taimurasad
Club Cricketer
Whtevr it is Michellin is resposible for all this as they were the one who got it wrong. Anyway Ferrari is making most of it as they should be.
Grand Prix-F1
- Thread starter Skater
- Start date
gold639 said:This is terrible:
They have no choice now,they HAVE to go back to being able to change tyres.
The FIA did make a statement saying that the teams can change their tires during the races if they fear safety is a concern. But, the teams did not want to do that. They just wanted a chicane to be built. That they said was the only way they would race.
angryangy said:
Michelin had determined that their tires will last for approximately 15 laps. As a matter of fact, no other team other than Toyota suffered tire failures during practise. Also, during practice, the teams used the same set of tires and every practice session they drove approximately 10 to 15 laps without any issues. So, if the Michelin teams really wanted to give a show to the public (like they say they wanted to), they could have raced and changed tires whenever they seemed fit. Even Ferrari was being very careful during the race (if you can call it that) and were cautiously determining the state of the tires during the pit-stops. Why could the Michelin runners not have stopped every 10 laps and determined the state of the tires or to be safe even changed them. After all, it was their partner's (Michelin's) fault that they ended up with the wrong tires.
In addition, BMW Williams have stated that they never saw any problem with the tires that they had on their cars - meaning it might somehow be a combination of car + tire that might have been a problem on this specific track.
What happened is nothing but a political war between the manufacturers and the FIA. It started with the announcement of GPWC and became more pronounced when the manufacturers failed to show up at the FIA meetings for discussing technical regulations for 2008 and beyond.
acc to the rules a team can change its tyres at a pit only if they do not put in more fuel.
i'm surprised that teams like renault and mclaren pulled out.
a good manager was reqd for the teams with michelin.
also i heard that some boycott was to take place.
i'm surprised that teams like renault and mclaren pulled out.
a good manager was reqd for the teams with michelin.
also i heard that some boycott was to take place.
Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Michelin would not state how long the tyres would have lasted, I believe 15 laps was an estimate that did not come from michelin officially. There were 11 failures during practice, only 2 were total failures. So it would have been unwise for anyone to use the tyres even for 10 racing laps. As for a boycott all the teams except one agreed to boycott the race, anyone guess who was against
:
:kevmead said:As for a boycott all the teams except one agreed to boycott the race, anyone guess who was against
Even though not a fan of general Ferrari antics, this time I believe that Ferrari were justified and I certainly do not understand why Ferrari is being involved in something that does not concern them at all. Their partner's (Bridgestone) had done a perfect job and brought the right tires for the race. The teams insisted that they would only race if a chicane was put in. Ferrari simply seem to have stated that they do not like the idea; but if the FIA are willing to put in a chicane they would race. Would it matter whether Ferrari supported this decision or not ? I do not believe so...
Do you for a minute believe that if Bridgestone experienced the same problem, all the Michelin runners would have accepted for a chicane to be put in ?
The fact of the matter is that Michelin screwed up and in addition to the teams paying for that mistake, they made the fans pay for it as well...
The FIA released the following statement following the fiasco and has summoned the teams
"Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.
At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.
The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams? lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that ?tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances?.
A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally ? from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.
The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.
What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.
It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules."
source : http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html
"Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.
At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.
The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams? lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that ?tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances?.
A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally ? from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.
The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.
What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.
It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules."
source : http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3209/740.html
Maxkarter
Battrick Tournament Host
Look, Bridgestone did their homework, Michellin did not. Plain and simple, their is no reason for drawn out debates of how its "Ferrari's" fault. The point of changing tyres, each team is only allocated 3 yes, 3 (three) new sets for a race weekend. One for practise, race and a spare set. The Michellin tyres were too weak in the sidewall, it wasnt just related to Toyota, because most of the other teams had problems and their tyres were close to failing.
Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I think the whole thing highlights the stupidity of the "Same set of tyres" rule. If the track is not a designated test track, how are the tyre companies supposed to deal with track changes (resurfacing of the track since last year)? Ok michelin dropped the ball, this kind of stupidity in regulations was shown a couple of years ago in Brazil, when due to "Cost Cutting" measures the tyre companies didn't bring the right type of tyres to Interlagos (That time Bridgestone runners were worse off) and it lead to Millions of pounds worth of cars being parked up just after the Senna S chicane. Also Brigdestone had data via Firestone to help with choosing tyre compounds for Indy, Michelin did not.
If safey is not to be compromised then we should have no tire war - just one single manufacturer producing spec tires. At one point, I thought the tire war was good for the sport. I have been proven wrong.
I am fine with one set of tires. In addition I would also like to see no refuelling during the race. Then a race would really be a race - like the good old days...
I am fine with one set of tires. In addition I would also like to see no refuelling during the race. Then a race would really be a race - like the good old days...
taimurasad
Club Cricketer
the teams requires one of the following major things to be perfect apart from many others for a perfect race.
-Car
-Tyres
-Drivers
-Strategy
9 teams(all michelin runners) lacked one thing from above major things i.e. tyres. so they surely does not deserve to be looking for a win whereas Ferrari got all things right & rightly deserved a win even though they did not celebrate it. Commentators were calling this win for ferrari as a little embarrassed one & i dont know why? can comeone plz explain this.
They won it as they were better than others.
-Car
-Tyres
-Drivers
-Strategy
9 teams(all michelin runners) lacked one thing from above major things i.e. tyres. so they surely does not deserve to be looking for a win whereas Ferrari got all things right & rightly deserved a win even though they did not celebrate it. Commentators were calling this win for ferrari as a little embarrassed one & i dont know why? can comeone plz explain this.
They won it as they were better than others.
Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
In the good old days, the cars were not a good as they are now, no semi autoboxes, no traction control, not such efficient areo packages, so the emphasis was on the drivers (and what great drivers). Unfortunatley as the sport has got more and more professional, they have introduced too many false factors to slow the car. Back then the drivers were able to select any combination of tyres. Not just a hard or softer compound, if they liked they could have a different compound on each wheel (Senna was a master at this). You are right about refueling I think. I liked the turbo days when the drivers had a boost button which they could use a certain number of times only, this lead to some drivers running out of fuel though!! Also I think aerodynamics need to be reduced. Maybe undercar aerodynamics should be allowed as these give more grip but with less air disturbance, if the cars had more mechanical grip but less aerodynamic grip other cars would be able to drive closer without loosing grip and this would lead to increased overtaking.
I agree that too many false rules have lead to some of the Formula 1 spectacle to dimnish. But, there should be some way of certainly restricting speeds as this can potentially be dangerous.
Also, I certainly agree that the dependence on aero has spoilt the spectacle of overtaking. Bring back mechanical grip and let the driver's race.
By the way, how much do you like the 2008 regulations proposed by the FIA. Looks like the FIA are trying to make F1 a 'spec' series. I like their downforce reduction and the single tire criteria, but otherwise feel it might be excessive...
Also, I certainly agree that the dependence on aero has spoilt the spectacle of overtaking. Bring back mechanical grip and let the driver's race.
By the way, how much do you like the 2008 regulations proposed by the FIA. Looks like the FIA are trying to make F1 a 'spec' series. I like their downforce reduction and the single tire criteria, but otherwise feel it might be excessive...
Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I agree, the 2008 regulations do look a slight overreaction, I like the fact manual gearboxes and foot operated clutches are to be reintroduced (might see some missed gearchanges leading to overtaking) and the aeroregulations and single tyre supply regulations seem to be going in the right direction, it will be good to see the cars with proper slick tyres again! I do not like the idea of spec wiringlooms, gearboxes and brakes however, I would also have like to have seen more flexibility of engines introduced, I have never been a fan of everyone using the same type of engine (currently V10 3.0 or the proposed V8 2.6l) It was better when teams used different engines, I miss the big V12's from the likes or ferrari competing against screaming V8 fords.
