US GP

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

but we are not debating that, my point is that they should have changed to a different safe tire and incur the penalties.

That would have been ideal, only problem is where would these safe tyres have come from on such short notice?

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

That would have been ideal, only problem is where would these safe tyres have come from on such short notice?

I'm sure michelin has several types of tires for different requirements ready. And I bet they have them in stock ready for deployment, it would be foolish of them otherwise. They were offered this solution by FIA but they refused.

The ferrari team had a choice also and they went with a safer slower tire (Schumacher said so himself). I'm sure the michelin teams had similar choices, i doubt that michelin had only 1 type of tire available.

[RallyRaider]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren’t they? Hardly an open and shut case.

- failing to ensure they had a supply of suitable tyres for the race

I think Michelin have already punished themselves for that one. To find them guilty any sane court would have to establish that the mistake was intentional, which is plainly ludicrous.

- wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race

Because of safety concerns? Great! Does that mean we can have all those rule changes barged through this season ruled illegal because safety is not an issue?

- wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to race subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as were available

Simply exchanging one farce for another, and still no guaranteeing that it would be safe.

- combining with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race

Gotta agree with this one it was a sham gridding up and taking the parade lap if the intention is not to race. On the other hand there were discussions going on right up until the last moment, so perhaps there was still some hope. Commercial considerations are possible too, both with sponsors and under the Concorde agreement. The teams may have needed to do so in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

The FIA is also bringing charges against the teams for failing to notify stewards of their intention not to race, apparently in breach of Article 131 of the Formula One sporting regulations.

So what about all those letters to Charlie Whiting? Should have given somebody a clue. Guess the FIA were clueless.

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by Neutrino

I'm sure michelin has several types of tires for different requirements ready. And I bet they have them in stock ready for deployment, it would be foolish of them otherwise. They were offered this solution by FIA but they refused..

The ferrari team had a choice also and they went with a safer slower tire (Schumacher said so himself). I'm sure the michelin teams had similar choices, i doubt that michelin had only 1 type of tire available.

The problem was not one of speed or wear, rather of the tyres not lasting and exploding unpredicatably. Michelin had more than one type of tyre available (all teams have two options). Apparenty all of them were suspect. The change that Michelin initially speculated was to a Barcelona spec tyre. But then they decicided those tyres probably would not have been any better. So why would they take the risk?

Designing an manufacturing a new tyre in France and shhipping it to the USA is not a quick or simple process.

Remmber this has become an issue because the track at Indy is essentially brand new this year. It has been resurfaced and is totaly different to last year because of that. The tyre supplier had to guess at what that ment, as they are not allowed to test at the track. Michelin guessed wrong. Considering the number of countries the series visits and the number of changes going on the rules and tracks it is surprising it doesn't happen more often.

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

How so? 9 out of 10 teams were in there trying to find a solution. Only one team claimed to "know nothing about it". But as I said, I don't blame them for anything here at all.

None of the teams would have, and ever have, shown any desire to give up their advantage to help the competition, not just Ferrari.

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

I thought that was clear? Michelin refused to be effectively penalised over and above their other difficulties. Would you race on a different track to your competitors? Or consent to a speed gun enforced limit? Both sides were engaged in brinkmanship and neither blinked. Michelin had no cards to play but the FIA had plenty as I see it. Not that I’m saying they should have given in to improve the spectacle, but they had the power. Michelin could only look even more foolish. If the FIA had been prepared to give them some honour they could have, instead of rubbing their noses in it.

Exactly. It's not about safety, it's about refusing to look bad - i.e. not wanting to face the consequences of one's mistakes. It would have been much more honorable to race if there was a slightest chance of that, and since Michelin held no cards, it wasn't up to them to demand anything, and that includes demands not to be made look foolish.

If I was a driver, I would have raced with whatever safe solution I was offered. There'd be 13 more cars in the same situation as I, so there'd still be a race among us. And the drivers really wanted to race, can't help but feel sorry for them. They were not sure of what woul transpire until the last second, and if you noticed, they were warming up their tyres on the grid and through the first part of the warmup lap. DC earned even more respect by what he said on the team radio.

That said, Trulli's Toyota, reportedly, had fuel for just 3 (!) laps - they were never going to race

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

- combining with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race

Gotta agree with this one it was a sham gridding up and taking the parade lap if the intention is not to race. On the other hand there were discussions going on right up until the last moment, so perhaps there was still some hope. Commercial considerations are possible too, both with sponsors and under the Concorde agreement. The teams may have needed to do so in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

Yup. By doing the warmul lap they all "participated" in the event and fulfilled their obligations to FOM and the promoter/organiser (Tony George basically). The drivers, or most of them anyway, didn't know what would happen until the last moment, but I'm more than sure the bosses did.

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by ales

None of the teams would have, and ever have, shown any desire to give up their advantage to help the competition, not just Ferrari.

Ahem, I think you're wrong there. Jordan and Minardi at least looked like they were trying to find a solution.

Originally Posted by ales

Exactly. It's not about safety, it's about refusing to look bad - i.e. not wanting to face the consequences of one's mistakes. It would have been much more honorable to race if there was a slightest chance of that, and since Michelin held no cards, it wasn't up to them to demand anything, and that includes demands not to be made look foolish.

Not facing consequences? How is that? They admitted their mistake and withdrew. Anything else would have been a sham and possibly dangerous. They could have put their heads in the sand and pretended everything was fine. Drivers hitting walls - not our fault! Thay would be not facing up to consequences. What is with this demand stuff? Michelin were not demanding, as you say they were in no position to.

Originally Posted by ales

If I was a driver, I would have raced with whatever safe solution I was offered. There'd be 13 more cars in the same situation as I, so there'd still be a race among us. And the drivers really wanted to race, can't help but feel sorry for them. They were not sure of what woul transpire until the last second, and if you noticed, they were warming up their tyres on the grid and through the first part of the warmup lap. DC earned even more respect by what he said on the team radio.

Of course the drivers would want to race, and more than likely have raced too hard. That is preciesly why the cooler heads at Michelin could not allow it.

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Ahem, I think you're wrong there. Jordan and Minardi at least looked like they were trying to find a solution.

I was talking more in general, but even at the US GP I saw 6 cars from 3 teams actually take part.

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Michelin were not demanding, as you say they were in no position to.

I agree that they were in no position to, but I disagree that they weren't.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Remmber this has become an issue because the track at Indy is essentially brand new this year. It has been resurfaced and is totaly different to last year because of that. The tyre supplier had to guess at what that ment, as they are not allowed to test at the track. Michelin guessed wrong. Considering the number of countries the series visits and the number of changes going on the rules and tracks it is surprising it doesn't happen more often.

The resurfacing issue is one point where Bridgestone did have a distinct advantage, the Indy 500 gave them insight as to how a tire performed on the new surface.
Michelin didn't have that information available.

[ales]

Boohoo

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by ales

I was talking more in general, but even at the US GP I saw 6 cars from 3 teams actually take part.

Well, given that the Michelin teams are in hot water for withdrawing due to unsafe tyres, can you imagine the shit Minardi and Jordan would have been in if they did the same with serviceable tyres? No, they did all they could but in the end were compelled to race. At least they showed some solidarity when they could. Do you mean in general everybody acts in their own interests except for when they don't?

Originally Posted by ales

I agree that they were in no position to, but I disagree that they weren't.

The letters I've seen from Michelin appear entirely polite and factual to me, with no demands at all really. On the other hand Charlie's final word was a bit curt and rude.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by ales

Boohoo

Running out of reasonable arguments?

[ales]

What exactly is there to argue about?

[ales]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Do you mean in general everybody acts in their own interests except for when they don't?

How exactly didn't they? They went out on track, which was in their interests. Not getting into trouble with the governing body is also an interest.

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

The letters I've seen from Michelin appear entirely polite and factual to me, with no demands at all really. On the other hand Charlie's final word was a bit curt and rude.

You don't have to be impolite to be demanding, and that's how Michelin and their attitude looked to me.

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by ales

How exactly didn't they? They went out on track, which was in their interests. Not getting into trouble with the governing body is also an interest.

JORDAN AND MINARDI VOTED FOR A CHICANE ALEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you get the point?

Originally Posted by ales

You don't have to be impolite to be demanding, and that's how Michelin and their attitude looked to me.

MIchelin basically wrote,we cannot race unless the speed in turn 13 is reduced. Sounds like two options being presented, not a demand. This is the situation, whatcha want us to do?

Also notice that Whiting's letters were CC'd to Scuderia Ferrari. Did Todt's secretary misplace them?