USGP Michelin Tires

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
johny
0
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 09:06
Location: Spain

Post

The madness continues

We hear that the FIA has ordered Michelin to supply it with full details of all of its tyre failures in recent times and that the federation has instructed the French tyre maker that the information will be put in front of an independent technical expert to decide whether or not Michelin's F1 tyres are dangerous . We have not seen the letter from FIA President Max Mosley to Michelin but apparently it suggests that the outcome of this could be the exclusion of Michelin from the World Championship , which would leave seven teams with no tyres for future races .

As most of the cars are designed specifically for Michelin tyres this would mean that cars could not be run because of safety issues .

We expect to see the teams providing a robust defence of the charges against them and we would expect to see a similar reaction from Michelin.

The alternative is for the companies involved to begin to quit the F1 scene - which is quite possible now - which would be the start of an even bigger disaster for the sport.

The FIA World Council next week will be the most significant FIA meeting for more than 10 years with the major question not being the details of what happened in Indianapolis but rather whether the best interest of the sport is to have a World Championship featuring the best of the best or a ruined championship over which the FIA has full control to do as it pleases.

In the second case, it is likely that there will be a rival championship featuring the refugees of F1 as we now know it.

For us, there is only one acceptable answer but we must see if the World Council members agree or whether they believe that it is best to kill what we have and start again with something new.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15080.html
what is mosley thinking about? he wants to finish with f1? Fia is getting more stupid each day

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

FIA and F1 bosses are cutting the branch they sit on… :D

Nothing strange, desperate people make desperate moves. Max and Bernie are in panic since their days are numbered so they keep on attacking in order to defend themselves...

F1JagFan
F1JagFan
0
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 11:10

Peter Sauber speaks about Sunday’s ‘race’

Post

Extract from interview with Peter Sauber

Did the relatively strict security and liability laws of the US also play a role?
No. We would have reacted the same in other country.The security of the drivers is number one for all of the teams. We were all agreed that we could not drive with these tires unless the race course was slightly altered. It would have been possible to build a chicane in turn 13, which is a steep face curve. Doing this would have mitigated the entire course, and the maximum speeds would have considerably reduced.

Why weren't these measures implemented?
We, along with all of the Michelin teams, put this solution forward to the FIA, but it declined. Instead, the FIA suggested its own solutions, which would not have worked. In fact, they would have created new dangers.

Was there no way around this impasse?
No, despite the fact that nine of the teams went back in this morning to request the creation of the chicane. In other words, two Bridgestone teams, Jordan and Minardi, went along. Various telephone calls took place between the team bosses and the FIA head, Max Mosley. Although I can't say in detail what was discussed, the results were always negative. The fact that it was not permissible to make a simple change that would have made it possible to follow through with the race, is a disgrace for Formula One here in America. The seven Michelin teams were in agreement that the Bridgestone cars, the two Ferraris, two Jordans and two Minardis, could start from the lead positions in the grid. We were even prepared to default on all points for this race. The finishing results would have been exactly the same as now, but at the least the fans here and in their homes would have seen an exciting race.

Source: Credit Suisse

Guest
Guest
0

Re: Just slow Down

Post

manchild wrote:
DeWDiver wrote:If what Michelin wanted cars to slow down in turn 13, then why didn't those on the Michelins do just that. They could have ran the race and excepted this as their penalty for not bringing/using an appropriate tire.

Simple solution, unless the speed differential would be a safety issue, but they run different classes at LeMans for 24hrs!
That would also be meaningless race as much as it was the one we've seen.

Formula 1 cars shouldn’t run around just for show… 7 Michelin teams including 2 Bridgestone teams agreed to make a competition only Ferrari didn’t want to compete. Their idea of competition is having no competition on track…
manchild........shut the --- up

Guest
Guest
0

Part of 1st letter response from Charlie Whiting to Michelin

Post

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.
The issue was about saftey - not performance. If it was a performance issue, the Michelin teams would have run under restricted conditions and scored the points left over by the Bridgestone teams

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: 06 Jun 2005, 15:29

Re: Part of 1st letter response from Charlie Whiting to Mich

Post

Anonymous wrote:
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.
The issue was about saftey - not performance. If it was a performance issue, the Michelin teams would have run under restricted conditions and scored the points left over by the Bridgestone teams
Quite correct; the FIA are hiding behind this smokescreen. The speed limit for Michelin teams was quite absurd, but also too easy to hang your hat on and use as a stick to beat Michelin with. This whole series of events could well spell the end of Max Mosley at the FIA; or gurantee a break away series.

Dear Guest - please stop using foul language to attack Manchild; why not register instead of hiding behind your anonymity? This is a FORUM for public DISCUSSION not an ARENA for trading INSULTS. Thank you.

Hudsonhawk
Hudsonhawk
0

Post

\:D/ Manchild\:D/

=D> =D>

About time !!!!! The future is brighter after this dark day. They will be exposed for who they are.....

Power to people like Stoddart, for even though his team raced, he showed his disapproval and vented his feelings. He calls it as it is.

For those that are still blind to the facts, enjoy your political business for I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, and "racing" will return to dominate this motorsport.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

Hypocrisy revealed – FIA’s refusal to introduce temporary chicane at turn 13 by claiming that such thing would be illegal is a lie! Now it is obvious that there was politics behind their refusal and nothing else because in 1994 such chicane was introduced for Belgian GP in Eau Rouge by that same FIA.

Guest
Guest
0

Re: Part of 1st letter response from Charlie Whiting to Mich

Post

Anonymous wrote:
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.
The issue was about saftey - not performance. If it was a performance issue, the Michelin teams would have run under restricted conditions and scored the points left over by the Bridgestone teams
You just stated that it was a safety issue, not performance. I hate to say your logic is wrong, but it is. If it was truely safety only, Michelin would not have proposed the "restricted speed" or the chicane. The teams and Michelin for whatever reason, did not want to use a self-imposed speed limit in turn 13.

Yes it was about safety, but they didn't want to be the only ones to have a performance penalty to keep running speeds in check. They wanted to penalize those on Bridgestones for their, Michelin's, incompitance.

FIA told them they could do this or be penalized for switching tires. By this reasoning only those teams that did not race and Michelin should be blamed for not running with these self imposed penalties.

Yes, I am a Ferrari or more precisely a Schui fan. However I agree that Max and Bernie are tyranical A-- holes. I personally wouldn't mind the break away to get out from under these two idiots control, but let's put the blame with the ones who made the mistake, Michelin.

DeWDiver
DeWDiver
0

Re: Part of 1st letter response from Charlie Whiting to Mich

Post

Just so no one thinks I was hiding behind a comment this was mine

The issue was about saftey - not performance. If it was a performance issue, the Michelin teams would have run under restricted conditions and scored the points left over by the Bridgestone teams[/quote]

You just stated that it was a safety issue, not performance. I hate to say your logic is wrong, but it is. If it was truely safety only, Michelin would not have proposed the "restricted speed" or the chicane. The teams and Michelin for whatever reason, did not want to use a self-imposed speed limit in turn 13.

Yes it was about safety, but they didn't want to be the only ones to have a performance penalty to keep running speeds in check. They wanted to penalize those on Bridgestones for their, Michelin's, incompitance.

FIA told them they could do this or be penalized for switching tires. By this reasoning only those teams that did not race and Michelin should be blamed for not running with these self imposed penalties.

Yes, I am a Ferrari or more precisely a Schui fan. However I agree that Max and Bernie are tyranical A-- holes. I personally wouldn't mind the break away to get out from under these two idiots control, but let's put the blame with the ones who made the mistake, Michelin.[/quote]

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

Paul Stoddart - Indianapolis 2005


Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.

While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, affect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.

Background

For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday’s United States Grand Prix.

The Facts

Friday, June 17

I noticed that Ricardo Zonta’s Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumacher’s accident, both on the monitors, and more significantly, I could see what took place from my position on the pit wall. This necessitated a red flag, and in the numerous replays on the monitors, it looked very much like the cause of the accident was a punctured rear tyre.

Throughout the afternoon, numerous people in the paddock suggested it was a tyre failure and commented that it was similar to the serious accident which befell Ralf Schumacher during the 2004 US Grand Prix. Later that evening was the first time I was aware of a potential problem with the Michelin tyres at this event. In all honesty, I didn’t pay a great deal of attention, as our team is on Bridgestone tyres.

Saturday, June 18

On arriving at the circuit, the word throughout the paddock was that there was a potential problem with the rear tyres supplied to all Michelin teams for this event, and it became evident as the first and second sessions were run that most of the affected teams were being very conservative with the amount of on-track running they were doing. In addition, Toyota announced that it had substituted Ricardo Zonta for Ralf Schumacher, who would take no further part in the event. Speculation was rife in the paddock that some Michelin teams might not take part in qualifying. Also, during the practice session, I was informed there would be a Team Principals’ meeting with Bernie Ecclestone at 1430 hrs after qualifying, which I incorrectly assumed would centre around the Michelin issue.
Qualifying took place, and indeed, all 20 cars qualified for Sunday’s Grand Prix.

At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise, and in fairness, it was not discussed in any great detail.

I personally found this strange, but as I have stated, it did not affect Minardi directly, and therefore I had no reason to pursue the matter.
Throughout Saturday evening, there was considerable speculation in the paddock that the tyre issue was much more serious than at first thought, and people were talking about a fresh shipment of tyres being flown overnight from France, and what penalty the Michelin teams would take should those tyres be used. By the time I left the paddock, people were taking bets on Minardi and Jordan scoring points!

Later that evening, I checked with our Sporting Director on what developments had occurred, and was told that the issue was indeed very serious, and the possibility existed that the Michelin teams would not take part in the race.

Sunday, June 19

I arrived at the circuit at 0815 hrs, only to find the paddock was buzzing with stories suggesting the Michelin teams would be unable to take part in the Grand Prix. I was then handed a copy of correspondence between Michelin, the FIA, and the Michelin teams that revealed the true extent of the problem. By now, journalists were asking if Minardi would agree to a variation of the regulations to allow the Michelin teams to compete, and what penalties I felt would be appropriate.

A planned Minardi press briefing took place at 0930 hrs, and as it was ending, I was summoned to an urgent meeting, along with Jordan, with Bernie Ecclestone, the two most senior Michelin representatives present at the circuit, IMS President Tony George, Team Principals, and technical representatives from the Michelin teams. At this meeting, Michelin, to its credit, admitted that the tyres available were unable to complete a race distance around the Indianapolis circuit without a change to the track configuration, so as to reduce the speed coming out of the last turn onto the banking. Much background information was provided as to the enormous efforts that Michelin, with support from its teams, had undertaken in the preceding 48 hours to try and resolve the problem, but it was clear that all those efforts had failed to produce a suitable solution that wouldn’t involve support from the non-Michelin teams, and ultimately, the FIA.

What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to the only sensible solution – a chicane.

During this discussion, a technical representative with specific knowledge of the Indianapolis circuit, together with representatives from IMS, were tasked with preparing the design of a chicane, and Bernie Ecclestone agreed to speak with the one Team Principal not present, Mr Todt, and to inform the FIA President, Max Mosley, who was not present at Indianapolis, of the planned solution to allow the successful running of the US Grand Prix. With only a few hours now remaining to the start of the race, we agreed to reconvene as soon as Bernie had responses from Messrs Todt and Mosley.

At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith. These words had a familiar tone to me, as they were similar to those I had heard around midnight on the Friday preceding the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, when I was told by all the senior FIA representatives present that the Australian Grand Prix would be cancelled forthwith if I did not withdraw pending legal action between Minardi and the FIA.

Once again, Mr Mosley was not present at that Grand Prix! It is fair to say at this point that the vast majority of people present in the room both felt and stated that Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence.

By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non-championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur.

By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his team and drivers to conduct themselves in the spirit of providing an entertaining race for the good of Formula One.

At this point, we called for all 20 drivers, and indeed, all 20 arrived, at which point we informed them of our plan. While I cannot testify that each and every driver agreed with what we were proposing, what I can say with certainty is that no driver disagreed, and indeed, members of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association discussed overseeing the construction of a suitable chicane. Jean Todt was the only significant team individual not present, and the Ferrari drivers stated this decision was up to Mr Todt.

I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster.

After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters.

I’m sure this sentence will be treated with contempt by Mr Mosley, but what must be realised is that there are various reasons that other Team Principals, and the most senior people in Formula One, will not say publicly what they openly feel privately about Mr Mosley, his politics and his governance of the sport. There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history.

Discussions then took place concerning the other telephone calls with Mr Mosley from, among others, Bernie Ecclestone, Ron Dennis and Tony George, and it was clearly revealed to what extent Mr Mosley was prepared to go in order to achieve his aims.

To my total disgust, it was stated that Mosley had informed Mr Martin, the FIA’s most senior representative in the USA, that if any kind of non-championship race was run, or any alteration made to the circuit, the US Grand Prix, and indeed, all FIA-regulated motorsport in the US, would be under threat – again, exactly the same tactic that was used in threatening the Australian Grand Prix and Australian motorsport in March of this year.

By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix.

At this point, the pit lane had opened and a hasty discussion took place concerning whether or not the Michelin teams would go to the grid. A radio had been delivered to me by team personnel at this stage, and I was able to know which cars were going to the grid. It is interesting to note that the Jordan Team Principal was not present at this time, and indeed, it was the Jordans that first proceeded to the grid, followed by the Ferraris. After discussion with Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed the Michelin teams would go to the grid, but were absolutely prevented from participating in the race because of the tyre situation.

We then proceeded to the grid, at which point I asked Jordan’s Colin Kolles if he intended to stand by the other teams or participate in the race. In no uncertain terms, I was told Jordan would be racing. I was also approached by a Bridgestone representative, who informed me that Bridgestone wished us to race. This left me with one of the most difficult decisions I have had to take during my time in F1, as I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not. I made it clear to Bernie Ecclestone, and several Team Principals, that if the Jordans either went off or retired, I would withdraw the Minardi cars from the race.

It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt.

For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.

Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation.

Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!

Paul Stoddart

Now all of it becomes clearer as we can get deeper picture about many previous talks about Todt as Mossley’s favorite replacement at the top of FIA etc. I have no more doubts about hidden financial deal between Ferrari, Mossley and Bernie. That entire Ferrari’s dominance now seams even more questionable including no sanctions on many Ferrari’s and Schumaher’s technical and sporting illegalities in the previous seasons.

It is interesting to see how Bernie has realized that Maxes boat is sinking and therefore he wisely left it playing neutral and slowly switching to side of absolute majority leaving Ferrari and FIA bosses alone in their doomed intentions.

Even both Ferrari drivers shared thoughts and suggestions of majority. I don’t blame them at all but I regret that Schumacher and Barrichello haven’t taken that chance to really make a history and do something to be remembered by refusing to obey Todt’s orders. They are at the end of their careers and being obedient as rookies is something that at least 7 times WDC could have afforded. Berrichello would naturally follow Michael’s example. The whole world would applaud them for what could have been one big ultimate blow against F1 dictators.

But it doesn’t matter for things are now on the right course and nothing can stop that.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Post

What about the American fans who travelled long
distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with
only 6 cars?

Max Mosley: My personal view, and it is only my personal
view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the
fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor
Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie
Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand
Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that
anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to
the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I
emphasise, that’s just my personal view.
Oh yeah, his personal… Michelin this, Tony George and Bernie that and no blame to Max. Hahaha, does he really believes that he can get Michelin into refunding in order to make them take the blame? He is even putting down Bernie just to cover up his own cock-up, amazing! :shock:
Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?

MM: You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport.
Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not
entertainment disguised as sport. But even more
importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it
would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a
circuit without following tried and tested procedures.
What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is
not true of a fatality.
Remember this Max’s answer, you’ll need it in the reminder of the interview… :wink:
Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to
install a chicane?

MM: The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by
the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams
on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until
Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane
because it would have been unfair, against the rules and
potentially dangerous.
Max didn’t learn about it until Sunday morning because he wasn’t at all in Indianapolis and that is why all of F1 and fans had to take consequences!
Chicane Max approved in 1994 for Belgian GP in Spa was fair, in compliance the rules and absolutely safe!

Max is sooooo much red-handed that is hurts!
Why unfair?

MM: Because modern Formula One cars are specially
prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit
like Indianapolis, which has very particular
characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the
teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.
…and F1 cars from 1994 had single setup for all circuits :roll:
Is this why Ferrari objected?
MM: No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.
Triple lie:
1.We all know what JT said and did
2.Ferrari was consulted as much as the rest of teams
3.All Bridgestone teams except Ferrari agreed with Michelin teams

Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been
the same for everyone?

MM: No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski
race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race
arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill
skis and tell the organizer to change the course because
it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their
short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly.
To make the competitors with the correct skis run a
completely different course to suit those with the wrong
skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.
1994 Belgian GP, chicane approved by Max was there but than it wasn’t contrary to basic sporting fairness…
Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?

MM: OK, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing
point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have
five teams with engines from major car companies and
seven independent teams with engines from a commercial
engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven
independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn
13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They
would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down.
There would be no question of a chicane.
Imagine all the people living life in peace…
All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?

MM: There was no safety issue with the circuit. The
problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It
would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint
run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.
There was never safety issue with the circuit for Max and that is why he never did anything after Roland Ratzenberger’s death on Saturday and allowed race in Imola with unprotected walls that killed Senna next day! Since he didn’t react on Saturday 30th April 1994 than I’m not surprised with his reaction on Saturday 18th June 2005!
How can you say a chicane would be “potentially dangerous” when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?

MM: A chicane would completely change the nature of the
circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy
braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been
prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected
and homologated with all the simulations and
calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose
there had been a fatal accident - how could we have
justified such a breach of our fundamental safety
procedures to an American court?
There the uncovered side of Max – "Max the mechanic", imagine what would happen to cars if he wasn’t so wise ban chicane by predicting brake problems. Teams had no idea about that… Finally, the fear of loosing money is greater than one of loosing drivers life.
But it’s what the teams wanted.

MM: It’s what some of the teams wanted because they
thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it
because they knew they could not run at full speed on
the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just
because some of the teams want us to.
Some of the teams = 9 of 10 teams. According to Max, teams like Minardi and Jordan also "wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit”.
Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre
flown in specially from France?

MM: It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We
told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards
would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no
advantage from breaking the rules by using a
high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We
also had to make sure this did not set a precedent.
However the question became academic, because Michelin
apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test
rig.
Who is “we”? Max wasn’t there at all!
MM: …I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time.
Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre - why did they not have a back-up available?

MM: You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies
usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more
conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to
provide a safety net if there are problems.
There is no difference between having backup tyre and having flown backup tyre when one needs it. Problem is that FIA dosen’t cares about the safety and rather prohibits use of backup tyres than to let them be changed for safety reasons.
Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?

Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.
Right on time, approximately two weeks deadline, just enough time to make pile of high-tech tyres by new specifications, test them and deliver to teams…
So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?

MM: We offered them three possibilities. First, to use
the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option
to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary.
Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided
they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly
have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different
tyre - but this became academic when Michelin withdrew
it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced
speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…:roll:
How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?

MM: They do it all the time and that is exactly what
Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce
their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have
a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome
it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique
to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is
heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill
for a racing driver.
Allowing start of race with premeditated serious safety issues for 14 out of 20 cars including the remaining participants seams to be OK to Max!!!
But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?

MM: No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits - effectively a drive-through penalty.
What a nice vision of racing Max has, I’m amazed…
How would a driver know what speed he was doing?

MM: His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.
Wait a moment, how come Max has answer on all of these detail questions unless this whole thing wasn’t planned before it happened?!
But would this be real racing?

MM: It would make no difference to the race between the
Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have
had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct
result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on
which everyone had previously agreed to race.
Say it out loud Max – it is only Ferrari that matters to you!
Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?

MM: Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap.
The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have
avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to
understand why none of them did this, because 7th and
8th places were certainly available, plus others if any
of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There
were points available which might change the outcome of
the World Championship.
Not only that, they could have used the paddock on each lap and stop for burgers and coke which would actually give them advantage over Bridgestone teams…
But that would have looked very strange - could you call
that a race?

MM: It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have
been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would
all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That
would have been a show for the fans, certainly
infinitely better than what happened.
Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?
MM: You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport.
Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not
entertainment disguised as sport. But even more
importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it
would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a
circuit without following tried and tested procedures.
What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is
not true of a fatality.
Red-handed, red-handed…
Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at
all?

MM: No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13.
They were apparently not worried about the rest of the
circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a
speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to
race at all, there would have been no point in asking
for a chicane.
Now he’s lost it completely…
Didn’t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?

MM: I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.
What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?
MM: This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone’s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.
So the main concern for FIA was not to allow Michelin to beat Bridgestone. Max is talking about regulations and safety in relation of what he believes that should be the result of the race!
Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?

MM: We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no
contractual relationship with them. Their relationship
is with the teams. However, we have an excellent
understanding with both tyre companies and with many of
the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us
with technical information when we ask them.
Yeah,first you put a pile of s..t on them and than expect their help, no way Pedro!
Wouldn’t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?

MM: No, this is precisely what the competition law
authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It
is not acceptable to them that the international
governing body should have the right both to sanction
and to promote. This would potentially enable it to
further its own financial interests to the detriment of
competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect
there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict
of interest if a body charged with administering a
dangerous sport had to consider the financial
consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons..
You can be responsible for the sport or for the money,
but not both.
So true, and that is why Max isn’t capable to run FIA because his concern is only money. There we have both him and Bernie concerned for money and 9 teams including, fans who care about the sport and safety.
Didn’t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?

MM: No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability.
Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.
Max is here claiming that Michelin designed and calculated tyres not suitable for Indy, he is not talking about technical/practical problem Michelin faced on this occasion.
Finally, what’s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?

MM: We will listen carefully to what the teams have to
say. There are two sides to every story and the seven
teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The
atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor
Sport Council members come from all over the world and
will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and
balanced.
There are two sides to every story and one of the sides is actually also the judge and the jury.

Guest
Guest
0

Post

You just stated that it was a safety issue, not performance. I hate to say your logic is wrong, but it is. If it was truely safety only, Michelin would not have proposed the "restricted speed" or the chicane. The teams and Michelin for whatever reason, did not want to use a self-imposed speed limit in turn 13
Not sure you are right. Refer to the quote from Peter Sauber..
The seven Michelin teams were in agreement that the Bridgestone cars, the two Ferraris, two Jordans and two Minardis, could start from the lead positions in the grid. We were even prepared to default on all points for this race. The finishing results would have been exactly the same as now, but at the least the fans here and in their homes would have seen an exciting race
.. I read this as only the Michelin teams forfeiting points, not Bridgestone as well.
The finishing results would have been exactly the same as now
.. now you can't argue with that logic. And then the quote from Stoddard..
the nine teams had discussed running a non-championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points
It was obviously about safety not performance.

All teams would have ended up with the same result we have no except one minor detail - we would have seen a race.

Hudsonhawk
Hudsonhawk
0

Post

Look at "Jean Frogs" options :shock:

http://www.formula-1.updatesport.com/ne ... /view.html
:D
A race through this pitlane.....Look at this clown.....No wonder this guy looks like he does.....he was once 7 foot high and only 2 feet wide.....someone has drop him on his head thats why he is now 5 foot high and 4 foot wide now.....

ALL ABOARD ....... THE REVOLUTION EXPRESS - (The Blind Ferrari freaks get to ride with the animals......BOOOHOOOOO).

To whoever owns this site they should consider getting a new website called the gpwctechnical.com :shock: .........

EJECT EJECT EJECT
catchya on the highway of life

Guest
Guest
0

Post

Manchild, bother to learn the history of things before you start to rant and froth.
The sole reason the chicane was added in 1994 was because of the track safety paranoia gripping F1 after Imola. Eau Rouge has virtually no run off area and a serious accident had happened the year before. Spa, just like many other tracks on the calender was require to implement changes. However changing Eau Rouge was not a simple job because the land around it needed to be bought to make space for the run off areas first. The chicane was hated by all concerned and generally caused more trouble than it was worth. It is overwhelming proof that a temporary chicane was the wrong solution, not as you wish, a precident for using one.
Secondly it was known well in advance of the race it would be there and the teams and cars were ready for it.

The accidents invovling Ratzenberger and Senna were in completely different circumstances. RR smash was virtually head on after his front wing fell off, just before the chicane, got airborne, went striaght across it, hit a wall.
Nothing from RRs crash suggested in anyway, to anybody, that the sort of smash Senna had would be a major problem.
Senna ran wide, hit the wall and got spiked by his suspension, freak accident. The only difference to today is that tracks tend to have more run off area before solid walls, but there remain very many fast sweepers like Imola had that still have a solid wall albeit a little further back.