FORMULA Lol

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

But BZB, teams agreed to not get points and so on. They just wanted to race with the safe set for the show, without getting any rewards at the end according to Franck Williams. But FIA refused that.

There are no provision in the rules for teams to "agree not to get points" in return for having the track changed.

What would happen if Ferrari came in 6th/7th? All the teams above them might not get points, but Ferrari wouln't be getting 1st/2nd place points.

What would happen if a Michelin car broke down and a Bridgestone car was shunted out of the race?

What would happen if there was an accident because of a new untested chicane that no one had done any setup for? Why should the Bridgestone cars suffer for the Michelin cars who had inadequate equipment when the Bridgestone cars are having no problems?

It's all very well to talk about "putting on a show", but you can't do that by taking away the advantage from those teams that had adequate equipment to race with. If Williams had been serious, then they should have raced the track as is, with their drivers being instructed to drive relatively slowly through turn 13, and simply get badly beaten by the Bridgestone teams.

What do you think all the smaller teams like Jordan and Minardi do when their cars don't work properly at all the other tracks? They tell their drivers to drive slowly or take different lines at the problem parts of the track. The big teams should have done the same, but they didn't want to be put in the position of racing when they couldn't win.

Remember these teams qualified on the faulty Michelins using compromised race setups and air pressures which meant they couldn't run the car the way they wanted. Putting in a chicane to solve the problem for themselves while negating the Bridgestone advantage of having correctly working tyres is simply not an option in the rules. Volunteering not to take points while still taking away the Bridgestone advantage of having correct equipment is not a solution and would not have been allowed by the stewards because (you guessed it) there is no provision for it in the rules.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this over and over. Everyone comes up with "they could have done this, or they could have done that" but the rules say that they cannot. The FIA is not in a position to "refuse" anything. They do not enforce the agreed rules, and they do not have the power to changed them for the convenience of particular teams a few hours before the race. All the FIA can do is (in conjunction with the teams) agree the ground rules of the racin season and set the scene for what happens.

 

[PatrickL]

So basically you are saying there were no way to make the race so Michelin teams were right ?

 

[_xxx_]

So basically you are saying there were no way to make the race so Michelin teams were right ?

Yes. Michelin f***ed it up big time.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

So basically you are saying there were no way to make the race so Michelin teams were right ?

Pretty much. It comes down to the fact that the Michelin teams (in conjunction with their tyre partners) did not have correctly operating cars at the US GP.

If it had only affected one or two teams, or if it had been a engine supplier there wouldn't have been an issue. Those teams would simply have been hamstrung for the weekend, and would have either raced that way or pulled out, and the other teams would have taken advantage.

Because it was so many teams affected, they and Michelin thought they could pressure the FIA and the stewards into breaking the rules for their own advantage, but that option is not available to them.

What if next time it's just three teams that are having problems? What if it's not a tyre problem, but a brake wear problem? Should tracks be changed for them? Or should they just deal with it to the best of their abilities within the agreed rules as has always happened in the past?

 

[PatrickL]

Yes but it is not the point. After you have agreed that Michelin fucked up and that Michelin teams will get not points, what could have been done to make the show anyway?
Because if you take time to think about it, it is the real problem and besides the joke solution "run slower" FIA proposed nothing and THAT is its job.

 

[_xxx_]

Yes but it is not the point. After you have agreed that Michelin fucked up and that Michelin teams will get not points, what could have been done to make the show anyway?
Because if you take time to think about it, it is the real problem and besides the joke solution "run slower" FIA proposed nothing and THAT is its job.

The only thing they could do is either what they did or cancel the whole race.

 

[PatrickL]

At least we agree finally

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yes but it is not the point. After you have agreed that Michelin fucked up and that Michelin teams will get not points, what could have been done to make the show anyway?

What did Ferrari do a couple of races back when they had gearboxes failing? They ran their cars slower. They even suffered for it with a poor qualifying because of this issue. They didn't ask, or expect that the track be changed so that it was easier on their gearboxes.

Running slower is exactly what every other team does at every other racetrack when they have equipment problems like this. When BAR has downforce problems, or Williams has tyre wear, they run slower round the track. Why do you think this would be different? Why do you think the rules should be changed (for which their is no provison in the rules) just because it is several teams that screwed up? Why should the Bridgestone cars not be able to take advantage of this just as Michelin took advantage of Bridgestones poor performance at the beginning of the year?

Because if you take time to think about it, it is the real problem and besides the joke solution "run slower" FIA proposed nothing and THAT is its job.

As I said several time, the FIA does not have the power to do this. There is no provision in the rules. The current rules cover the position perfectely. A team goes to the racetrack and does the best with what they have. The racetrack does not get changed just because some teams find it difficult or their cars are not working properly. If drivers have to go slower to keep their cars from falling off the track, or their tyres/brakes/engines from wearing out too quickly, then that is what they should do, and what they do at every other race.

 

[PatrickL]

Well let say we disagree completely and be done

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Well let say we disagree completely and be done

Sure, you can say that - you'd still be wrong.

As you can see from all the "what if" questions I asked, there was no way for it to be dealt with other than they way it was.

 

[V3]

But BZB, teams agreed to not get points and so on. They just wanted to race with the safe set for the show, without getting any rewards at the end according to Franck Williams. But FIA refused that.

FIA didn't refused them to race, they just suggested a different safe alternative. Which would achieve the same outcome IMO, that is they could race, under the FIA suggested condition.

Heck if they wanted too, they could have use the pit lane and go through the pit lane every lap, it'll be safer than a chicane. It'll be like a drive through penalty.

 

[davefb]

they could have done something, they can call "force majour" and get a race,, then sue everyone later...

"drive a bit slower" is the most insane statement ever. "change tyres every 10 laps" but there wouldnt have been enough tyres. "drive through the pitlane", how would this have been a racing spectacle , so were back to just 6 cars racing?
What is wrong with a chicane? the only thing they would have needed would have been an extra test session ? ?

the only solution was the chicane,, it should have been sorted earlier than sunday .. Of course jean todt has shown his true colours, whilst williams has said he doesnt blame ferrari , todt now says he wouldnt have raced if there had been a chicane.....

anyway,,

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15061.html

and

http://www.planet-f1.com/features/editorial/story_20028.shtml


these arent totally unique circumstances , whats unique is the inability to have found a solution..

 

[PatrickL]

These arent totally unique circumstances , whats unique is the inability to have found a solution..

Totally agree.

 

[_xxx_]

Now the Michelin teams got charged for breaching some 5 regulations and "boycotting" a race. There will be a hearing in Paris in front of the FIA comitee soon.

 

[PatrickL]

Yes but FIA is judge and a part of the trial so expect just a "political" result that allow FIA to try to appear as a White knight

We may have a better understanding about what happened if there is a trial in the US.

 

[_xxx_]

Yes but FIA is judge and a part of the trial so expect just a "political" result that allow FIA to try to appear as a White knight

We may have a better understanding about what happened if there is a trial in the US.

There is a clear rule that a team must report until 45 minutes before the race begins if they're participating or not. This was clearly not the case.

And that's just one of the charges.

 

[davefb]

Yes but FIA is judge and a part of the trial so expect just a "political" result that allow FIA to try to appear as a White knight

We may have a better understanding about what happened if there is a trial in the US.

There is a clear rule that a team must report until 45 minutes before the race begins if they're participating or not. This was clearly not the case.

And that's just one of the charges.

again, it's like being at school, instead of trying to fix this issue, the FIA is just interested in issuing charges.. YAWN..

anyway, it has to be stated that it's double-think to say this ISNT participating, but 'driving slowly' is ( but breaking the 'should be totally interested in safety' letter which went round after kimi's suspension failure).

 

[V3]

"drive a bit slower" is the most insane statement ever.

That's not true, its a practice of most the leading F1 teams, when they are leading the race. They just drive slower in their last 15 laps, when they have the lead and bring it home safely. They could have done it here, from the beginning of the race.

Or when they have car problem but can get point, they will drive slower, so I don't think there is anything insane about it :?

"change tyres every 10 laps" but there wouldnt have been enough tyres.

Then the car retire like it normally would. They can race at least 20-30 laps that way. Its normal for cars to retire during race.

"drive through the pitlane", how would this have been a racing spectacle , so were back to just 6 cars racing?

No there would be more cars, its just some may elect to drive through pitlane for safety. The Michelin cars would all race each other for 7th and 8th place.

What is wrong with a chicane? the only thing they would have needed would have been an extra test session ? ?

A chicane could lead to other problem, like brake failure. And its unfair to the other team. Beside its against the rule. Where the other solutions aren't.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

they could have done something, they can call "force majour" and get a race,, then sue everyone later...

How can you declare "force majour" when six of the twenty cars are having no problems? You are suggested that when enough teams have screwed up, they should be helped by changing the rules/tracks, and so the teams that have not screwed up should have their advantage taken away from them. This would be a ridiculous thing to do, especially via a potentially dangerous mechanism (dropping in an untested chicane at the last minute), that breaks every rule and safety procedure that all the teams have already agreed to race under.

"drive a bit slower" is the most insane statement ever. .

"Drive slower" is exactly what all cars do at some point in every race, especially those teams that have unreliable or not properly working cars for any given race weekend. Why should Indianpolis be any different? Just because several of the teams had screwed up all at once?

 

[WhiningKhan]

"drive a bit slower" is the most insane statement ever. .

"Drive slower" is exactly what all cars do at some point in every race, especially those teams that have unreliable or not properly working cars for any given race weekend. Why should Indianpolis be any different? Just because several of the teams had screwed up all at once?

Eh.

If their tyres have worn out or they have lost a wing, they drive slower because they _feel_ how the car handles and they _know_ the limits with which they can keep the car under control. In that case, driving slow is the consequence of what the driver feels under his butt.

It is hardly the same situation when everything works fine, grip is perfect and the tyre suddenly bursts. Taking normal curves more conservatively is not the same as driving an oval at a speed 200km/h slower than usually. Just telling the drivers to 'take it slowly' would have been like giving a loaded weapon to a child and telling him 'don't hurt yourself'.