Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
I still don't get what part of "We brought crap tires and want the rest of you to jump through hoops so we can have an unfair advantage at your expense" is the right thing to get behind.
Emmett, you are verging on the philosophy that "sport is ONLY about winning".
Note the "ONLY" in that statement.
Isn't that the TOIT delusion? Simplistic and totally short sighted ?
A corollary of that earlier premise is "never give a sucker an even break" i.e. if the tyres are defective, they lose, we win.
Some great sporting moments have involved winners having helped their opponents, and therefore enjoyed even gerater triumph.
I'm happy to see those who subscribe to the TOIT "not our problem" view "win" races on their own and then take worthless trophies back to their club rooms to bask in their imagined glory.
I'll stick to sports where the better the competition, the better the result for all, and where there are real winners.
They had options. They could have changed tires every 10 laps or so. They could have taken a different line. Back in our day of motorsport drivers had to manage their tires.
Drivers had to drive, overcome the shortcomings of their cars.
I guess not now.
There is one thing to help out or make a faitr deal out of competition - the latest examples are from the Tour. Lance and the German both had hardships but neither took advantage .
I view this as totally different. Michelin is so on the edge of tire dev they forgot to bring a good solid tire to Indy. Something that a fallback compound should be. No, because of the intensity of the series they brought a super soft and a not as super soft and forgot to bring a survivor.
I agree, but that also should apply to rules and their administration.
Instead, under Max, we have poorly thought out rules, which haven't had properly considered acceptance by all the teams.
Indy was a walkover for the Bridgestone runners. OK, we should take the points, but it was hardly racing.
No-one wants to pay good money, build up their expectations of a great event then be let down by a walkover which could have been avoided by a contingency plan.
OK if one or two teams have problems and have to withdraw, but 3 out of ten, especially TOIT, Jordon and Minardi, doesn't make a great race.
Of course, if we had beaten Jordon, it would have been a godd result for us, but I wonder i Jordon would have retired if we had got in front of them, putting Stoddie in a an even worse dilemma.
Thanks for the correction - it is Preparation meets opportunity - I brain faded.
Yes the rules are sketch this year - we all know that.
The FIA, to the best of my understanding, did offer their contingency plan. The changing of tires as needed. This would have beeen a constant merry go round into and out of the grage but it was doable and legit.
The other options - flying tires in from France or building a chicane...well those are tailored for the Michelin cars. With B stone not being helped by either of these two options how would you have compensated B Stone for their instant lack of competitiveness. Remember they came to the track PREPARED
What would you have done for the B Sone teams had you given such a gimme to the Michelin runners? B stone did nothing wrong so they should not suffer.
Lookingforward to the answer as I have not been able to come up with one.
Stoddie claims he would have called in his cars had both Jordans retired/crashed/spontaneously exploded.
After much consideration (and having witnessed most 'experts' duck the issue over the last week) I believe the Mich boys should have run low and slowish on the banking. They still had points for 7th and 8th to gun for so they should have agreed 'for the good of the sport' not to overtake one another on the banking until, ooh, it straightened out.
BTW, for what it's worth, Piquet says the drivers should have grown some balls and raced. I only know this as I interviewed his son at Goodwood.
Whiting's solution was crazy don't you really get it Viges? As Martin Brundle pointed out it would be extremely dangerous to have 14 cars accelerating slowly in one turn and the other 6 at full chat, especially at the first few laps.
They don't have to drive through a banked corner at 300km/h while other cars around are at 200km/h there at LeMans and other mixed series races, do they?
I think Mulder should drop his arguement. Cars get overtaken every race under blue flags. And there was absolutely no reason why the track marshalls could not warn slowere cars that they were about to be passed by waving blue flags.
I think the drivers should have been left to race with warnings about high speed tyre failures.
It was only a race or two ago that Kimi was doing just that. Sure there was a danger but I think most drivers, if appraised of the situation, would want to last race distance and not risk their race on exceeding the recommended maximum speed.
There were a number of other options that teams could have agreed on the day. This was the most expensive circus in town, and they all finished up looking like clowns without a ring-master.
The bridgestone runners could have been given the lead, a whole lap, or just the points - I don't really care too much which option would be agreed.
This wouldn't have changed the whole sport to a permanent handicap event, just showed that on a extraordinary day, there was value for all in having the Michelin runners fighting it out among themselves.
That would have at least avoided the "it isn't our problem parade".
I also agree with Petrol's comment on blue flagging the slower Michelin cars.
I agree as well. The teams did not have to be unanimous for there to be a race last weekend with the outcome being as it turned out with only 6 cars running and an entire market alienated. All it would've taken was some firm, competent crisis mode decision making with a goal in mind. I happen to think that the goal for the FIA is that the show goes forward.
Any consequences are dealt with afterwards. The meeting this week should be a perfunctory, predecided by all parties show trial with all Michelin teams being found to have run illegaly and all points from this race deducted. Instead we have what we have.
Spin- Do you honestly think that speed warnings to drivers, remember the personalites you're talking about- JPM, Kimi, MASSA for Christs sake, would have been realistic? I suppose you can say that's their risk to take, but if an accident occurs and a tire jumps the catch fence then what? The teams had no choice.
It boils down to, given the facts as they were, 'Did you want to see a race or not?' Only the FIA had that decision to make. Rigidity and no time does not make for a good outcome. Far better to be flexible in the moment and put the hammer down after everyone has gone home.
Petrol and Emmett! As you probably know blue flags can't force a driver to go off the line if he's not being lapped. So what could have happened if a Ferrari had attacked a Renault for position on that part of the track? The Renault has a right to make it hard for the Ferrari but the Ferrari is going at a significantly higher speed and has two options now. Either crashing into the back of the Renault or swerving to the outside and going off the line itself... to the outside of a banked corner, at 300km/h, and with about 10 other Michelin cars around that don't want to overtake each other by chance. I suppose both would have been bizarre crashes. Did you think about that? The chicane was not the best solution for me, the optimal one was to postpone the race on grounds of safety and competition. But to run it with t13 in the existing configuration and just tell the Michelin runners to drive slowly through it was to play Russian roulette.
But Viges solution is the simplest. You simply paint a white line around turn 13. In short its very similar to the pin lane exit line. Michelin runners stay below it. Bridgestone above it. Anyone crossing that line through the final turn is penalised. Track is unaltered and no question of liability of the tracks insurers.
But just take a look at any onboard lap from there, t13 really isn't as wide or as long as one might think. Going from the end of t12 to the end of t13 the driver starts on the left side of the track, just skims the apex of the curve, and swings back to within inches of the outside wall and blasts onto the straight. In other words the racing line occupies the entire width of the track. Making two simultaneous lines there before the main straight would only be an invitation to disaster.
Ok even if it was possible and safe - and I don't think it was as I said - would have it been within the regs? The track can be altered by the FIA if there are any safety issues hence a chicane was legal, but can they just allow some of the competitors to use parts of the tarmac that are not available to the others?
Comments
Note the "ONLY" in that statement.
Isn't that the TOIT delusion?
Simplistic and totally short sighted ?
A corollary of that earlier premise is
"never give a sucker an even break"
i.e. if the tyres are defective, they lose, we win.
Some great sporting moments have involved winners having helped their opponents, and therefore enjoyed even gerater triumph.
I'm happy to see those who subscribe to the TOIT "not our problem" view "win" races on their own and then take worthless trophies back to their club rooms to bask in their imagined glory.
I'll stick to sports where the better the competition, the better the result for all, and where there are real winners.
When preparation meets competition.
Michelin was not prepared.
They had options. They could have changed tires every 10 laps or so. They could have taken a different line. Back in our day of motorsport drivers had to manage their tires.
Drivers had to drive, overcome the shortcomings of their cars.
I guess not now.
There is one thing to help out or make a faitr deal out of competition - the latest examples are from the Tour. Lance and the German both had hardships but neither took advantage .
I view this as totally different. Michelin is so on the edge of tire dev they forgot to bring a good solid tire to Indy. Something that a fallback compound should be. No, because of the intensity of the series they brought a super soft and a not as super soft and forgot to bring a survivor.
I guess rules don't mean anything anymore.
I agree, but that also should apply to rules and their administration.
Instead, under Max, we have poorly thought out rules, which haven't had properly considered acceptance by all the teams.
Indy was a walkover for the Bridgestone runners. OK, we should take the points, but it was hardly racing.
No-one wants to pay good money, build up their expectations of a great event then be let down by a walkover which could have been avoided by a contingency plan.
OK if one or two teams have problems and have to withdraw, but 3 out of ten, especially TOIT, Jordon and Minardi, doesn't make a great race.
Of course, if we had beaten Jordon, it would have been a godd result for us, but I wonder i Jordon would have retired if we had got in front of them, putting Stoddie in a an even worse dilemma.
Yes the rules are sketch this year - we all know that.
The FIA, to the best of my understanding, did offer their contingency plan. The changing of tires as needed. This would have beeen a constant merry go round into and out of the grage but it was doable and legit.
The other options - flying tires in from France or building a chicane...well those are tailored for the Michelin cars. With B stone not being helped by either of these two options how would you have compensated B Stone for their instant lack of competitiveness. Remember they came to the track PREPARED
What would you have done for the B Sone teams had you given such a gimme to the Michelin runners? B stone did nothing wrong so they should not suffer.
Lookingforward to the answer as I have not been able to come up with one.
After much consideration (and having witnessed most 'experts' duck the issue over the last week) I believe the Mich boys should have run low and slowish on the banking. They still had points for 7th and 8th to gun for so they should have agreed 'for the good of the sport' not to overtake one another on the banking until, ooh, it straightened out.
BTW, for what it's worth, Piquet says the drivers should have grown some balls and raced. I only know this as I interviewed his son at Goodwood.
Try agan.
Try again.
It was only a race or two ago that Kimi was doing just that.
Sure there was a danger but I think most drivers, if appraised of the situation, would want to last race distance and not risk their race on exceeding the recommended maximum speed.
There were a number of other options that teams could have agreed on the day. This was the most expensive circus in town, and they all finished up looking like clowns without a ring-master.
The bridgestone runners could have been given the lead, a whole lap, or just the points - I don't really care too much which option would be agreed.
This wouldn't have changed the whole sport to a permanent handicap event, just showed that on a extraordinary day, there was value for all in having the Michelin runners fighting it out among themselves.
That would have at least avoided the "it isn't our problem parade".
I also agree with Petrol's comment on blue flagging the slower Michelin cars.
If so then I agree - I think that the FIA puts rules out and the Teams comply or find another series.
Any consequences are dealt with afterwards. The meeting this week should be a perfunctory, predecided by all parties show trial with all Michelin teams being found to have run illegaly and all points from this race deducted. Instead we have what we have.
Spin- Do you honestly think that speed warnings to drivers, remember the personalites you're talking about- JPM, Kimi, MASSA for Christs sake, would have been realistic? I suppose you can say that's their risk to take, but if an accident occurs and a tire jumps the catch fence then what? The teams had no choice.
It boils down to, given the facts as they were, 'Did you want to see a race or not?' Only the FIA had that decision to make. Rigidity and no time does not make for a good outcome. Far better to be flexible in the moment and put the hammer down after everyone has gone home.
As you probably know blue flags can't force a driver to go off the line if he's not being lapped. So what could have happened if a Ferrari had attacked a Renault for position on that part of the track? The Renault has a right to make it hard for the Ferrari but the Ferrari is going at a significantly higher speed and has two options now. Either crashing into the back of the Renault or swerving to the outside and going off the line itself... to the outside of a banked corner, at 300km/h, and with about 10 other Michelin cars around that don't want to overtake each other by chance.
I suppose both would have been bizarre crashes. Did you think about that?
The chicane was not the best solution for me, the optimal one was to postpone the race on grounds of safety and competition. But to run it with t13 in the existing configuration and just tell the Michelin runners to drive slowly through it was to play Russian roulette.