear shifting" or sth?
* one tyre supplier. Ah, that's so cute. What happened? Did their monkeys realize that antagonism between tyre companies speeds up cars and makes for more dangerous racing while negating at the same time all their other downforce cutting measures?
* slick tyres please. Who wants slicks? Grooved tyres are great. There was a proposal a few years ago about adding an additional groove to all tyres in order to further reduce grip and thus the speed of the car. Is there any chance that instead of one groove, they added infinite grooves and reinvented the...slick tyre?


There's a lot more, basically i'm waiting to see when

* the retarded "one by one folks, if you're going out last and is starts raining, tough **** my man" qualifying rule will go

* the pit stops that have replaced overtaking will the get the hell out of here

* the idiotic scoring system will be changed back. You just can't give 10 points to first placed man and 8 to the second, anyone remember the season when Raikonnen was battling for the title with one race victory and endless 2nds against Schumacher who had six or seven victories? Was that fair, or is it motivating a second placed driver to try and pass and go for the win and a much richer points tally?

* the "1 engine per 2 weekends" rule will go. I want to see racing, not teams like Renault and McLaren sitting in the pits on Fridays protecting their ****ing engines.

* the ****ing pace car. Apart from being fugly (i much prefer the moto gp one lol) and slow (didn't Heidfeld once with the Sauber hit it lol), it does more harm to racing than good. It cools off the tyres (dangerous for the first laps after the races goes underway once again), and basically there's no red flag any more. There's no restarting of a race, so if a driver was involved in an accident and it wasn't his fault, he can't get a second chance with the third car of the team. Why do they have a third car then? For kicks? What kind of ****ty rule is that?

* the "you got 5th or worse in the constructors? Good, bonus car for your team on the track that you're going to race! next year" rule will be banned. That rule gave a huge advantage to BAR and Renault in the previous years, now they do the same with Toyota and McLaren and on top of that, i got Dennis bull****ing at the Indy press conference about how complex the logistics of the team have become because of the third rule car? Poor McLaren chaps. I say get the **** outta my face with that ****. Why doesn't he stop running it like Sauber then (who has no money to run a third car)? The value of collecting extra data through the mule for the set-up of your primary cars just hours before the race, with no repercussions whatsoever (no penalties if PDLR or Toyota's RZ brake an engine or stuff it into the wall) is criminally more advantageous than a few extra days of testing that the top 4 teams get instead.

They have a long way to go before they get rid of all that crap.

Ah, one more thing:

Instead, we get Mosley being an ass and Ferrari's stooge. Let's get down to brass tacks. WE KNOW that Max wants a single tire manufacturer. WE KNOW mosley has ruled in favor of Ferrari in a number of technical legality issues.

OK, let's get down to brass tacks. Max wants a singe tyre manufacturer? Max who? Now he remembered? We got a second tyre manufacturer because he insisted, claiming that it would greatly increase competition. Maybe he changed his mind (seeing the draft of the 2008 rules it appears so) but if you're wondering who was supporting adding a second manufacturer, you got your man right there. If you don't know who wanted the grooved tyres so badly, he's your man also. Everybody else was against it but because it was his idea, he had none of it and pressed ahead. Pit-stops and all the strategic ****, problems with the refueling rings, fires (Hockenheim ’94 for example, oh the irony when FIA is pushing for safety all the time) and the finishing off of overtaking they brought, came with his blessings i think. Bernie's too. The rest is correct btw. There is very little integrity in the FIA (of course Luca di Montezemolo would strongly disagree with that) and plenty of stupidity. I bet we, the forum members in here could make better rules than the "experts" any time of the day.

[intercede007]

Excuse me, tracks are frequently resurfaced. Resurfacing a track will usually alleviate many problems, mainly bumps/poor grip, but it could create new ones, particularly if kerbs are reworked which can often be the case in the event of adding a new layer of asphalt. In short, if the layout of the track looks the same to us viewers, conditions do change particularly from a tyre technician's viewpoint therefore the "unchanged" track is bull. Now, guess which famous American track was partly resurfaced recently and you'll be awarded a new, shiny set of Michelin tyres :D

The IRL teams managed to hit 228MPH for 500 miles without tyres delaminating. I don't think it had a thing to do with the track resurfacing.

Bridgestone went an entire race without a tyre delaminating. I don't think it had a thing to do with the resurfacing.

The resurfacing was not some secret, confidential event. Everyone knew about it. Michelin was more then welcome, as was Bridgestone, Goodyear and Firestone, to inspect the track after the process was over. Both Goodyear and Firestone, along with several IRL teams, insisted that it be resurfaced again before the Indy 500 and the Brickyard 500. It was done and to everyones satisfaction.

Tracks are resurfaced every year. This is not a special case.

Michelin gambled by bringing a softer compoud tyre to the track then Bridgestone did, and it didn't pay off. Because they only brought one compound and not a more conservative alternative, the teams in the paddock were left scratching their heads as to how they could complete the race without racking up the penalties. They couldn't, so they bowed out.

Guess which tyre manufacturer ran an entire race without incident, and you win a big cookie.

[Shamrock]

For us, it was no problem, we just switched channels in disgust and that was it? What about the poor fellows who went there by car or stayed there for the night?

JUST drive home? Click this link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=f1&id=2089905

People came from Bolivia, South America, and now says he will never watch again.

Tony George offered phone numbers and websites to allow fans to voice their complaints.
http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=f1&id=2089996

Now, here is a nice solution, without being political:
Allow EVERYONE to change tires BEFORE the beginning of the race (Michelin was bringing in a harder tire, so Bridgestone would have benifitted). BUT do not allow them to change tired DURING the race. That would have satisfied everybody, including 100k fans.

Do NOT blame the drivers in this scenario (I have been reading alot of places that criticize the teams), blame FIA and Michelin. I got up too late to see the start of the race, and I only watched a total of 2 laps on SPEED. All the announcers could talk about was the GPWC forming. So, I knew something was up, and turned the channel to the Champcar race. :D (that was a good one, BTW!)

It's a shame that this happened.

[intercede007]

Allow EVERYONE to change tires BEFORE the beginning of the race (Michelin was bringing in a harder tire, so Bridgestone would have benifitted). BUT do not allow them to change tired DURING the race. That would have satisfied everybody, including 100k fans.

Michelin flew in 2 new compounds, but found that both were also defective. They were effectively out of options.

[Sazar]

Why are you mad at the FIA?

Michelin has had 5 years of track knowledge to bring the right tyres. And Bridgestone did their homework and brought the right tyres. Why penalize their hard work by putting a chicane into a corner they planned for? Why did Michelin only bring *ONE* tyre choice for teams when typically, there are two (as an aside, Bridgestone brought two tyre choices for their teams) allowed by the rules?

Seriously. It's no ones fault but Michelin. And F1 in the United States is going to pay dearly for the screw-up. Sure, I guess the FIA could have given into their demands, but why screw Bridgestone?

What happens if, at Silverstone in a couple weeks, the Bridgestone teams find themselves coming up short in the tyre department. Should they not be allowed to scream "FOUL!" and have Club Corner truncated to allow for a higher speed section?

Seriously. Michelin screwed up. BIG.

Agreed.

You don't change the arena if the equipment doesn't work.

The fault is Michelins and their's alone.

[2fast4u]

agreed with intercede and saz...michelin caused the problem in the first place, so they should be blamed for it. i still would have liked to see the race being aborted for the sports sake. it might have not been fair to the bridgestone teams but the image of formula1 will have to pay a much higher price now. cant even try to imagine what americans think about the series now.

hell, if im correctly informed, a lot of us racing series abort the race if it rains...im sure the fans would have been more understanding of a scenario like that and a later race than seeing a 6 car procession.

[NAZCA M12]

The IRL teams managed to hit 228MPH for 500 miles without tyres delaminating. I don't think it had a thing to do with the track resurfacing.

Not so sure if you read the title of the thread, we're not talking about IRL cars here, this is formula 1 cars. Are the IRL cars changing tyres in the pitstops or are they doing a full race with them? I had the impression that they only use the oval section, do they use the circuit section too? Do they ride the kerbs for example (a potential threat for cut tyres)? I don't think they do. Apples to oranges anyone?

The resurfacing was not some secret, confidential event. Everyone knew about it. Michelin was more then welcome, as was Bridgestone, Goodyear and Firestone, to inspect the track after the process was over. Both Goodyear and Firestone, along with several IRL teams, insisted that it be resurfaced again before the Indy 500 and the Brickyard 500. It was done and to everyones satisfaction.

Tracks are resurfaced every year. This is not a special case.

Tracks are most certainly not resurfaced every year, usually a small part like a corner or two could be resurfaced if a request is made by the federation or there is concern expressed by the GPDA. Cut tyres are a possiblity in tracks, even in resurfaced ones. I'm not sure if any team could go there and test at the track (probably yes), Bridgestone though could have more data from its sister company Firestone, not sure if that gave them any advantages though.

Michelin gambled by bringing a softer compoud tyre to the track then Bridgestone did, and it didn't pay off. Because they only brought one compound and not a more conservative alternative, the teams in the paddock were left scratching their heads as to how they could complete the race without racking up the penalties.

Now that's what i would like to know too. Why one choice only? Here's the link that confirms it by Mosley:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90260

Guess which tyre manufacturer ran an entire race without incident, and you win a big cookie.

Before answering you (and claim the cookie :p ), why are you so pumped up to blame ONLY Michelin? Let's assume that it was a Michelin fault 100%. There were plenty of solutions. The way the Concorde agreement works however, all teams must agree in such an occasion, otherwise nothing can be done. Here:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33194

If all that is true, what did the other teams do for the interests of the sport? How did they help the situation? I think when they (Michelin teams) are offering to race for nothing, and a team vetoes that, that they're only interested in not letting them race, at all. A 1-2 for Bridgestone was practically a foregone conclusion, why did they vetoed every proposal? Everyone wants to burn Michelin at stake atm, but what did the others do to help? If the opposite happens in the next race and Bridgestone is in trouble, would the other teams be bad mother****ers if they prevented Ferrari from racing or not, because i think they would and regardless of being initially at fault or not, they will have done nothing in the interests of the sport, just themselves. If a Bridgestone car had problems with flat tyres, would you be so against them? Would you have raised questions about the safety of the Bridgestone tyres yes or no?

Here's what MS had to say:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90216

Predictable eh? Well then he changed his mind and said this:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33198

I think Stoddart summed up the situation with FIA beautifully:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90175

Michelin flew in 2 new compounds, but found that both were also defective. They were effectively out of options.

New compounds? Really? Got any links?

[BioHazZarD]

Michelin sucks really.. this will be remembered for a long long time.

[npras42]

Michelin didnt fly in two compounds to find they were defective also, they flew in a new construction to find that the FIA would not allow them to run with them, because its in violation of five F1 rules. Which is fair enough.

I dont think that the FIA are totally free of blame here. They needed to put on a show here for the fans that came to see a race, and despite more than enough time they couldn't. The Michelin teams said they would like to run in the race with a chicane and not score points but the FIA said no. That was a very bad decision. People came from all over the world to see the race, and they deserveed to see something better than they got.

Also, Jordan and Minardi agreed to not run in the race unless a chicane was put in but Ferrari did not. By the time the race came around, Jordan changed their mind because they couldn't give up the chance for 6-18 points! Minardi couldnt let their nearest opponents gain such an advantage either so they had to run as well. However, had Ferrari agreed to a chicane, they still would have won the race and the fans would have got something.

Whatever problems Michelin will have for the future it will be nothing compared to FIA. 9 of the teams are not in agreement with pretty much anything the FIA says and full on revolt is not far away. Situations like this just accelerated the process.

Also, to intercede, there is no testing at Indianapolis for F1 teams, so no, they did have a hard job making the tyre. It was an easier mistake to make than you think. Also turn 13 had been altered and the diamond cut grooves they put in for the Indy 500 to increase traction for their low downforce cars are the likely cause of this problem. Now who was it that provided tyres for that race? None other than Bridgestone's American subsidiary Firestone. Bridgestone had much more info on the state of the track than Michelin.

[BrianG]

Nazca, You certainly have a a good memory. Yes, the tire rule has made for more interesting racing, like it or not. Kimi's suspension failure caused by the flatspotted tire turned the McLaren resurgence upside down. That is "good" drama for the sport. He could have pitted, changed the tire as the imminent failure rule should have covered the change. Remember that the tire was flinging entire chunks of tread. It would have been a gamble, but so was staying out.

Tires failed when they were allowed unlimited sets. In fact, tire quality varied greatly from set to set. How many times have we heard Michael say in the post-race interview that "the first stint, tires were fantastic, I was able to put time on the field. Second stint, the tires were not as good so we lost time." That was the most common stooge for increased or decreased lap times.

In recent talks about future rule changes, Mosley has certainly had second thoughts about the alternative tire vendors. In the interest of cutting cost, he has once again proposed a single tire that is common to all teams (of course Ferrari would get theirs hand-picked by the stooge himself, heh).

So anyway, back the race or not race discussion...

If all that is true, what did the other teams do for the interests of the sport?
Bullseye. This is the most important question to ask all of Formula One. Everybody should stop dancing around the real issue which is MONEY. How could F1 be so stupid, and when I say F1 I mean the team principles, Mosley, Ecclestone, Whiting, everyone, how could they be so stupid as to not find a way to race in the one country they can squeeze for far more money?

From the standpoint of Motorsports and the sporting attitude, the absolute right things happened this weekend at the USGP.
Sporting attitude? Sporting attitude would be to find a way to race. Were teams showing the sporting attitude by setting up on the grid, teasing fans with a formation lap and then ducking into the pits?

[stncttr908]

An easy way to resolve this would be to offer free tickets to another event to everyone that attended. This is what NASCAR president Bill France did after the innaugural race at Talladega in the 1960's. The speeds were so high and the tires were so poor that cars had to pit almost every 10 laps, and it killed the race entirely. He then turned around and offered free tickets to everyone that attended to next year's race, where a better tire was ready and waiting.

[NAZCA M12]

Here's some more news and feedback:

Naturally the FIA blames Michelin and the 7 teams involved:
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90292

What Mosley says about them is serious and if true it shows that maybe those teams were a tad demanding.

Of course Michelin blames FIA for the FIAsco:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33200

Dupasquier hints at the turn 13 being resurfaced recently. Convenient of course, the whole apologetic stance shows that they erred on Friday. Ferrari, Bridgestone and the federation did it on Sunday.

Some quotes from team principals and drivers as well:

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&PO_ID=33202

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050620113238.shtml

Trying to see it from a funny viewpoint just imagine that dialogue between a poor American fellow who hadn't seen an F1 race before and a European fan who didn't know a thing about oval racing:

American fan: Dude, screw your racing, if you haven't seen our kind of approach, you ain't seen a thing. Here, check it out (shows him an oval race)
European fan: (scratches head) Mother****er! But nah, not bad but you guys are miles away from what we do. Heck, we start with 20 cars, have a fight, and end up racing 6 of them while the crowd throws us cans and all kinds of garbage you can think. Here, have a look at it. Have you seen anything like that?
American fan: (scratches head) Mother****er!

Now, an interesting viewpoint from Todt himself:
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050620144250.shtml

He forgot to address the following question properly: When there was a proposal by the 7 teams to race but get no points at all, why did they vetoed that? Where the **** did he saw the "compromise" in that suggestion? Quite the opposite in fact, they would show to the people how magnanimous they are. Look at the bull**** he gives for an answer, look at the "we" "we" "we" arguments.

And some self-praise by Bridgestone. Notice the "safe" stabs at Michelin?

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050620011354.shtml

Basically, the guys over at Michelin are idiots: They never retaliated when they had the chance. So, for all those idiots who were quick to play it concerned about safety and repeatedly questioned Michelin only, where exactly where they when this happened in the not too distant past?

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=85580

Why didn't anybody say a thing about that questionable incident? How come and no one was concerned? Why no fan said Bridgestone might have ****ed up? Even they (Bridgestone and Ferrari) didn't have a concrete explanation, just a maybe. You want more? Whiting is very correctly saying that at Indy, Michelin didn't bring a second choice and for that alone, i hope they get a penalty. Well wake up Charlie, Brazil 2003: Torrential rain, one tyre manufacturer had brought the wrong tyre specification, an intermediate one, not a full wet, and that was Bridgestone. The other manufacturer had brought a full wet and were prepared to race. The only wet option that the Bridgestone teams had at their disposal (intermediates) were deemed dangerous under these conditions. Did anyone say a thing? No. Shouldn't the non-existent FIA tell Bridgestone exactly the same thing they told Michelin yesterday, that their tyre was not suitable, and they could not allow them to race under these conditions? They didn't. Instead, they took the pace car out, and we were treated with an awesome "race" for i don't know how many laps until the cars cleared a dry path and made the conditions "suitable" for Bridgestone, then they let the race start.

I've said all those things to make some of you never to come into early conclusions and always thing of what has happened in the past. Trying to present one company as bad is all right, as long as you remember the preferential treatment the other one got in previous situations.

Yes, the tire rule has made for more interesting racing, like it or not. Kimi's suspension failure caused by the flatspotted tire turned the McLaren resurgence upside down. That is "good" drama for the sport.

I partly agree but first, lets be honest here: the news bulletins loved it, more or less we all like to see an accident happen once in a while, but how about we associate the word drama with, instead of an accident, a huge battle between two or more drivers, with passing maneuvers between them, fierce competition, without pit stops, without tyre concerns and all that? You want an example, I'm guessing you have seen the last laps of the Dijon 1979 race between Gilles Villeneuve and Rene Arnoux. If you haven't, try and find the vidoe through the net, and you'll see an awesome battle, better than 10 accidents put together. Now that's what i call drama, and its why this race went down in history as one of the most exciting ones, ever. Back to the "good" drama that you mentioned, i think you'll agree with me that it was a situation that could easily have gone very wrong. We could even have a fatality and then nobody would be talking about "good" drama. I mean, i suppose the FIA could put devices to the tyres and explode a tyre in each race at random, that would add drama surely? The only good situation i can easily recall was the Renaults at Monaco with the finished tyres. The one tyre rule has brought an element of danger, and yes an element of unpredictability to an extent. I'd exchange that unpredictability from the tyres with a good fight between drivers and no tyre concerns. I'd still like to see the one tyre rule imposed, but with one tyre company and a hard, contro
tyre. But you know Max, he changes his opinion all the time. There was speculation weeks ago that a third company was interested in entering the sport. He might as well change his mind again and say "screw that, let's go for three teams, the more the merrier" :D

Let's see what happens in a few days time:

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050620160231.shtml

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=90306

Shall i take a wild guess? All points will be taken back from Michelin cars. That will leave Ferrari with an unassailable lead in both championships in the middle of the year. Heh, that would be funny :D

[Shamrock]

About the IRL vs F1 debate. Who provides tires for the IRL Indy 500? Firestone. Who is Bridgestone's sister company (division of Bridgestone)? Firestone. Bottom line, Bridgestone had a 3 week head start on the resurfaced track, with the data provided by Firestone, to Bridgestone. And Bridgestone compensated for it. Michelin had none, they didnt even test at Indy (could they?)

American fan: Dude, screw your racing, if you haven't seen our kind of approach, you ain't seen a thing. Here, check it out (shows him an oval race)
European fan: (scratches head) Mother****er! But nah, not bad but you guys are miles away from what we do. Heck, we start with 20 cars, have a fight, and end up racing 6 of them while the crowd throws us cans and all kinds of garbage you can think. Here, have a look at it. Have you seen anything like that?
American fan: (scratches head) Mother****er!

Yes, 2004 Talladega 500, Jeff Gordon wins it by technicality. Caution comes out, with one lap to go, and Jeff is ahead of fan favorite Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Fans throw approximately 400 cans (FULL cans) at Jeff on the track while he does a burnout. No real point to make here, but throwing things at drivers do happen.

[Shamrock]

Michelin flew in 2 new compounds, but found that both were also defective. They were effectively out of options.

as Michelin were pleading with FIA to let them race, they were flying in a new harder compound. That was their alternative.

If it were me, I would have changed the tires anyway, and raced, and took the 10 spot penalty for next race. Isnt that the penalty for changing a tire? 10 spots on the grid at next race? (I could be wrong).

Kimi got 2 points for finishing 7th, why didnt FIA give the points to 7th and 8th place? they STARTED the grid! Even if they DQ them, they get the 3 points available.