Just 6 drivers at USA Grand Prix

[fa22_raptor]

I think Ferrari were being overtly arrogant and stubborn when they refused to allow the chicane to be built. It's ridiculous to say that "it's none of our business" when they're preventing the race from taking place. Yes, rules are rules, but surely exceptions can be made to avert disasters like this. I completely agree with the Michelin teams' decision not to race under the given circumstances.

[henk4]

I think Ferrari were being overtly arrogant and stubborn when they refused to allow the chicane to be built.

Ferrari came with cars AND tyres suitable for the track. Can you blame them for not being in favour of a change to the track for which they at least were well prepared?

[Coventrysucks]

But Michelin DID know! It was known to the teams 2 days before that Michelin had trouble with the tires but they did nothing up to the absolute last minute.

The first they knew about it was Friday - the first day of cars running on the circuit.

Michelin then started trying to find a solution, but no one but Michelin and their teams seemed concerned about finding an adequate solution.

The date of the USA GP is well known in advance. The layout of the track is wellknown, all forces that will affect the cars and the tyres can be totally computer simulated these days. So what is required of the tyre manufacturers?

Michelin provided good tyres at the previous races. Obviously there was something slightly unexpected that caused the loads to exceed those which Michelin had planned for.

There is no way that this was intentional.

Now if one tyre supplier can not guarantee that his tyre is strong enough to stand the expected forces it is a bit of a mockery to request for track changes. That would throw all the work done by the other tyre supplier into the bin. So the statement of the Michelin teams that FIA refused to change the track layout is pathetic, because this is supposed to be a level playing field, and if one group gets it right and the other does not, then it is the latter's problem and the first group should not suffer from it.

You are right - they shouldn't have to change the track and put the Bridgestone runners at a disadvantage.

However, that solution only ends with a minimum of six cars in the race and millions of upset fans.

Putting in the Chicane wouldn't have been the technically correct thing to do, but 20 cars would have run.

F1 is a sport. It is there to entertain people. If something happens that means that there cannot be a fully "legal" race - should they abandon, or make the strongest attempt possible to put on the race anyway.

Imagine the football world cup where one of the finalists can't play because of a manufacturing defect with their football boots.

Do they
a) abandon the match and let the boot manufacturer come up with a solution
b) find different boots and let the teams play, but with penalties for the affected side
c) force the one team to go out and play for 90 minutes by itself, in front of millions of fans?

[henk4]

Michelin provided good tyres at the previous races. Obviously there was something slightly unexpected that caused the loads to exceed those which Michelin had planned for.

There is no way that this was intentional.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY CYNICAL

F1 is a sport. It is there to entertain people. If something happens that means that there cannot be a fully "legal" race - should they abandon, or make the strongest attempt possible to put on the race anyway.

Imagine the football world cup where one of the finalists can't play because of a manufacturing defect with their football boots.

Do they
a) abandon the match and let the boot manufacturer come up with a solution
b) find different boots and let the teams play, but with penalties for the affected side
c) force the one team to go out and play for 90 minutes by itself, in front of millions of fans?

FI is a business, not a sport, so your analogy with a football match is a bit out of context
(and I don't think defective boots could have affected the safety of the palyers nor the public )

In business you have to have your act together and if you don't have it you pay the price. In this case the price will be the disinterest of the US public and the possible damage claims that michelin is facing. All in all at the end of the season the one-make tyre rule will be established automatically as I don't see Michelin continuing in F1 after this debacle.

[twinspark]

with all due respect but I would never pay the amounts of money now being asked for entrance fees for something that is broadcast life on TV. That is were Bernie has put his stamp, and that is where the spectators loose out heavily.

I agree, the tickets are amazingly expensive. Still somehow there's lots of crowd spectating many gp:s. But aren't the entry fees decided by the race organisator, so that different gp tickets cost different amounts of money?

[henk4]

I agree, the tickets are amazingly expensive. Still somehow there's lots of crowd spectating many gp:s. But aren't the entry fees decided by the race organisator, so that different gp tickets cost different amounts of money?

First the race organisers have to pay to Bernie and then try to recoup the money from the spectators

[motorsportnerd]

It was certainly a weird race, and a very dissapointing race. I almost went back to bed (it was on at 3.30 am here in Australia).
It seems to me that a compromise could have and should have been made.
First, Michelin are clearly the most at fault. They will wear the bad publicity, but they did the right thing to ensure the safety of the drivers. Michelin can't seem to get the tyres right for Indianapolis. Remember last year they had tyre issues there too, and tyre failure was blamed for Ralf's accident.
Second, the FIA was inflexible about the whole thing, and share almost as much of the blame as Michelin. There were solutions - but all of them meant breaking the "rules". For one race only, all teams (including the Bridgestone runners) could have been permitted to do tyre changes. After all, the Michelin tyre problems wouldn't have been an issue under last years rules. Alternatively, the chicane could have been put in. The comments about Ferrari been opposed are wrong - they just basically abstained and left it up to the FIA. It was primarily the FIA's fault for refusing to put the chicance in.
Third the teams themselves. All of the Michelin teams are aligned with the Manufacturers World Champinship proposals for 2008. The teams used the tyre problems as an opportunity to do battle with the FIA and come out looking good. Lets not assume that the team bosses were only concerned with their drivers safety. They were just as concerned with political pointscoring.
Ferrari, inevitably must take some of blame. Ferrari certainly did not cause the problem. However, they could have stood with the other teams and forced the FIA into a compromise. However, we know that Ferrari has a contract with the FIA for 2008 and beyound, and could not be seen to oppose the FIA and stand with the manufacturer teams.
Finally, even Minardi and Jordan can take some blame - they could have stood firm and not raced. However, I can understand how important the points are for them.

One thing we must not do is apportion any blame to ANY of the drivers. No driver is guilty of any blame in what happened in the US Grand Prix.
Schumacher did not cause the situation - and no one should vent their anger at him. Montiero did not deserve the boos on the podium - he did his best.
And none of the Michelin drivers can be blamed. On the ITV coverage, Coulthard was clearly heard to say that if the decision was up to him he'd race.

No, this one is a political mess - a consequence of the war between the FIA and the manufacturers with Michelin as the meat in the sandwich.

One good thing to come from this is that Formula One and those involved in it have made it clear that the safety of the drivers and spectators is paramount. I'm glad given no compromise was reached that the Michelin drivers were not put at undue risk.
I remember in 1991, at a very wet Australian Grand Prix that the drivers and teams threatened not to race because it was too dangerous, but in the end they all did. They talked the talk about safety back then, but did not follow through. This time the threats to withdraw on safety grounds were followed though, and I'm glad.

[henk4]

It was primarily the FIA's fault for refusing to put the chicance in.

It was a very wise decision not to let the chicane put in. It would reward the teams that were equipped with the tyres that were not properly adjusted to turn 13 and would put the teams who brought cars and tyres that could meet that requirement at a competitive disadvantage.

[fa22_raptor]

... and clearly that 'competitive advantage' outweighs the gross disappointment faced by everyone. The teams offered to race without points and even put the Bridgestone runners at the front of the grid!!!

[henk4]

... and clearly that 'competitive advantage' outweighs the gross disappointment faced by everyone. The teams offered to race without points and even put the Bridgestone runners at the front of the grid!!!

Now what sort of race would that have been. Just a number of Michelin shod cars interfering with the 6 cars that would be eligible for point scoring. And what if somehow a Michelin tyre would have exploded anyway? Big lawsuits all over the place.

[fa22_raptor]

Now what sort of race would that have been. Just a number of Michelin shod cars interfering with the 6 cars that would be eligible for point scoring.

A much better one than the one we saw... that's for sure!

If a Michelin tyre exploded anyway, the impact wouldn't be so great anyway (presumably at turn 13), but that's not the point. By racing, the team has accepted the danger involved in racing and so any blowout couldn't really result in any major litigations.

[henk4]

A much better one than the one we saw... that's for sure!

If a Michelin tyre exploded anyway, the impact wouldn't be so great anyway (presumably at turn 13), but that's not the point. By racing, the team has accepted the danger involved in racing and so any blowout couldn't really result in any major litigations.

fine in theory, but this was in the USA, when a party a priori says it cannot guarantee safety and in spite of that things go wrong, the legal vultures will be all over Clermont Ferrand

[fa22_raptor]

Haha, I have no idea what you just said. So I'll just sit back and smile.

[henk4]

Haha, I have no idea what you just said. So I'll just sit back and smile.

alternatively you might try to find it out

[woodstock827]

I think FIA is correct in not compromising (ie. not modifying the track)
That would put the teams using Bridgestone in disadvantage because their tires were design to take the stress of the track. Any other "alternative fixes" also put the other qualified teams in disadvantage (e.g. race for no points..). Why should the teams be punished for providing a safe, suitable car for the race? Even if only one team is able to race, then good for them because they showed up prepared. It's plain and simple. Don't play if you don't have to right equipments.

even for the football scenario, if the a manufacturer provided non-suitable gears, then either 1) that team plays at disadvantage, 2) change gear in exchange with lawsuit with the gear supplier (as Hingis has done in Tennis because her shoes were hurting her and she wore another shoes on a match and got into a lawsuit).

Michelin was suppose to have a 2nd set of safer tires but they did not provide them. They admitted to this fault. The teams using Michelin could have 1) run the corner at a slower speed themselves, or 2) use a 2nd set of tires, which does not exist due to Michelin's fault, at a penalty.

although it was a bad show for audiences, the FIA did what they had to do to maintain a fair game.

the FIA tried to hard to stop Ferrari's dominance and one incident makes people think the FIA would do anything to help Ferrari win... gosh...