75 replies to this topic

[karlth]

The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous
Max Mosley

This is continuing from a discussion in another thread which had strayed a bit from the topic. This thread can hopefully focus on the legal aspects of the Chicane proposal.

Now both Mosley and Whiting have stated that placing a temporary chicane in turn 13 at Indy last weekend would have been "against the rules." Neither of them say what rule they are talking about and nothing seems to be in the sporting code which supports their claim. In the previous thread it was pointed out that in Appendix O of FIA's Sporting Code it says the following:

3.4

On site inspections will be performed by the Commission’s
delegates as necessary, with at least one preliminary inspection
and one final inspection. For permanent circuits, the final
inspection should be made not later than 60 days (or 90 days
for FIA Formula One World Championship events) before the
first international event to be held, at which inspection all work
relating to the track surface, permanent features and safety
installations should be completed to the FIA’s satisfaction

3.5

The above procedures are also mandatory for circuits undergoing
major modifi cations. Any modifi cations to the layout or safety
installations which are not submitted for FIA acceptance prior to
execution are liable to render the circuit ineligible for international
events.

Which could indicate that the temporary chicane needed to be inspected 90 days before the event. And thus an attempt to build it 1 day before the race itself would be illegal.

Now for those who followed the 1994 season might remember that major modifcations were carried out in Barcelona and Canada without the written 90 day inspection period being honored. In both cases the changes were done in the name of safety and no questions were asked about the legality of the temporary chicanes installed on both circuits.

The question which I hope will be answered is this: Why would a temporary chicane have been legal in 1994 but not in 2005? Was Appendix O changed between 1994 and 2005? Are Mosley and Whiting thinking of another rule than the one in Appendix O?

All comments welcome.

PS. I should mention that I promised a $50 reward for the poster who can state what FIA rule was broken. As a necessary addendum it must be also argued why that rule didn't apply in 1994.

The reward will of course also be awarded to anyone who can proof that FIA wouldn't have broken any regulations by installing the chicane, i.e. that the chicane would have been legal.

[Toxicant]

If the track is dangerous to all the teams then they would change it, just because it was dangerious to the M runners .....

Thank about it ....

And I don't know the reg, but you can't change the track after qualfying. Everyone qualfied, just because M screwed up doesn't mean **** the rules, we need to have a show.

Oh, and PS

They didn't tell the FIA 45 mins before the start of the race that they were unsafe to race...e-mail me for my address

[goGoGene]

They resurfaced Montreal within 90 due to safety concerns...

[Paul_13]

I don't know for sure but you will probably find that these rules were introduced at the completion of the 1994 season due to obvious reasons (Imola). That is when they started to crack down hard on track safety. The modifications they did to tracks during 94 would have been a temporary measure until things got sorted out. Seems like the most likely reason.

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by goGoGene
They resurfaced Montreal within 90 due to safety concerns...

Klarth left a sentence off the end of 3.4...

It says...


For temporary circuits the date and time of the final inspection will be
fixed for each case individually by the FIA inspector.

Montreal is a temporary circuit.

[Sakae]

This discussion would take another twist is you also introduce several statements about unfairness to others, while aiding/yielding to a competitor(s), while he (they) do not have their act together.

[Battousai]

Originally posted by karlth

Now for those who followed the 1994 season might remember that major modifcations were carried out in Barcelona and Canada without the written 90 day inspection period being honored. In both cases the changes were done in the name of safety and no questions were asked about the legality of the temporary chicanes installed on both circuits.

The question which I hope will be answered is this: Why would a temporary chicane have been legal in 1994 but not in 2005? Was Appendix O changed between 1994 and 2005? Are Mosley and Whiting thinking of another rule than the one in Appendix O?

Side question- my memory is very fuzzy as far back as 94, but these chicanes were identified and built before the start of the race weekend (before FP1) right? I'd assume that would mean that the FIA had already begun looking into their implementation at least days if not weeks before the race.

A bit different than implementing a chicane the morning of the race no?

[Zawed]

Originally posted by Battousai


Side question- my memory is very fuzzy as far back as 94, but these chicanes were identified and built before the start of the race weekend (before FP1) right? I'd assume that would mean that the FIA had already begun looking into their implementation at least days if not weeks before the race.

A bit different than implementing a chicane the morning of the race no?

I was debating this with a friend - we were discussing the race at Spain where temp chicanes were installed. I couldn't recall precisely when the chicanes were installed, prior to the GP weekend or during it, after one or two practice sessions. I have a feeling it was during the weekend, anyone here confirm/deny?

[WayFaster]

Like I posted on another thread:

I think it’s reasonable and logical to accept that the only sure and safe ways to allow all 20 cars to race through T13 are either:

Force all 20 cars to slow down in order to remove the danger of having two groups of cars – slow Michelin, fast BStone – racing hard closely to each other through T13. This could be achieved by putting a chicane just before T13 to slow down all cars.

Or, separate the fast and slow groups through T13, that way they would not interfere with and pose danger to each other. This could be achieved by putting a different line through T12 and T13 for the slow Michelin drivers only as suggested by KINGFISHER. Or as revealed in PS’s letter, putting a chicane there for the Michelin teams to use only and let the BStone to use a pass-through lane next to the chicane (not across it) like those on indoor go-kart tracks.

Unfortunately, both ways would be considered technically altering the configuration (to different degrees depending on the options) of the Indy track, which was strongly opposed by Max.

One other option is to ask the Michelin teams to use the pit lane instead of go through T13 altogether, but as others have calculated, that would mean a F1 car travelling at 120kph every 6 sec down the pit line on average, does it really sound safe to you in all honesty?

So basically if the track can't be altered in ANY way, then the options put forth by FIA are just not safe for both the BStone and Michelin teams, then the only correct outcome should be what we exactly had on Sunday.

So all parties did the right thing and no one should be blamed or penalised.

[Pioneer]

Actually not if that's the case... the teams still should have by regulation then informed FIA that they would not be starting the race. They didn't... instead we got the silly show we got with all 14 of them withdrawing during the formation lap and taking a DNS.

That's what they've been summoned for.

[WayFaster]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Actually not if that's the case... the teams still should have by regulation then informed FIA that they would not be starting the race. They didn't... instead we got the silly show we got with all 14 of them withdrawing during the formation lap and taking a DNS.

That's what they've been summoned for.

I think the teams, IMS, BE were still trying to find a solution even up to 15 mins before the start (if you believe PS's letter), so the teams didn't know that they were going to withdraw from the race 45 mins prior to the start as required by the regulation.

[LindaC]

Presumably they kept hoping the FIA would see sense....even if it meant delaying the start of the race.

[WayFaster]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Actually not if that's the case... the teams still should have by regulation then informed FIA that they would not be starting the race. They didn't... instead we got the silly show we got with all 14 of them withdrawing during the formation lap and taking a DNS.

That's what they've been summoned for.

FIA also charges the teams for wrongfully not taking part in the race, which I think is ridiculous.

[dnbn]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Actually not if that's the case... the teams still should have by regulation then informed FIA that they would not be starting the race. They didn't... instead we got the silly show we got with all 14 of them withdrawing during the formation lap and taking a DNS.

1. They were persuaded by BE to take the grid and start the warm up lap, thereby validating the race for the benefit of BE (his commitment to Tony George) and the Bridgestone teams (allow them to get the points).

2. Doing so they also converted their status from DNS to DNF. That's according to FIA regulations. Therefore they didn't technically violate the notification demand.

Morally speaking they were hoping throughout the day that a compromise will be found and they declared that they couldn't and wouldn't race without such a compromise. So no surprise was there (except for the spectators).

[HP]

Maybe this helps to get nearer to your question.

http://www.f1technic.../article62.html

Safety regulation changes to Circuit in 1994

1994: Pits spectator gallery fire shield obligatory. Identification of 27 "very high risk" corners by computer analysis: 15 removed from list by 1994 performance reductions.

Tyre wall deceleration tests, analysed relative to human tolerance levels, produce a standard by which to judge new barriers.

Use of conveyor belting in front of tyre walls recommended.

Then you might want to contact the guy that formatted the 1994 regulations with some (all?) appendixes . Email found at the end of the page.

http://ccnga.uwaterl...ortingregs.html

Other interesting tidybits FIA announcment a from May 1994

http://www.teamdan.c...4/fiaannou.html

This a very interesting point. And IMO that question is all we really need to know.

a) The safety changes to cars following Imola, where introduced for the very race you are asking for. Obvious is that the FIA's changing of the cars introduced unforeseen complications to all competitor, so even without knowing the details of the track homologation procedures in 94, it is clear to me, that the FIA was squarely responsible for the mess, and they sorted it out, by introducing another safety measure.

So this leads me to the question IMO that is the key answer for your quest. We know the FIA can introduce changes on grounds of safety, which they did in Barcelona in 1994. Then the question would be, why was the problem in Indy 2005 considered a performance problem, and not a safety issue?

Here is what Max Mosley said about this issue

Q. All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?

Mosley: There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.

Q. How can you say a chicane would be "potentially dangerous" when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?

Mosley: A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?

Besides he said it was the FIA track officals decisions, not his to not go ahead with the chicane. Anyhow Barcelona 94 was also not a track related security issue, so his answer doesn't give all the answers you seek. But it indicates to me one thing, all sides wanted their back covered in case something went wrong



You might appreciate this read as well, as it gives some good insight in how safety measure technology has evolved
http://www.mad4f1.co...ty-measures.htm

You might get some answers from the people working on this project

http://en.wikipedia....ect_Formula_One

[JForce]

It may be entirely possible that they got it wrong in 1994, and yet completely right in 2005. That might fit your argument well though.

[Paul_13]

Just to clarify the situation in 1994 a little more, (courtesy of grand prix.com);


Monaco GP
Monte Carlo
May 15, 1994

The accidents at Imola two weeks earlier cast a shadow over the Monaco Grand Prix. The tragic events, which included the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and the great Ayrton Senna, resulted in a mass-media hysteria which had made the whole sport edgy and things went from bad to worse on Thursday morning when Karl Wendlinger had a serious accident at the chicane, sliding sideways into the barriers at high speed. He suffered head injuries which meant that he would not be able to compete for the rest of the season. The Sauber-Mercedes team went back to Switzerland. In the mid-afternoon the FIA president Max Mosley turned F1 on its head by announcing sweeping rule changes.


Spanish GP
Barcelona
May 29, 1994

The first of the rule changes announced by the FIA at Monaco came into effect, amid much controversy. While testing at Silverstone Pedro Lamy's Lotus had lost its rear wing and the Portuguese driver had been seriously injured when the car vaulted the barriers. He was replaced in Barcelona by Alex Zanardi. Williams had named test driver David Coulthard as its replacement for the late Ayrton Senna but there were negotiations for Nigel Mansell to take the drive later in the year when he did not have clashing CART races in America. Simtek had replaced Roland Ratzenberger with Italian Andrea Montermini but Sauber was running only one car as Karl Wendlinger was still in a coma following his crash at Monaco. Eddie Irvine was back in the second Jordan, his three-race ban having ended. It was imposed due to dangerous driving in Brazil.

The fight over the new regulations saw Benetton boss Flavio Briatore trying to force the issue by saying that he could not guarantee the safety of the Mild Seven Benetton Fords. The FIA promptly threw the team out of the meeting and Briatore had to back down. On Friday morning only nine cars went out to practice while the team bosses had meetings to try to solve the crisis. By Saturday things had quietened down but there was another scare when Montermini piled his Simtek into the wall at around 100mph. It looked serious and Montermini was taken off to hospital.


Canadian GP
Montreal
Jun 12, 1994

There had been further rule changes as a result of the Imola accidents, the most significant being the decision that teams must use pump fuel. Until then they had used specially formulated fuel nicknamed "rocket fuel" which bore no relation to ordinary gasoline.


Pretty wild times you would have to say. It was obvious that the FIA had to do something about safety and the teams all had a fit over it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[mclarenroxxors]

I believe if Ralf would have perished friday in his crash, we would have had a chicane no question.

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Zawed


I was debating this with a friend - we were discussing the race at Spain where temp chicanes were installed. I couldn't recall precisely when the chicanes were installed, prior to the GP weekend or during it, after one or two practice sessions. I have a feeling it was during the weekend, anyone here confirm/deny?

I found these in another forum:


"The drivers were worried that the hastily introduced (and untested) aerodynamic restrictions would make the cars unstable. On the Thursday they demanded several changes to the circuit defences and these were duly made. But when the organisers said there was no time to change a particular high-speed turn, most of the drivers said they would not race unless something was done. A temporary chicane was placed at the entry to this corner and the drivers agreed to compete. Later it was agreed that the teams' engineers would have a say in any rule changes affecting the cars."

from "Formula 1 The autobiography" by Gerald Donaldson.

[HP]

Originally posted by mclarenroxxors
I believe if Ralf would have perished friday in his crash, we would have had a chicane no question.

Not so sure. They would have found out the tyre failure too. Michelin would have accepted the blame, and possibly withdrawn from the race and in turn the race might have been cancelled and held another time, possibly with a modified track layout. I think most people would have applauded a decision in thi scenario.

Really, can you see Michelin be willing to suffer another possible fatal crash blamed on them in one weekend? And possibly the insurance companies had also something to say about this in such a scenario. Can you see anyone in F1 be willing to stick out their head and continue to run with faulty equipment when someone has endured a fatal crash because of it. That IMO would have been worse than the farce on Sunday.

Anyhow, will they modify the track for next year? Assuming there is a Indy GP in 2006

[Sakae]

In retrospect, they should have cancelled race, because of politically charged atmosphere who is running, under what conditions they run, and who is not and all contraversies created in the process. Michelin' tyres were suspect under any set of circumstances at that particular event. I cannot see how cancellation would have been any different from Indy race being cancelled because of rain.

[karlth]

It seems Mosley is playing the card that in Barcelona a temporary chicane was placed because all the teams were in danger while at Indy because only 70% of the grid was danger it was a performance issue.

His, or Whiting's, proposed solution was to ensure that 100% of grid would be in danger by making the Michelin teams brake and run slowly into the fastest corner in F1 while the Bridgestone teams would run at ful speed.

[Zoe]

This is your spin of the matter....

Zoe

[karlth]

Originally posted by Zoe
This is your spin of the matter....

The first paragraph is my opinion but the second one is common sense. Everyone agrees that for 70% of the grid to brake in turn 13 to "considerably less speed" would endanger everyone.

[vroom-vroom]

Originally posted by karlth
It seems Mosley is playing the card that in Barcelona a temporary chicane was placed because all the teams were in danger while at Indy because only 70% of the grid was danger it was a performance issue.

You could argue - succesfully, I think - that if 70% of the grid was a danger to themselves and other, then 100% of the grid was in danger, including Ferrari, if they were allowed to run together, nothwithstanding the fact that Jordan and Minardi cars are already dangerous mobile chicanes on *any* track.

[Zoe]

Originally posted by karlth


The first paragraph is my opinion but the second one is common sense. Everyone agrees that for 70% of the grid to brake in turn 13 to "considerably less speed" would endanger everyone.

Stop flogging a dead horse, there have been enough discussions about that topic already and have outlined various possibilities to solve that problem.

Zoe

[Umpire]

Originally posted by karlth


The first paragraph is my opinion but the second one is common sense. Everyone agrees that for 70% of the grid to brake in turn 13 to "considerably less speed" would endanger everyone.

At the risk of sounding different (and silly, I know), I have this to say.

It dawned on me today. Before that I'd say that this was indeed dangerous. However;

1. They wouldn't be braking right in the middle of the oval, they would have braked beforethe oval so as to take the corner at low speed. Thus if anyone was behind them - they would have time.

2. They could have taken another line at that corner. Yes there IS another line, remember we have seen people get lapped there.

3. The danger of a '18 corner pile up' is absolutely minimal because the Bridgestone guys would got past all of them by lap 1 or 2 (assuming they wouldn't start ahead of them anyway), and the next time they would approach, the slow cars would be scattered. Overtaking one slow car at the banking is not hard. It's going to cost time for both but heck people have been lapped there.

[AlexS]

The first paragraph is my opinion but the second one is common sense. Everyone agrees that for 70% of the grid to brake in turn 13 to "considerably less speed" would endanger everyone.

Since the discussion didnt advanced because Michelin teams refused that option we dont even know if it will be work . You fail to consider that the FIA options were made with not much information from Michelin. If Michelin says that cars can only race at 70 km/h do you think that FIA would not have retired that option? It's was a proposal that could or could not work.

I cant understand that people dont see that this kind of situations are dinamic by nature.

[HP]

Originally posted by karlth
It seems Mosley is playing the card that in Barcelona a temporary chicane was placed because all the teams were in danger while at Indy because only 70% of the grid was danger it was a performance issue.

His, or Whiting's, proposed solution was to ensure that 100% of grid would be in danger by making the Michelin teams brake and run slowly into the fastest corner in F1 while the Bridgestone teams would run at ful speed.

IMO, had there been an Indy 1994, and the tyre situation would of been the same, no Michelin shod teams would have raced, chicane or not.

Back then there was a real wake up call on saftey, and many of the chicanes we still have to endure are witness to a few knee-jerk reactions in 1994. The temporary Barcelona 94 chicane included. Fast forward to 2005. There is a fight over the control over the sport (whatever is left of that after Indy), decisions were driven mainly by those concerns. The backdrop between those years isn't comparable nevertheless important to understand.

IMO the FIA when asked about Barcelona 94 will point out they learned from that experience to not change the track on short notice, since they had quite a few problems with it during the weekend, including a driver crashing into the tyre wall of the chicane. All in all the chicane back then seemed to be causing a fair share of avoidable hassle. Besides it should be said that back then Flavio Briatore kept the ball starting. He claimed his team won't be able to compete without a chicane. (The same he said this weekend, the same stance he took this weekend, take note!) They first ignored him at he meeting, because it was just his team who had the problem, but then the bug spread to all the drivers and the joined into the protest and demanded a chicane. I would say the FIA learned their lesson then and didn't repeat the mistake this weekend. This weekends lesson? We'll find out.

Edit: I hope there is a personal lesson that Max Mosley learned. People don't trust in his leadership, so it would be best for him to step down. But I would be surprised if he stepped down as a consequence of this weekend. He would make sure it appears to be unrelated to this weekends happening. It would be his decision to retire....

[tifoso]

Originally posted by karlth
PS. I should mention that I promised a $50 reward for the poster who can state what FIA rule was broken. As a necessary addendum it must be also argued why that rule didn't apply in 1994.

How do you know the 90-day inspection rule was in place in 1994? Do you have a copy of the 1994 version of the International Sporting Code? Perhaps it was put in place after the driver's protested the safety of Barcelona (?) in 1994. I remember the FIA and/or Bernie weren't happy. Maybe they lost then because they didn't have the 90-day rule. Maybe the rules have changed in 11 years.

[karlth]

Originally posted by tifoso

How do you know the 90-day inspection rule was in place in 1994? ... Maybe the rules have changed in 11 years.

They might. I don't know.

But considering that FIA circuit safety inspections started around 1970 I think it is reasonable to assume they haven't changed in any major way.

[tifoso]

Originally posted by karlth
They might. I don't know.

But considering that FIA circuit safety inspections started around 1970 I think it is reasonable to assume they haven't changed in any major way.

Many things have changed significantly in over 35 years -- pavement technology, SAFER barriers, ideas about run-off areas, and on and on. And the cars have changed tremendously, making a track that was once safe, unsafe (unless upgraded to account for faster cars). Like you I don't really know if the current International Sporting Code is the same or similar than it was in 1994, or 1970 for that matter, but unlike you, I don't think it's reasonable to assume it hasn't changed in any major way. We just don't know. Basing any argument on it's being similar, is a mistake, IMHO.

[karlth]

Originally posted by tifoso

Many things have changed significantly in over 35 years -- pavement technology, SAFER barriers, ideas about run-off areas, and on and on. And the cars have changed tremendously, makin a track that was once safe, unsafe. Like you I don't really know if the current International Sporting Code is the same or similar than it was in 1994, or 1970 for that matter, but unlike you, I don't think it's reasonable to assume it hasn't changed in any major way. We just don't know. Basing any argument on it's being similar, is a mistake, IMHO.

Now think about this logically. Currently it says that the circuits must be inspected 90 days before the event. If different how many days do you think it would have been in 1994? 60 days? A month?

In Barcelona 1994 the circuit was modified a few hours before the cars went out on track.

At Monza 1996 the circuit was modified to cover high speed kerbs with tyres during the GP weekend.

[MrSlow]

Let's just face it. A chicane would have been a poor and potentially dangerous solution. Max and Jean is right - there is no way that you can safely put in a chicane and race on it without testing and setup changes. With the current rules it would not have been possible to do any further testing without risking the engines. What if Ferrari would have done 5 laps testing and then the engine expires 2 laps from the finish? What if there had been an accident? It is not motivated to make a potential dangerous change in the name of safety. It was a disaster. It is maybe even worse than we fear since if Michelin have to pay for all the tickets it will propably not be much left of this years development money.

It sucks, but sometimes life do.

[tifoso]

Originally posted by karlth
Now think about this logically. Currently it says that the circuits must be inspected 90 days before the event. If different how many days do you think it would have been in 1994? 60 days? A month?

In Barcelona 1994 the circuit was modified a few hours before the cars went out on track.

At Monza 1996 the circuit was modified to cover high speed kerbs with tyres during the GP weekend.

You seem to assume there was a rule about inspecting a track in 1994. I cannot make the same assumption. The track in Barcelona was modified at the demands of the newly revived driver's association -- all the drivers wanted it. It wasn't just to compensate for one supplier bringing unsafe equipment. And it was a mess. They had to reposition it several times because driver's kept knocking it down. Monza 1996 was the same thing, the curb was knocking bits off all the cars -- it wasn't knocking bits off cars because one supplier had an issue.

[QdfV]

Originally posted by karlth
In Barcelona 1994 the circuit was modified a few hours before the cars went out on track.

At Monza 1996 the circuit was modified to cover high speed kerbs with tyres during the GP weekend.

Which are all still very different from 'at the start of the race without ANY prior experience'. Plus there is the experience from these events that even with getting used to them during the weekend, it was not a very safe solution.

[karlth]

Originally posted by QdfV



Which are all still very different from 'at the start of the race without ANY prior experience'. Plus there is the experience from these events that even with getting used to them during the weekend, it was not a very safe solution.

The question is why those modificatoins were allowed but not the chicane at Indy. Whiting said it was illegal and yet had authorized the changes in Barcelona and Monza.

[karlth]

Originally posted by tifoso

You seem to assume there was a rule about inspecting a track in 1994. I cannot make the same assumption.

All F1 tracks had to be FIA inspected since around 1970, that is documented. What we don't know is how many days in advance of the GP event.

[vroom-vroom]

Originally posted by QdfV
Which are all still very different from 'at the start of the race without ANY prior experience'. Plus there is the experience from these events that even with getting used to them during the weekend, it was not a very safe solution.

They could have easily postponed the start of the race by 1/2 hour to let everyone test the chicane. Anything would have been better than this farce. OTOH, I still cannot believe Michelin teams agreed to race for no points

[tifoso]

Originally posted by vroom-vroom
OTOH, I still cannot believe Michelin teams agreed to race for no points

Are you convinced they really did? Or was it something they said for public consumption, knowing the FIA would never allow it?

[J2NH]

Originally posted by Battousai


Side question- my memory is very fuzzy as far back as 94, but these chicanes were identified and built before the start of the race weekend (before FP1) right? I'd assume that would mean that the FIA had already begun looking into their implementation at least days if not weeks before the race.

A bit different than implementing a chicane the morning of the race no?

Yes, quite a bit different. In addition the chicane in Barcelona was modified between practices (opened up) because it was too tight (source Atlas). Jump to 2005 and we are talking about a chicane that the first time anyone actually drives it would be on the opening lap of the race. I would suggest that we are talking apples and oranges on this one.

I suppose you could bag the Park Ferme rules and allow a Sunday warm up to find the optimum width and speeds. Maybe re-qualify for the race, start under a yellow flag, create a huge "no passing" zone etc. but what is the point? Michelin screwed up and the teams did not accept the alternatives that were offered. Fans can argue all day long as to whether the alternatives were safe or not, or whether it would have made for a good show, but we do not, and should not have the final say and neither should any of the teams. The FIA accepts that responsibility when it sanctions the race. Teams participate in the FIA World Championship, they don't run it and for good reason.

I should have been at the race on Sunday and normally would have made the 8 hour drive. When qualifying was changed and the one engine rule reduced the amount of time on the track I lost enthusiasm.

I'll agree that Max has got to go and I wouldn't mind if he took a certain tire manufacturer and a couple of team principles with him.

[vroom-vroom]

Originally posted by tifoso

Are you convinced they really did? Or was it something they said for public consumption, knowing the FIA would never allow it?

Possibly, I just get the same reports as everyone else, and they all mention this no-point for Michelin users which, to me seems like an incredibly generous offer that *still* got turned down. Now, maybe you're right an they requested a chicane or no race, period. This, then, might have been construed as being "unfair" to BS users, ie Ferrari, although it looks like Ferrari is using those terms whenever it suits them (fair to do unlimited testing; fair to issue team orders; unfair to let 70% of the field race). Ferrai's notion of fairness seems different than anyone else's. Is that fair? :

[man from martinlaakso]

I agree, that the extra chicane would have been against the tules, but it would still have been the best solution for arranging a real race. Naturally every driver should have had a possibility to test the chicane before the race. The BS drivers would have been granted the first three rows in the grid. Also the WCC points would have been devided between BS teams.

FIA's proposal that the Michelin cars should have used the pit lane in every lap was not from this world. Try to imagine 14 cars packed more or less together at the pit lane for 72 times.

FIA's other proposal to have a speed limit for Michelin cars was not a very healthy idea either. I mean Bridgestone cars coming to the 13th turn with 100km/h higher speed than the Michelin cars. How many collisions ?

Then the third proposal that Michelin drivers would make a tyre change for every 10 laps. How long time would it have lasted, before the pissed spectators would have left the area ? It would not have been a race, but a cirkus. And people bought tickets for a race.

There was a bit similar case in the German GP in 1959. Then there also was an angled curve, which was too much for the Dunlop tyres. These tyres held several laps, but it was clear that they would not stand the whole race. So the race was run in two parts, and the results were summed up. The drivers could change tyres between the starts. As I had written earlier, where there is a will, there is also a way. Now Max Mosley and FIA did not have the will.

[tifoso]

I have a question for the pro chicane contingent. What if the positions had been reversed and it was Bridgestone that had the problem, but everything else transpired as it did during the USGP. There would have been an officially sanctioned race with 14 cars instead of 6. Would you have thought the chicane necessary then? Or is this more about the number of cars that participated?

[karlth]

Originally posted by tifoso
I have a question for the pro chicane contingent. What if the positions had been reversed and it was Bridgestone that had the problem, but everything else transpired as it did during the USGP. There would have been an officially sanctioned race with 14 cars instead of 6. Would you have thought the chicane necessary then? Or is this more about the number of cars that participated?

If the Bridgestone teams had offered to race without points or with a lap deducted. A race without Ferrari is not acceptable and neither is a race without 70% of the participants.

It is like when a nation is faced with a natural disaster, you don't give out parking tickets when their are greater issues at stake.

Just my opinion.

[abascal]

Hello, everybody

By the way, have you read Mosley's responses to Q & A shown lately in Autosport. You can read it
on FIA' s page too.

Don' t miss them.

Once a small chicane was discarded, then what to do, how to race ?.

"Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?

Mosley: Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship."

Just figure out. What about the cars on fuel pit stop , and what a show.

Is this serious ?

Can we open a thread. "must Mr. Mosley resign".

Thanks

Abascal

[mclarenroxxors]

Originally posted by tifoso
I have a question for the pro chicane contingent. What if the positions had been reversed and it was Bridgestone that had the problem, but everything else transpired as it did during the USGP. There would have been an officially sanctioned race with 14 cars instead of 6. Would you have thought the chicane necessary then? Or is this more about the number of cars that participated?

What if ferrari would have been on michelin too and only jordan and minardi been on bridgestones. What do you think would have happened then?

[tifoso]

Originally posted by mclarenroxxors
What if ferrari would have been on michelin too and only jordan and minardi been on bridgestones. What do you think would have happened then?

Based on how it played out Sunday, I'd say the same thing that did.

I'm equally pissed off that a solution could not be achieved and a real race conducted. However, once Michelin failed to bring a safe tire to the race, everything proposed by the FIA, Michelin, and the Michelin clad runners would have been a farce on some level. The chicane while seemingly the most pausible option was unfair to the teams that brought safe equipment. Therefore, there was no way to hold a real race and legitimately penalize the Michelin teams for their equipment failure as happens in every other race of the season when equipment fails to perform as expected.

[Ciwai]

What if ferrari would have been on michelin too and only jordan and minardi been on bridgestones. What do you think would have happened then?

Thats what I was contemplating. Or an even further hypothetical take, what if only minardi were on bridgestones. Either case, the podium celebrations would be insane. Seriously, I think they would've thrown the rule book out and tried every effort to get a chicane installed or the race would've been cancelled rather than just running a race with backmarkers as front runners.

[The Soul Stealer]

Originally posted by mclarenroxxors
What if ferrari would have been on michelin too and only jordan and minardi been on bridgestones. What do you think would have happened then?

What if Ferrari would have been on Michelin and everybody else on Bridgestones. What do you think would have happened then?

Would Karlth reaction be the same?