USGP What a farce!!!

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:48 pm

When that rule conflicts with safety, then it needs to be changed. (or at least allowed to be recognized in situations when there are other solutions)

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:49 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

The relevance is that in previous years, they had two different tire compounds to choose from. When it rains, or threatens rain, you shod the car with rain tires. In the wet, Bridgestones ran away from the Michelins. But when you run the "wrong" tire for the situation, naturally you are slower.

This isn't a question of being slower. It is a question of safety. A tire that is slow in the wet and one that fails spectatcularly after less than 1/7 of the race difference is not a relevant comparison.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:51 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

When that rule conflicts with safety, then it needs to be changed. (or at least allowed to be recognized in situations when there are other solutions)

The rule has not conflicted with safety before and Bridgestone proved that it does not need to as they managed to field a tire that lasted. The rules are not to blame, Michelin is.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

There are actually three compounds that they can choose from.

This is the first time that Bernie has told people to do something, and get back a big honking F and U. He'll probably try to win the pissing contest at Wednesday's meeting, and then lose in the offseason when everybody but Ferrari bails.

What's he going to do, not let them race for the coming weekends? This was a mutiny against the organization, and it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:06 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

This is the first time that Bernie has told people to do something, and get back a big honking F and U. He'll probably try to win the pissing contest at Wednesday's meeting, and then lose in the offseason when everybody but Ferrari bails.

What's he going to do, not let them race for the coming weekends? This was a mutiny against the organization, and it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I agree 100% that Bernie will allow his ego to make the worst of a bad situation. I think there will be plenty of bad things to pin on Bernie in the near future. This weekend still belongs to Michelin in my book.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:07 pm

Rich Anderson wrote:

Jason Mauldin wrote:

When that rule conflicts with safety, then it needs to be changed. (or at least allowed to be recognized in situations when there are other solutions)

The rule has not conflicted with safety before and Bridgestone proved that it does not need to as they managed to field a tire that lasted. The rules are not to blame, Michelin is.

Quote:

One car had a failure that was very similiar to the ones that occured this year. If Michelin did not indicate that it was a problem, then I imagine that the teams chalked it up to a random failure. There is no proof, but this year's events make it look like it was not.

Maybe Michelin didn't know either.

Again, they should've tested, but in the instance where there was an obvious breakdown before the event that led to this, the rules should acknowledge that there is a safety problem and allow for some kind of feasible solution.

The only people that this really screwed were the fans, especially those who have been planning to go to this race for a while, and may not ever get another chance to go to one again. Everyone else involved has the means to rebound from this.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:11 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Again, they should've tested, but in the instance where there was an obvious breakdown before the event that led to this, the rules should acknowledge that there is a safety problem and allow for some kind of feasible solution.

Unless you have a new one, there is no solution without throwing out the rulebook. Which, in a competitive series, you cannot do when things like this come-up. If there was one tire company, then sure, you could do something, but if you did something because of Michelin's problem, you are penalizing the Bridgestone teams for making the right decision.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

No, you are penalizing the fans and the sponsors by not making an accomodation.

David Teague · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Rich Anderson wrote:

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Again, they should've tested, but in the instance where there was an obvious breakdown before the event that led to this, the rules should acknowledge that there is a safety problem and allow for some kind of feasible solution.

Unless you have a new one, there is no solution without throwing out the rulebook. Which, in a competitive series, you cannot do when things like this come-up. If there was one tire company, then sure, you could do something, but if you did something because of Michelin's problem, you are penalizing the Bridgestone teams for making the right decision.

Ahh but in the past the FIA has done stuff that goes against the rule book, the took 10 extra paces laps because Bridgestone Rain tires were not good or safe in the standing water that was on course. I would agree that the rule did not need to change beacuse the tires were slow, these tires were unsafe, and that to me meands that what even can be done to have a safe competitve race should have been done.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

They also went against the rule book when they stopped the Brazilian GP because of rain in the interest of SAFETY.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:28 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

No, you are penalizing the fans and the sponsors by not making an accomodation.

I agree that you are. Like I said, there were a lot of bad decisions made and the wrong people suffered. However, blaming the FIA or Bernie as though this was their mess is wrong. Michelin failed to provide a safe product to 70% of the field. No Max Mosley, no Bernie Eccelstone in that.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:28 pm

Wes Eargle wrote:

They also went against the rule book when they stopped the Brazilian GP because of rain in the interest of SAFETY.

That was the safety of everyone.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:29 pm

David Teague wrote:

Ahh but in the past the FIA has done stuff that goes against the rule book, the took 10 extra paces laps because Bridgestone Rain tires were not good or safe in the standing water that was on course. I would agree that the rule did not need to change beacuse the tires were slow, these tires were unsafe, and that to me meands that what even can be done to have a safe competitve race should have been done.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that when Bridgestone was the only F1 tire provider?

David Teague · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:31 pm

Rich Anderson wrote:

David Teague wrote:

Ahh but in the past the FIA has done stuff that goes against the rule book, the took 10 extra paces laps because Bridgestone Rain tires were not good or safe in the standing water that was on course. I would agree that the rule did not need to change beacuse the tires were slow, these tires were unsafe, and that to me meands that what even can be done to have a safe competitve race should have been done.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that when Bridgestone was the only F1 tire provider?

I honestly don't rember, but my memory of f1 racing is fadingfast

I belive it was the Bridgestone that the ferraris were running that were unsafe not the rest of the field

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:32 pm

David Teague wrote:

I honestly don't rember, but my memory of f1 racing is fadingfast

I belive it was the Bridgestone that the ferraris were running that were unsafe not the rest of the field

Indeed if this is true and precident has been set, then they should have done something different.

THSCC Forums

USGP What a farce!!!

Who is online