US GP fiasco caused by F1 management not Michelin (Opinion)

[Julian Mayo]

Not at all. I think Michelin stuffed up and brought the wrong tires. Somewhere someone within Michelin was getting a right royal kicking on Monday morning. I am sure they have in their inventory some F1 tires capable of running that course and surviving the requisite number of laps.

Realising the level of their stuff up decided with the team principals to try to bully FIA into a last minute rule change to get them off the hook. I would assume they thought with 70% of the cars at risk they had a strong enough bargaining position to get their way.

I absolutely am sure that the very last thing Michelin wanted was to in front of the multi-billion person audience claimed for F1 to have to stand up and say "sorry our product is defective and isn't capable of working safely at all unlike our arch competitor Bridgestone". Equally I am sure that nobody would ever intentionally send a driver out to crash into a concrete wall at any speed let alone the speeds through turn 13 at Indy.

No conspiracy sadly, just a huge stuff up, and then a very bad miscalculation by the Michelin teams on how far they could push FIA that I am sure is part of the bigger push for who will control F1 going forward (there's where your conspiracy probably is... ).

Mate, the last conspiracy theory I had was when one of our prize bulls went into the Murphy's paddock full of cows..... the wire didn't looked like it might have been cut, but we gave em all a flogging on principal cos that meant they were going to win " best calf' n beat us for the first time

Similarly, when too many billions of dollars are at stake, do not overestimate the ethics of the people involved. The current contract price for taking a life in Sydney is about A$10,000

[rah]

Similarly, when too many billions of dollars are at stake, do not overestimate the ethics of the people involved. The current contract price for taking a life in Sydney is about A$10,000

And you would know this how? Just a curious question with no disrespect whatsoever involved. Nah I shouldn't bother being nice, why would you spend 10k to whack someone when you could get another 40-50KW into "therapy".

[Julian Mayo]

Similarly, when too many billions of dollars are at stake, do not overestimate the ethics of the people involved. The current contract price for taking a life in Sydney is about A$10,000

And you would know this how? Just a curious question with no disrespect whatsoever involved. Nah I shouldn't bother being nice, why would you spend 10k to whack someone when you could get another 40-50KW into "therapy".

Simply suggesting that one should not overvalue the worth of a driver compared to the billions of dollars in F1. Mate the day I have to issue a contract will be when in my modded wheelchair in the nursing home, I find that the nurse is stealing my WT, and having it off with the bloke in the next room

[Graham Ross]

Fact (1) Michelin is a global corporate bully.

Very factual

Fact (2) Be under no illusion, that most of the michelin-shod teams wanted
to race but were under duress of the said company. Had they raced, their
life expectancy, comercial and sporting value would have been deminished
and possibly extinguished.

Yes Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Renault and Honda would have love to see their cars being slowed down and penalised in fornt of the US market, worse being paraded for 73 laps driving thru the pit lane

Fact (3) Who would run this new F1 world order ? The manufacturere's ?
Have they not proven themselves for what they are ?
I follow Minardi, a minnow in F1 waters. I follow M. Webber, a driver who
most likely will never be a world champion. Like many followers of F1,
I am biased to a certain degree, but I must defend FIA and Ferrari.
Why should Ferrari allow itself to be dissadvantaged ?
Why should FIA bend itself backwards and break its own rules to
please Michelins political agenda ? Because that's what it is, nothing
to do with the sport we love. Someone enlighten me ?

Michelin and their teams should have officially pulled out. Rather they tried their best to put on a fair show they couldn't and hence they pulled out without giving notice to the FIA.

Just like a team pulls out because of a faulty rear wing, 14 cars pulled out because of a faulty tyre. When a team pulls out because of a faulty wing the FIA don't tell them come back and race at a lower speed.
Only because of the magnitude of the problem did Michelin and their teams try to find a solution. I think they are now regretting it. They should have just simply pulled out on safety grounds and let the FIA deal with the situation.

And Ferrari would never have been disatvantaged. They were simply trying to find a solution for the fans.

In the end Ferrari got 18 points

[gmcg28c]

Not at all. I think Michelin stuffed up and brought the wrong tires. Somewhere someone within Michelin was getting a right royal kicking on Monday morning. I am sure they have in their inventory some F1 tires capable of running that course and surviving the requisite number of laps.

Realising the level of their stuff up decided with the team principals to try to bully FIA into a last minute rule change to get them off the hook. I would assume they thought with 70% of the cars at risk they had a strong enough bargaining position to get their way.

I absolutely am sure that the very last thing Michelin wanted was to in front of the multi-billion person audience claimed for F1 to have to stand up and say "sorry our product is defective and isn't capable of working safely at all unlike our arch competitor Bridgestone". Equally I am sure that nobody would ever intentionally send a driver out to crash into a concrete wall at any speed let alone the speeds through turn 13 at Indy.

No conspiracy sadly, just a huge stuff up, and then a very bad miscalculation by the Michelin teams on how far they could push FIA that I am sure is part of the bigger push for who will control F1 going forward (there's where your conspiracy probably is... :)).

I agree Michelin found the limit and were caught unprepared, as many component manufactures do regularly. However, it is the F1 Management that handled the situation poorly.

Decisions of what tyres the teams will race on are declared by Saturday Practice that less than 24 hours from the first practice to address the situation.

The FIA assumes that we live in a perfect world were everything is infallible, and they failed foresee what ramifications would occur if a supplier like Michelin, who supplies 70% of the field, was to have a safety issue with its product.

Same thing nearly happened in V8 supercars when they changed the control tyre supplier to Dunlop. The first race of the season was the Adelaide 500 which is an enduro, I remember there was a lot of discussion about whether the new unproven tyre would be up to the task. as it turned out the tyre was fine but, there was every possiblilty that a majority or all cars either used up their tyre allocation and suffer a DNF or tyre had poor performance.

[gmcg28c]

Paul Stoddart's personal account of USGP 'very interesting'

[EDITED - See below]

[Ed]

gmcg28c,

The link you provided isn't working!

I would imagine you are talking about the same article on NewsOnF1 here. There is also a thread to discuss Stoddart's personal account of events here

If not please PM me the link and I can make sure it is formatted properly here.

Thanks

[gmcg28c]

gmcg28c,

The link you provided isn't working!

I would imagine you are talking about the same article on NewsOnF1 here. There is also a thread to discuss Stoddart's personal account of events here

If not please PM me the link and I can make sure it is formatted properly here.

Thanks

yes, it is the same, thanks again

[jnc]

Why should Ferrari allow itself to be dissadvantaged ?

But the Michelin teams were quite ready to give Ferrari all the points! They offered to run for no points (with only the Bridgestone teams scoring points), if a chicane were added! Nobody is disputing that Michelin screwed up, and that they and their teams should suffer the consequences in terms of lost points, etc.

Speaking of Ferrari, though, what I don't get about Todt is why he wouldn't agree to a "chicane and the Michelin teams get no points" deal. I mean, Ferrari gets the same benefits (points/win) in that scenario, and avoids making themselves look like jerks and/or sore winners, etc to boot. I'm wondering if it wasn't because Todt was backing up Max, no matter what? And if so, what will FIAT management think of him (backing Max even though it was worse for Ferrari)?

I mean, I can't think of any other good reason for Todt to have refused - e.g. I don't think that "reducing the chance of colliding with someone else" was worth totally screwing F1 - or maybe that was Todt's plan all along, now that Ferrari are about to lose their dominance? Wheels within wheels (to use an apt metaphor)...

[jnc]

FIA did offer a solution. Michelin cars you can race and will have to adjust your speeds in turn 13 to ensure your cars can complete the race. This isn't any different from any other race meeting where you arrive with the wrong setup under the current rules to be competitive.

Sorry, but this proposed "solution" is nonsense. I hope I don't have to remind you that Gilles Villeneuve was killed in an accident caused when he.... came up from behind on a slower-moving car.

Having cars moving at grossly-different speeds on an extremely hgih-speed corner is so incredibly dangerous that it would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Cars are at the limit of adhesion on such a corner, and *simply do not have a reserve of grip to allow a quick manoeuve around abother car which they are coming up on very quickly*. And unlike a lot of tracks, there's no grass to take to at Indy - just the wall.

Major speed differences between cars have caused innumerable accidents at races (remember that amazing one where Ricardo Patrese's car got vertical?) - and the proposal is that instead of having it just be temporary with one car (e.g. from a punctured tire), we're going to have it with *16* cars at the same time, on *every* lap?

Give me a break.

This was clearly Michelin's fault for bringing the wrong equipment.

To repeat (yat again): nobody is disputing that Michelin screwed up, and that they and their teams should suffer the consequences in terms of lost points, etc.

The issue is why the FIA was so pig-header and refused to do *anthing* to allow the fans, who had paid a fortune in costs (including travel and hotel costs they cannot possible be reimbursed for) to see a race of some kind.

[jnc]

I am sure they have in their inventory some F1 tires capable of running that course and surviving the requisite number of laps.

After the problem appeared, Michelin *did* fly in another load of different tires - which also had the same defect. And I doubt very much, after the looming disaster became visible, that they picked out anything but the very most likely tires.... So I tend to doubt your claim.

I absolutely am sure that the very last thing Michelin wanted was to in front of the multi-billion person audience claimed for F1 to have to stand up and say "sorry our product is defective and isn't capable of working safely at all unlike our arch competitor Bridgestone". Equally I am sure that nobody would ever intentionally send a driver out to crash into a concrete wall at any speed let alone the speeds through turn 13 at Indy.

One those points we agree.

[gmcg28c]

It is fair to say that Ferrari are not the blame for the USGP FIAsco, but they did not help matters. I believe that most of the players including Michelin believed that Michelin would actually find the the cause of the tyre failure in time and thus be able to provide a remedy, however they were fruitless in the timeframe.

I believe that the teams have too much say in the proceedings of F1 in general. as it only takes one counter vote for a proposal of sorts to not get up. Ferrari did this the Minardi at the Australian GP. Anybody would think the Ferrari had the most to fear from Minardi.

It is true that Ferrari are not to blame, however I believe they did not conducted themselves in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

And I was very surprised to learn the Max Mosley was not present the GP. Is this a habit of Max Mosley to be not in attendence GP meetings?