PDA

View Full Version : Formula 1, What A Farce , R.i.p



BILKO
22-06-05, 08:35 AM
Who Saw It On Sunday, What A Joke.

The Whole Safety Issue's Getting Out Of Hand, If They Dont Want To Be In Danger Then They Shouldn't Become Racing Drivers.
Get Rid Of The 5 Mile Runoffs On All The Corners , The Padding In The Cockpit , The Neck Braces And All The Other Rubbish. Just Give The Tarts A Car ,tell Them To Race Like Mansil Used To And Stop Pussy Footing About Like A Load Of Millionair Prima Donnas , Iam Sure Theres Plenty Of Talented Drivers Out There Waiting For A Go At A Fraction Of The Pay, Put 24 New Drivers Hungry For A Win Out On The Track, It May Not Be Pretty But I Bet It'd Be Entertaining.

Bilko

Andy S
22-06-05, 10:03 AM
Yep have to agree with most of what you say, however I notice regards Indy that Ferrari where the only team that refused to sign the document for the extra chicane which would have meant all the teams racing, but now they have taken a back seat saying nothing to do with us our tyres were fine, mind you 18 points tally in the constructors title and schuey + Rubens both moved nicely up the drivers table as well. Not daft these Italian boys are they??

JonnyT
22-06-05, 10:49 AM
For what it's worth it seems to me that the only people potentially at fault were the FIA. Ferrari brought the proper equipment and reaped the rewards - it is racing after all and I think that suggestion that they should have seen the bigger picture is wrong. Michelin can be criticised for the tyre construction, but should be praised for having the balls to admit that they had f***** up and for the safety of the drivers (which is an important consideration - what would the press have been if Ralf Schumacher had ended up dead and Michelin had known that their tyres were not upto the job) they refused to allow the use of their tyres.

The FIA however could have taken the view that for the benefit of the sport the chicane should have been added and the race could have gone ahead. However, I do take the point that they make that there are rules in racing that should not be broken because a team or teams has inadequate equipment - that would beg the question where does one draw the line - should one allow the addition of a speed limit on the track because the less wealthy manufacturers say that their cars are not capable of doing the speed of a ferrari and it might blow up as a result?

On balance I am not convinced that what happened was not absolutely right in the circumstances, in the name of sport, albeit that the spectators did not get the race that they had paid for. There endeth the lesson!!!!

smash
22-06-05, 11:39 AM
Don't forget that Michelin wanted to bring in alternative tyres which the FIA would've allowed ONLY on the basis of a points penalty for all teams concerned.

Andy S
22-06-05, 11:43 AM
FIA & Ferrari oh what a surprise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mark_biddle
22-06-05, 11:54 AM
Well without starting too much of an argument, I think Michelin were in the wrong and the FIA were correct ............
Michelin pushed the envelope on tyre technology and obviously passed it.
I agree they had the ba**s to admit they got it wrong, but why should the FIA bow to them if the pushed the limits too far. It is not the FIA's fault they could not supply safe equipment. If brembo said their brakes were not up to it, so could the cars potter about and not go over 20mph because they would not be able to stop it would be an equal farce.
I totally agree the whole episode was stupid and all it did was bring bad on F1 ( I am not an F1 fan at all by the way) but I think the blame is getting pushed at the FIA wrongly.
If Jonny Wilko turned up with no boots becaause his gave him blisters, that would be his own fault, you could not expect every other player to take their boots off as well.
Oh dear what have I said.......... stand back and wait !

smash
22-06-05, 12:27 PM
Michelin are not without blame but did try to compromise - if we were talking about just one team being affected I'd agree to FIA's stance but this wasn't the case.

You also have to ask who selected a track in the States with an extremely high speed [/b]banked[b] corner which produce loads on the tyres they don't experience on 'traditional' F1 flat ciruits?

Grease Monkey
22-06-05, 12:33 PM
They've been racing at Indie for years, and it's always had a banked circuit. The problem is a combination of newer softer tyres, a newer rougher tarmac surface, faster cars with more downforce and perhaps a change in the track leading to the banked section to allow higher speeds...

dictys
22-06-05, 12:45 PM
My view it is the teams and michelin who is at fault here. At the end of the day they could have all raced however they would have to reduce their speed for that one corner.

Ok they wouldn't have been competative with the bridgestone cars, however some teams would still be in the points. This is racing, you have the race within the abilities of your car, if your car can't drive safety at 220mph on a banked turn, then you don't drive it at 220mph on a banked turn. IMHO changing the rules because Michelin forgot to sort out the right tyres is wrong. They should have raced and if they though there was a danger then bring them into the pits and change the tyres.

BILKO
22-06-05, 12:52 PM
I've Got To Agree With Dictys If They Couldn't Take The Bend At 220 Then They Should've Taken It At 200 Or 180 Or Even 30 If That What It Took, All The Other Michelin Teams Would Have Been In The Same Boat And At Least There Would Have Been A Some Sort Of A Show For The Poor Sods In The Stands.

Bilko

smash
22-06-05, 01:07 PM
Trust an F1 driver to self govern speed when duelling with the Hun.......er......I mean racing their opponents? That's like asking a bunch of cobra drivers not to race each other - No chance! :D ;)

JonnyT
22-06-05, 01:22 PM
I agree with smash - we all know that if a car is capable of doing something then in the name of racing the drivers would have used that ability. It is impossible during a race to determine the state of your tyres and what forces / wear is being created by the track - it is not the same as reducing speed for a corner because you know if you don't you are going to spin off and be out of the race. That is what would have made it so very dangerous and I am sure that no-one here would advocate the FIA allowing a race to go ahead where a serious (and potentially life threatening) crash was almost inevitable. That would be manslaughter.

FatBoy
22-06-05, 01:53 PM
The bottom line is that Michelin and the Michelin teams screwed up. The net result was that they took the wrong equipment to Indy. I can see no obvious reason why the Bridgestone teams should be penalised for doing the job right. Prior to Indy, Bridgestone tested on the banked circuit at Rockingham in preparation for Indy, whereas Michelin tested at Silverstone.
My initial view was one of "bloody FIA & Ferrari at it again". However, having read the FIA statement at http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/200605-01.html they start by stating that "Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race."..and Iave to say, I agree with them.
Also, nobody suggested changing the rules when Ferrari were having problems earlier in the year.
My suspicion is that Michelin and the Michelin teams were playing a game of brinkmanship that ultimately painted them into a corner they couldn't get out of. By premeturely stating that the tyres were unsafe, they had no option but to withdraw in the absence of the FIA changing the rules for them. I'm sure that Ferrari would have prefered to win under more normal circumstances, but they happy nontheless to take the 18 points to close the gap on Renualt.
The "victims" were the people who had paid good money to see the race and ultimately F1 itself.

Paul