F1 World Champion 2005?

[Lambert Simnel]

Stapel's point on the advantage of Michelin tyres in the previous races this year was, I thought, pretty key (and maybe that's why it hasn't been answered by the pro-Michelin debaters ?). In F1, there is a constant balance (for all aspects of your car) between speed and reliability. If the Michelin types for Indy were the same as those used in races so far this year, it looks as though the advantage that Michelin tyres were clearly giving to their cars was possibly at the expense of some degree of robustness. I'd be interested to hear Marla, Scuffer or Dan's thoughts on this angle.

As for the future of F1 in America - wise up guys, it was never really going to happen, and the FIA look just as foolishly, naively desperate to "make it big" in America as FIFA, Oasis and the Beckhams.

PS How many of us will buy a Michelin tyre for our car next time round ?

 

[chancellor_dan]

F1 in America could have happened. From what i've heard from American people, it really was just beggining to catch on. Granted it was never going to be as NASCAR or the other nonsense they enjoyed, but likewise a European stock car championship would never overtake F1 in Europe, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been popular.

As for Michelin's previous tyre advantage, everyone knows Bridgestone err more on the side of a Conservative tyre. I personally find it hard to believe every Michelin shod car would have ended up in the wall of the banking after 10 laps. I do believe Michelin overreacted to Ralf Schumacher's accident. Teams such as Mclaren believe the current Michelin tyres are very robust on their own car. But they sensibly followed Michelin's advice to withdraw from the GP. As i have acknowledged several times, i don't condone that Michelin have ballsed up. However in the interests of the sport i think Ferrari and the FIA should have ensured the race went ahead - Thats they key arguement here. The Michelin teams were prepared to be penalised to ensure that it did go ahead. But Ferrari wouldn't allow it.

 

[Scuffer]

If the Michelin types for Indy were the same as those used in races so far this year, it looks as though the advantage that Michelin tyres were clearly giving to their cars was possibly at the expense of some degree of degree of robustness. I'd be interested to hear Marla, Scuffer or Dan's thoughts on this angle.

Scuffer's thoughts are as follows:
Michelin took tyres that were not up to the job. The teams did not send these back to Michelin with a 'Not Good Enough' stamp or whatever on the side. Therefore, if Michelin could not produce a safe tyre inside the rules, and no Michelin runner could benefit from the race points-wise. That is fair enough to my mind. Michelin shouldn't benefit from screwing up.

This is completely seperate from the obligation, indeed the whole point, of F1 to provide fans and sponsors, and everyone else, with a competitive race to enjoy watching/advertise products on. By failing to ensure any sort of race, the FIA failed motorsport. Michelin deserve a portion of the blame, but FIA inflexibility was the cause of Sunday's farcial race.

 

[Stapel]

As i have acknowledged several times, i don't condone that Michelin have ballsed up. However in the interests of the sport i think Ferrari and the FIA should have ensured the race went ahead - Thats they key arguement here. The Michelin teams were prepared to be penalised to ensure that it did go ahead. But Ferrari wouldn't allow it.

To ensure it went ahead, they simply should have started (and finished) the race, and take it easy on the track!

But McLaren and Renault wouldn't allow a self-restriction of speed in the turn..... Wouldn't that have been a whole lot easier? The Michelin teams had an easy solution to solve what was their problem. But somehow you think FIA and Ferrari should have solved the problems of McLaren & Renault. That's completely against good sportsmansship, if you ask me.

Giving in to your ill-prepared opponents sounds right in Homeric Epics, but not in F1.

 

[polyphemus]

This is somewhat off topic but does anyone know if there is a F1 2005 Computer game by EA Sports, if so where can it be found?

 

[chancellor_dan]

To ensure it went ahead, they simply should have started (and finished) the race, and take it easy on the track!

But McLaren and Renault wouldn't allow a self-restriction of speed in the turn..... Wouldn't that have been a whole lot easier? The Michelin teams had an easy solution to solve what was their problem. But somehow you think FIA and Ferrari should have solved the problems of McLaren & Renault. That's completely against good sportsmansship, if you ask me.

Giving in to your ill-prepared opponents sounds right in Homeric Epics, but not in F1.

Reducing speed on the banking is simply too vague an agreement. Okay, so you go slower, but how much slower and how often? As i've said, Mclaren felt the Michelin tyres would pose no problems on their machine - so why would they go slower? And if they didn't and won, then you'd have Ferrari *****ing.

No, something more concrete had to be put in place (literally), like a chicane, so everyone could go into the GP knowing where they stood.

 

[chancellor_dan]

This is somewhat off topic but does anyone know if there is a F1 2005 Computer game by EA Sports, if so where can it be found?

As far as i know, the latest EA sports F1 game is 2002. EA sports have a habit of releasing games years behind date (1994 season came out in 1996, 1998 season came out in 2000) so i would say a 2005 season game is highly unlikely in the near future.

 

[Stapel]

Reducing speed on the banking is simply too vague an agreement. Okay, so you go slower, but how much slower and how often? As i've said, Mclaren felt the Michelin tyres would pose no problems on their machine - so why would they go slower? And if they didn't and won, then you'd have Ferrari *****ing.

No, something more concrete had to be put in place (literally), like a chicane, so everyone could go into the GP knowing where they stood.

Changing a track because some teams can't handle it, is the most filthy form of competition falsification.

I hardly can't imagine you are seriously in favour of such a thing!

I hold a fair competition much above a spectacular race!

I don't give a damn about Todt, Dennis, Williams or Briatore! I care about a fair competition!

And I most certainly wouldn't give a damn abour Ferrari *****ing about a possible McLaren win!

 

[chancellor_dan]

Does Formula 1 Have a Charter?

If it did i'm sure providing a spectacle is high on the agenda.

Making an alteration to the track if it were dangerous outrages you? Did you feel the same way when chicanes were built after Senna's death?

 

[Stapel]

Does Formula 1 Have a Charter?

If it did i'm sure providing a spectacle is high on the agenda.

Making an alteration to the track if it were dangerous outrages you? Did you feel the same way when chicanes were built after Senna's death?

What a tasteless remark!

Not the track caused the danger, the lack of a decent tyres did! You can't just change the track, when some teams don't have the proper ability to get around it safely, where they should & could!
Even if this will seriously decrease the fun of the whole circus!

About the chicane in Tamburello....
I'd get rid of the concrete walls......

 

[Darkness]

Making an alteration to the track if it were dangerous outrages you? Did you feel the same way when chicanes were built after Senna's death?

I very much agree with Stapel on this!!!

The track is not dangerous! Michelin brought the wrong tyres, and so it became dangerous for Michelin cars to go full speed through one specific turn. This has nothing to do with the situation at Imola after Senna's death!
You simple can not change the rules in this case. That would be disadvantaging/punishing Minardi, Jordan and Ferrari. And what did they do to deserve that? Bringing the correct type of tyres from their own manufacturer?

Let's just face facts

- Michelin ****ed up.

- Michelin advised their teams not to race.

- The Michelin teams followed that advise after lengthy debates with the other teams (Jordan and Minardi, 'cause Ferrari didn'have the decency to at least attend the meetings), did not produce any result.

- The FIA is bound by its' own rules and can NOT changes rules/race tracks in the blink of an eye, just because some manufacturer has ****ed up and disadvantaged 7 teams, because then the FIA would be falsifying the competition.

- The fans that attended the race got screwed and shoudl get their money
back!

- Some of those fans were just plain idiots! You simply don't throw things on a race track on which cars race at 300 kph....

 

[chancellor_dan]

As i have said - Michelin did **** up. But the problem was excabated but Ferrari's refusal to put on a show for the paying public & the FIA likewise. The FIA has an obligation to the fans, and it failed. Now the FIA is blaming the manufacturers for the fiasco. I'm glad theyre doing this, because it means Mercedes, Toyota, Renault et al will go ahead with the rival championship.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I agree with Stapel and Darkness 100%.

As i have said - Michelin did **** up. But the problem was excabated but Ferrari's refusal to put on a show for the paying public & the FIA likewise. The FIA has an obligation to the fans, and it failed. Now the FIA is blaming the manufacturers for the fiasco. I'm glad theyre doing this, because it means Mercedes, Toyota, Renault et al will go ahead with the rival championship.

F1 is a competition - if one or two or seven competitors have a problem, then it is not up to the FIA to solve it for them. All the FIA have to do is enforce the rules that all the teams signed up to.

F1 is a competition first and a racing spectacle second, imho. If it were all about the racing show, then the drivers would all be in identical cars.

The fans who paid to see a race should get their money back.

 

[chancellor_dan]

F1 is a competition first and a racing spectacle second, imho. If it were all about the racing, then the drivers would all be in identical cars.

In other words, for you it's a business not a sport.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

No, F1 is definatley a sport in my eyes. If anything, changing the circuit at Indy would be a more business minded descision- to keep sponsors happy, break into America etc, rather than mantain a fair sporting competition.

Sadly, some aspects of F1 are becoming more business-like though. For example one lap qualifying was introduced partly to get sponsors more equal screen time.

 

[Rhye]

As i have said - Michelin did **** up. But the problem was excabated but Ferrari's refusal to put on a show for the paying public & the FIA likewise. The FIA has an obligation to the fans, and it failed. Now the FIA is blaming the manufacturers for the fiasco. I'm glad theyre doing this, because it means Mercedes, Toyota, Renault et al will go ahead with the rival championship.

From what you say it seems that's Ferrari's fault.
You have a very distorted view of the reality.
If a football player is sent off, should the other team play in 10 to balance the match?

 

[chancellor_dan]

No i said it was Michelin's fault initially. But for the sake of the sport and the spectators, Ferrari should have reached a compromise with the other 9.

 

[Darkness]

No i said it was Michelin's fault initially. But for the sake of the sport and the spectators, Ferrari should have reached a compromise with the other 9.

Ferrari's first and only concern is to get as much championship points as possible. The sake of the sport is totally the FIA's concern, who are also not to blame for this disaster.

Michelin is to blame. Period. None of the three Bridgestone teams did anything wrong! (Though Ferrari should've at least had the grace to attend the meetings with the other teams. That could've saved them this nonsense...)

 

[chancellor_dan]

Ferrari's first and only concern is to get as much championship points as possible. The sake of the sport is totally the FIA's concern, who are also not to blame for this disaster.

Michelin is to blame. Period. None of the three Bridgestone teams did anything wrong! (Though Ferrari should've at least had the grace to attend the meetings with the other teams. That could've saved them this nonsense...)

If you read my earlier posts, you'll see i said this was Ferrari's concern. However the point is, as i said, the likes of Ron Dennis and Frank Williams are decent guys who would put the good of the sport above their own greed. That applies to all teams in my eyes, except Ferrari.

As for the FIA - the less said about them the better. The FIA go hand in hand with Ferrari! Formula 1's popularity might not have dwindled if it were a level playing field.

 

[Rhye]

(Though Ferrari should've at least had the grace to attend the meetings with the other teams. That could've saved them this nonsense...)

This thing has been going on since this year, because there's an argument about the tests a team can do.
So, Ferrari isn't invited on regular basis.