Thoughts on the United States Grand Prix

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:45 pm

Kapel wrote:What about a Williams-Ferrari

Have you been drinking "tea" again?

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:55 pm

julian mayo wrote:
Kapel wrote:What about a Williams-Ferrari
Have you been drinking "tea" again?

Yes,iced tea, from TATA

Williams-TATA

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:35 am

bundy wrote:but if he is racing for points he is at least chasing 1 or 2 or possibly a few more so he will need to finish the race. he at least has something to lose. if he's not racing for points he has nothing to lose.

i'm sure he'd rather lose 8 points to MS rather than 10. it could make all the difference at the end of the year.

Yes, but it he took him out, he'd lose 0, right? And your logic doesn't apply to the third-place points-holder (on Michelins, but I forget who it is), who would be losing his place to Schumacher, and getting 0 points even if he finished!

And saying "oh, the FIA would penalize him for ramming someone", well, that also would apply to the chicane race.

Again, no difference on these issues between the two scenarios.

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:40 am

Graham Ross wrote: - Go through the pit lane What for 73 times ? Not sure if the cars can handle that actually, they are certainly not designed for such.

That's actually a very interesting point. Max said that a chicane was out because the cars would have to do a lot of extra braking, which they weren't engineered for, and it wouldn't be safe. So instead he proposes they use the pit lane on every lap, which they would have to brake for, doing a lot of extra braking! Bzzzzzt! Logical contradiction alert!

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:55 am

jnc wrote:
Graham Ross wrote: - Go through the pit lane What for 73 times ? Not sure if the cars can handle that actually, they are certainly not designed for such.
That's actually a very interesting point. Max said that a chicane was out because the cars would have to do a lot of extra braking, which they weren't engineered for, and it wouldn't be safe. So instead he proposes they use the pit lane on every lap, which they would have to brake for, doing a lot of extra braking! Bzzzzzt! Logical contradiction alert!

Saved me a post.

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:01 am

bundy wrote:Michelin knew the track condition...Even though it had been resurfaced it was not different to previous years so this CANNOT be used as an excuse....Michelin haven't even used this as an excuse or even complained about it, so why are you

"Even though it had been resurfaced it was not different to previous years"

- pretty funny.

Michelin have said nothing so far - I wont be surprised if it ends up in the courts. Stay tuned.

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:24 am

Let me play Michelin team rep.

failed to ensure that you had a supply of suitable tyres for the race

You never supplied us an opportunity to test.

wrongly refused to allow your cars to start the race

What race? Every official proposal was absurd and dangerous.

wrongly refused to allow your cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as you had available

This was dangerous, a joke, and would have delayed a negative crowd reaction by a lap or 2. This suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of the teams and spectators alike.

combined with the 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

Firstly, kettle.....black.
Secondly, your idiotic proposals were dangerous. You said you would not agree to a chicane because it changed the nature of the track - what do you think driving thru the pits or slowing thru T13 would have done bozo?

and that you failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race, in breach of Article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Sorry, we were stunned by your spectacular incompetence and inflexibility. It wasn't really at the top of the priority list at the time you pedantic halfwit!

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:39 am

Byron Forbes wrote:
and that you failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race, in breach of Article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
It wasn't really at the top of the priority list at the time you pedantic halfwit!

Actually, the second letter from Michelin to Charlie W said that they wouldn't let their teams start if the course wasn't changed. So for the FIA to claim that they were "never officially notified" is really a stretch.

No doubt the FIA would/will reply with some legal folderol to the effect that such a notification can only come from the teams, since Michelin technically speaking has no direct relationship with the FIA, but that's Max for you, being a lawyer...

<T-K> · Post by **<T-K>** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:45 am

need i say any more

lemon_martini2 · Post by **lemon_martini2** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:11 am

Why not put the chicane in and the Michelin runners use it?Bridgestones can go round it and maintain their speed...

jnc · Post by **jnc** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:19 am

Kapel wrote: Solutions offered by FIA were crap, which i think Mosely knew would be rejected.

It's interesting that you mention that, because it's similat to something I've been pondering; now that I think about it, I'm wondering if Max wasn't out to *cause* the Michelin teams to withdraw, hoping he could then blame them for the fiasco, to his advantage in the battle for control of F1? The options he offered them were all so unsafe/unacceptable one wonders if they weren't *designed* to be dismissed. Unfortunately for him (as shown by the ITV-F1 poll, which showed 65% or so blaming Max) it blew up in his face...

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:47 am

lemon_martini2 wrote:Why not put the chicane in and the Michelin runners use it?Bridgestones can go round it and maintain their speed...

1/ it's a joke
2/ a slow car spins, and into the path of a 180mph Ferrari

The term "race" usually refers to all racers using the same course - that's why the drivers, teams (leave Ferrari out) and spectators were there!

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:29 pm

Byron Forbes wrote: The term "race" usually refers to all racers using the same course - that's why the drivers, teams (leave Ferrari out) and spectators were there!

Y do u want to leave Ferrari out here???In a "race" Ferrari is also a team & Michael Schumacher & Rubens Barrichello are drivers.

If you dont wanna blame anyone for the farsce,dont voice ur disgrunt against a team u dont like for no fault of theirs

Byron Forbes · Post by **Byron Forbes** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:10 am

What Todt said is what Todt said! He's the team rep!

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:20 pm

Byron Forbes wrote:What Todt said is what Todt said! He's the team rep!

Yes he's the team representative,not the team nor the driver,which u were trying to hint at!!!

News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Thoughts on the United States Grand Prix

Driver of the day