Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
Time for a rare post...
Has anyone considered other reasons for the teams not starting?
I've been told that the main reason was the good ol' usofa litigation laws were at the heart of things. If this happened in any other
country, then the chances of a race were very good.
As the teams were told the tyres were unsafe, in writing, then they were uninsured for public liability, along with the event organisers. Bernie
Eccleston knew this, as did all the rest of FIA officialdom. Even with a chicane, there was still a big question mark over the tyres' safety.
Imagine what would have been the outcry, if a tyre blew, and some piece of debris/car ended up hurting, or killing a spectator. The US courts would
have been choked with claims, and had a field day. Meantime, F1 would have been suspended, until the cases were heard, possibly.
No, dear Bernie had more to do with this than we are being told. And the rest of the teams summons' and ensuing media garbage is smoke.
At the start of the day, Michelin screwed up big time, and Bernie et al would not give them the courtesy of putting things right.
Michelin didn't have any troubles at LeMans. Strange that! This is an opportunity for them to rid themselves the burden of F1 and its
stupidities.
Syd.
The time for restricted single element foils, flat bottoms, and intake restrictors is well and truly past. These work very well in sportscars, why not
F1?
|
|
|
|
|
scoobyis2cool
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 10:29 AM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure Michelin said they would guarantee the tyres if the chicane was put in place. With all the litigation laws they wouldn't
do this unless they were certain their tyres would be safe. This would have meant that the teams would have been insured, so I don't think that
was the reason the race wasn't run.
Cheers,
Pete
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care...
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 10:49 AM |
|
|
The fact that the question mark had been put over them initially, in writing, would have been enough. Whether they were later deemed to be safe with a
chicane, or not. If they ran with a chicane, and still blew, there would have been an outcry. And the courts would have been full, still! Remember,
this is the usa legal system at work.
Once those tyres were questioned, safetywise, there was no way they could be raced with in the usa. They are only good for footware and furnace
fuel.
The other thing to consider..look at the teams which withdrew. All of the mainstream auto manufacturers, including those wanting their own series.
Ferrari is not a part of this, so had no reason to do anything but what they did. The little teams had no axe to grind, and with the screwed up way F1
works, they get more travelling money with more points. I don't begrudge them that.
The sooner the manufacturers get their own series, the better.
Syd.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
Ok everyoone, how about throwing this side of things into the pot.
The Brickyard race was one where the teams and tyre manufacturers are NOT allowed to do pre race testing, thereby they should ALL be entering the race
blind. Allegedly.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was not the track resurfaced recently, and the surface given a diamond cross cutting?
Further, there had before-hand, been a limited amount of racing on this new surface with some of the american oval racers (saloon and open series)
where the competitors use Goodrich tyres, who are owned (supprise, supprise) by Bridgestone. Therefore the bridgestone teams did have some sort of
informational input as to what type of tyre construction would stand the rigours of the race.
There was an awful lot of politics being played out at that race and unfortunately NONE of the powers that be have got the moral backbone or
integerity or honour to stand up and tell the truth. Because if they do then they will surely lay themselves wide open to a lawsuit from some
interested party in the USofA with the financial clout to not give a fig.
Enjoy.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
Time for a rare post...
Has anyone considered other reasons for the teams not starting?
I've been told that the main reason was the good ol' usofa litigation laws were at the heart of things. If this happened in any other
country, then the chances of a race were very good.
As the teams were told the tyres were unsafe, in writing, then they were uninsured for public liability, along with the event organisers. Bernie
Eccleston knew this, as did all the rest of FIA officialdom. Even with a chicane, there was still a big question mark over the tyres' safety.
Imagine what would have been the outcry, if a tyre blew, and some piece of debris/car ended up hurting, or killing a spectator. The US courts would
have been choked with claims, and had a field day. Meantime, F1 would have been suspended, until the cases were heard, possibly.
No, dear Bernie had more to do with this than we are being told. And the rest of the teams summons' and ensuing media garbage is smoke.
At the start of the day, Michelin screwed up big time, and Bernie et al would not give them the courtesy of putting things right.
Michelin didn't have any troubles at LeMans. Strange that! This is an opportunity for them to rid themselves the burden of F1 and its
stupidities.
Syd.
The time for restricted single element foils, flat bottoms, and intake restrictors is well and truly past. These work very well in sportscars, why not
F1?
Couldn't agree more!
Having just got back from Le Mans, I can say that controversial as they are, the restriction rules on sportscars do work, and the racing would at
least appear to still be valid. Audi beating Pescarolo in a car with around 100 less hp just shows that the restrictors are not guaranteed to make a
winning car a loser, as long as the team effort works!!!
And yep, Michelin seemed pretty tuned in to things there too.
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
i guess you are right
but what i also hate is that ferrari and bridge stone say they tires are ok no problemo AT ALL..
and during the race they were looking / inspecting the left rear tyre of schumi (Called KEIZER) in spain..
wy should that be the case..right they had an bit of the same chit to!
schumi lost the lead during that pit, but offcourse an bad manouvre on barichello gave it him back (needed to go trough the grass)
Tks
its not that i don't like ferrari (cars) its just they JUST don't arent the best and always try to make you think that..
would never in my live buy one..i then preger an nissan..etc..
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
surely, its a massive indication of how dog boring F1 has become if people are finding that the politics are becoming as significant as the actual
racing.
Its a bit like buying a crap vacuum cleaner that doesnt work, but thinking it has a nice box, so i will look at that instead.
F1 is a racing series - not a political dogfight!
very sad
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Noodle
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
the post about the politics making it interesting is bollocks. Its a friggin race we watch, not a load of political infighting crap!
I wasn't aware that you speak for everybody Steve. As the commentators make great play about the politics within the teams and the FIA and it
fills many a page of the motoring magazines, I naively assumed that it was of interest to someone or some people, somewhere.
Clearly I now know different.
Neil.
[Edited on 21/6/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 07:00 PM |
|
|
following on from jollygreens post.....
no practice / tyre tests allowed at indy.
IRL have about a months preperation for indy! And if firestone / bridgestone ran there , they would have had plenty of feedback.
michelin had none!
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 21/6/05 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
following on from jollygreens post.....
no practice / tyre tests allowed at indy.
IRL have about a months preperation for indy! And if firestone / bridgestone ran there , they would have had plenty of feedback.
michelin had none!
atb
steve
Now you've got the gist of my posting.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
My understanding is the diamond cut surfaces was carried out after practice for the indy 500 as the drivers complained of lack of grip.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 08:56 PM |
|
|
JGG - your post adds a lot to my understanding as I hadn't managed to figure how Bridgestone got it right and Michelin were so wrong.
However, even before reading that I did not blame Michelin. The tyre companies have to second guess all the tracks they have not visited before, and
Indy is an exceptional track which must be hard to get right - especially if it has been resurfaced.
The problem I saw was that Max Mosley as head of the FIA (who claims he is interested primarily in safety) and Ferrari did not look at the big
picture. If they had, they would have realised that F1 needed the race to go ahead, and a chicane would have been the same for everyone. The fans
could have had an even better day than usual because there could have been an extra hours practice session in the morning for the drivers to find the
new line (assuming they could rsk the mileage with the ludicrous 2 races per engine rule).
Of course, Ferrari think they are above the sport and saw the chance to luck in with a win. Max thinks he is God and everyone will do what he says,
and he has plenty of money anyway so even if fired from his unpaid post would not suffer (Bernie would look after his mate!). Between them, they
destroyed F1 in America, and maybe the rest of the world. Remeber that Jordan and Minardi were prepared to allow a race to go ahead, despite the
alternative being their best chance of points this season which will be worth a lot of money to them next year - and they need it more than anyone
else.
The best outcome will be the breakaway series which hopefully will get a good set of rules. Ferrari will be left on their own in F1 and win every race
which is what they want. FIA - Ferrari's Internal Advisers
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 09:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
The best outcome will be the breakaway series which hopefully will get a good set of rules. Ferrari will be left on their own in F1 and win every race
which is what they want. FIA - Ferrari's Internal Advisers
I totally agree. Its the teams that make the sport, not the words F1. As i posted before, when IRL split from CART is was a joke. no name drivers and
a five race series in year one. Half a dozen years later, everone is in IRL, CART is near shagged. Plus, IRL has the series history behind it, even
tho its only 5 or so years old.
Any new series would be seen as 'F1' by any other name.
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
BTW - who is the solitary person that thinks F1 is being run well
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
as they say, nothing new under the sun.
read 1980 - 1982
http://www.atlasf1.com/timeline/80s.html
infighting and driver / team strikes
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 10:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
BTW - who is the solitary person that thinks F1 is being run well
atb
steve
Not me - I voted for Max out. in this instance I am not sure Bernie is to blame, but hopefully he will be out of pocket for it.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 22/6/05 at 10:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
JGG - your post adds a lot to my understanding as I hadn't managed to figure how Bridgestone got it right and Michelin were so wrong.
However, even before reading that I did not blame Michelin. The tyre companies have to second guess all the tracks they have not visited before, and
Indy is an exceptional track which must be hard to get right - especially if it has been resurfaced.
The problem I saw was that Max Mosley as head of the FIA (who claims he is interested primarily in safety) and Ferrari did not look at the big
picture. If they had, they would have realised that F1 needed the race to go ahead, and a chicane would have been the same for everyone. The fans
could have had an even better day than usual because there could have been an extra hours practice session in the morning for the drivers to find the
new line (assuming they could rsk the mileage with the ludicrous 2 races per engine rule).
Of course, Ferrari think they are above the sport and saw the chance to luck in with a win. Max thinks he is God and everyone will do what he says,
and he has plenty of money anyway so even if fired from his unpaid post would not suffer (Bernie would look after his mate!). Between them, they
destroyed F1 in America, and maybe the rest of the world. Remeber that Jordan and Minardi were prepared to allow a race to go ahead, despite the
alternative being their best chance of points this season which will be worth a lot of money to them next year - and they need it more than anyone
else.
The best outcome will be the breakaway series which hopefully will get a good set of rules. Ferrari will be left on their own in F1 and win every race
which is what they want. FIA - Ferrari's Internal Advisers
I've said it before, Ferrari did not have anything to do with not allowing the chicane, it was the FIA's call.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
Bernie was a racer back in the days of the 500cc F3 cars, apart from being the "M" of March has Mosley ever raced ? -- I think not or
the "race at reduced speed" comment would never have been made.
With Max Mosley I suspect the world has been too tolerant too long -- perhaps because of a wish not to hold the sins father against the son.
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
no ferrari
ferrari didn't show up,
sow they didn't build on an solution
only the drivers came in.. in the briefing
and they said, its his descion...(with the mouth full of teeth)
its written anywhere that ferrari i alone in the dark..and now one llikes them any more.. (in the pit) look at renault and mcclaren they are the
greatest openents but they build to gether on something..
read the post from Minardie Stoddart..on www.f1live.com..
Tks
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
I checked up on Max he has raced see
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-mosmax.html
But to call is father a politician just is a bit too tactful.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Mussolini was his role model. He tried all the alternatives though  .
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tks
ferrari didn't show up,
sow they didn't build on an solution
But they didn't need a solution as they didn't have a problem. I am no lover of Ferrari but I can not see what they are being blamed for.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
I am no lover of Ferrari but I can not see what they are being blamed for.
Thinking they are above the sport and not being prepared to compromise so that there was a race and the fans and TV audiences could see something
worthwhile. Their attitude was "we have no problem, so why should we do anything". They did have a problem - by not agreeing to any
compromise they have caused massive harm to F1 worldwide and in the US in particular.
I know they weren't the originator of the problem, but they could have helped.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
I am no lover of Ferrari but I can not see what they are being blamed for.
by not agreeing to any compromise
Why, which one did they object against?
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 10:09 PM |
|
|
it was said on ITV coverage that only 9 teams agreed to the chicane.....
As a further point, from Mosely
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4123710.stm
"Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport.
Translation : it exists for its own sake, and if the followers dont like it, tougth. That includes paying lots of dosh for a farce as a spectator.
Nice to know that the people at the top know how to sell the sport to the fans.
atb
steve
[Edited on 23/6/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 23/6/05 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
Nine teams agreed and one didn't even go to the meeting as it had no opinion.
I lifted the following quote from 10 Tenths. it has been atributed to Tony Dodgins, a respected motor racing journalist.
"It would have been done without thorough undertaking and the FIA's event insurance, for example, is dependent upon the circuit being
properly homologated. To take a risk in America? With race tyres that might still be dodgy? On a boffed-together track? Simultaneosly assuming
responsibility and potential liability when it currently lay elsewhere? Three weeks after they'd just warned the tyre companies? Can anyone
seriously be surprised that the FIA and Max didn't go for a chicane? No, sir."
|
|
|
