|
Other than the spurious skiing analogy I must say I agree 100% with Max Moseley on this, I would not say that it always the case though.
|
|
|
www.formula1.com/race/news/3218/740.html Quite interesting interview with Max Moseley
It isn't an interview, PR. It was a question-and-answer press release issued by the FIA to all media yesterday. Formula1.com is the FIA's own website.
Draw your own conclusions.
|
It isn't an interview, PR. It was a question-and-answer press release issued by the FIA to all media yesterday. Formula1.com is the FIA's own website. Draw your own conclusions.
Interview or Press Release, in-house or independant, what makes sense makes sense, Max is right on this one.
|
Regrettably, and with much soul searching, I have to say that I agree with Cheddar.
Unless Max is truly lying through his teeth, then what he says makes a great deal of sense.
|
Without casting aspersions in the general direction of the legal community, one would expect a counsel like Mosley to produce a well-constructed and cleverly-conceived argument.
Taken in isolation it doesn't indeed sound eminently sensible.
It isn't, of course, the whole truth. We'll never know that without access to the telephone traffic between Indianapolis on the Saturday night.
Nigel Roebuck is one of the most seasoned observers of Grand Prix racing and if you read what he has to say today you might notice an interesting point he makes about the comments by Charlie Whiting, the FIA's man on the spot. Sensible words, yet again, but ones that sounded suspiciously like those of Max Mosley.
F1 should be all about the show. Mosley allowed the regulations, or an interpretation of them, to get in the way. His solution was one he knew they couldn't agree to.
|
F1 should be all about the show. Mosley allowed the regulations, or an interpretation of them, to get in the way. His solution was one he knew they couldn't agree to.
True, people watch F1 to be entertained but the fact is that from the moment it emerged that Michelin had fouled up it was not possible for there to be a fair and competitive race - the best that could be achieved was fairness, which was offered to the Michelin teams who could have run safely and within the rules.
To sacrifice fairness for entertainment would not in my view have satisfied the fans anyway. As the oleaginous Max aid, the parallel proposals would be tolerated in the Olympics and audiences watch those for entertainment too.
|
|
as Max "Said" and "would NOT be tolerated" of course.
|
|
|
I'll park fairness to one side. Rigid enforcement of the rulebook may have sounded fair, but that wasn't what this was about, it really wasn't.
I think I said in an earlier post that the FIA's supposedly favoured solution theoretically broke just as many rules as the chicane option (though clearly the FIA would never have found itself guilty) and in safety terms had just as many potential drawbacks.
But once again that wasn't the issue either. Mosely kne the teams wouldn't go for 'slowdown in one corner on every lap if you drive on Michelins' solution. It was only ever designed to heap humiliation on a group that opposes him
What the fans ended up with was something that was neither fair nor entertaining (except in a perverse sense). The Minardi team boss, Paul Stoddart has since made it clear that had the Jordan's retired he would have pulled his cars out immediately. Leaving two Ferraris doing a demonstration run even more farcical than the one that was actually served up.
I don't think Max Mosley is motorsport's devil incarnate and there are plenty of loathsome egos among the teams that pulled out.
The FIA has, in the past, demonstrated a pragmatic streak. Since some of the teams started talking about a breakaway that has disappeared.
|
I think I said in an earlier post that the FIA's supposedly favoured solution theoretically broke just as many rules as the chicane option
>>
Simply not true.
(though clearly the FIA would never have found itselfguilty) and in safety terms had just as many potential drawbacks.
>>
Cars travelling at varying speeds through a fast corner has safety implications though far less so than either high speed tyre failure or an unfamiliar, untried and untested track layout.
What the fans ended up with was something that was neither fair nor entertaining (except in a perverse sense).
It was fair, the cars that were legal and safe raced as was their right, any other eventuality would have been unfair.
The Minardi team boss, Paul Stoddart has since made it clear that had the Jordan's retired he would have pulled his cars out immediately. Leaving two Ferraris doing a demonstration run even more farcical than the one that was actually served up.
Paul Stoddard is playing politics, keeping the engine suppliers sweet with words of support and solidarity, no way he would have pulled his cars out if a 3rd and 4th place were on the cards.
|
Paul Stoddard is playing politics, keeping the engine suppliers sweet with words of support and solidarity, no way he would have pulled his cars out if a 3rd and 4th place were on the cards.
Of course he would have pulled out if the Jordan's retired, he would still have been in 3rd and 4th place. No point trying to keep up with the Ferraris.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Of course he would have pulled out if the Jordan's retired, he would still have been in 3rd and 4th place. No point trying to keep up with the Ferraris.
No, you have to be running to get the points hence why 7th and 8th were not awarded.
|
>> >> Of course he would have pulled out if the Jordan's retired, >> he would still have been in 3rd and 4th place. >> No point trying to keep up with the Ferraris. >> No, you have to be running to get the points hence why 7th and 8th were not awarded.
To clarify you can get points if you have retired though have complted more laps than a car that is still running, otherwise to be clasified you have to complete a % of the full race distance, this % has changed over the years, not quite sure what it is currently, perhaps 75%.
|
|
>> >> I think I said in an earlier post that the FIA's >> supposedly favoured solution theoretically broke just as many rules as the >> chicane option >> Simply not true.
I'm not going to let that one pass, Cheddar. It most certainly isn't 'Simply not true'. There was a little-quoted 'legal opinion close to the sport' that appeared in two US newspapers on Tuesday that said that if a chicane breached the FIA's sporting code then an agreement for certain cars to slowdown at one point on every lap would have done the same.
This same legal opinion voiced the belief that the reason the Michelin teams held out for a chicane was that they believed that for the reasons stated above they would be hauled before the beak whatever they did. On that basis they held out for something that would have levelled the playing field. Having failed to get that they cut their losses and walked - knowing they'd still get hauled before the beak anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What people don't realise is that Formula 1 cars are built to last a race with maximum performance, that's it. Hence tyres are designed to last only as long as they're needed, however with increased longevity comes reduced performance, so they're always going to be 'on the edge'. Hence the new rule does not make tyres less safe as manufacturers could make them last far longer than a race distance if necessary, as Max points out. All this talk about "look at how badly worn those tyres are; That's all down to the new tyre rule" is nonsense.
By the way, as someone has pointed out to me, what might happen to BAR? Will they suffer from suspended ban from the fuel tank saga if they are found guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute?
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
An interesting bit of gossip floating round the F1 circuit at the moment is that Toyota knew at the start of the weekend that the Michelin tyres had problems that would prevent their teams from running. In their employ is former Michelin Project manager Pascal Vasselon who is said to have heard about the problems from his former collegues, and using this and his own insider knowledge plus the problems Ralf Schumacker and Ricado Zonta had suffered put two and two together.
Toyota are rumoured to have sent Jano Trulli out for his qualifying lap with little more than fumes in the tank, knowing that if the race went ahead he would have had to pit at the end of the second lap.
F1 makes Dallas look like songs of praise.
Brilliant!
|
Toyota became aware after the first failure when Vasselon tapped up one of his old colleagues back at Clermont Ferrand.
That's when he discovered that the issue was not that Michelin had brought along a marginal compound but that there was a genuine, materials-related manufacturing fault.
Throws a whole new light on it. The FIA had been asking why Michelin took a deliberately marginal tyre.
They clearly didn't. Still Michelin's fault, but not the result of a deliberately risky strategy
|
Throws a whole new light on it. The FIA had been asking why Michelin took a deliberately marginal tyre. They clearly didn't.
>>
It is not clear that they didn't even though it is perhaps more likely that the problem is generic with the type of construction used this season irrespective of compound etc.
Still Michelin's fault, but not the result of a deliberately risky strategy
It was a risky stratergy only bringing one type of tyre.
|
I've kept quiet on this, but I need to speak - there's been just too much rubbish spouted on this subject.
If one team turns up with defective equipment, should they change the rules to suit that team? Clearly not.
If two, should the?, and so on. Where is the dividing line where it becomes OK to change the rules because a number of teams couldn't adhere to the rule book safely?
The ONLY sensible way to deal with this is to say, rules are rules. Break them (or find yourself unable to run because of safety concerns) and you're out. No compromises, no changes.
V
|
Agreed - If the FIA had bowed down to Michelin this time what would Michelin do at Silverstone knowing that they could force the FIA to follow their line!
The message is clear - rules are rules and that is why they are there. After all BAR's fuel tank issue would have had little effect on the result but the rules were enforced and everyone knows where they stand.
|
|
a bit off the point, but why is it that only Michelin and Bridgestone are allowed to supply tyres? I am sure that people like Continental, Pirelli etc etc would love to do this.
|
|
Unless someone knows differently the teams can get their tyres where they like. I would presume it is because only Bridgestone and Michelin are interested in supporting the technology required for F1 involvement.
|
"because only Bridgestone and Michelin are interested in supporting the technology required"
And because it's worth it for the publicity - usually!
Let's hope Bridgestone stay the course for next year, then...
|
|
Yes, anyone could supply F1 tyres however the cost of researching a developing, and continuing to develop, a competitive tyre has to be able to be offset by the PR gains (Michelin have had a big blip in this regard), also the company would have to convince prospective teams that they were up to the job. Pirelli had a shot and Goodyear were the sole supplier for many years.
|
|
I've kept quiet on this, but I need to speak - there's been just too much rubbish spouted on this subject. If one team turns up with defective equipment, should they change the rules to suit that team? Clearly not. If two, should the?, and so on. Where is the dividing line where it becomes OK to change the rules because a number of teams couldn't adhere to the rule book safely? The ONLY sensible way to deal with this is to say, rules are rules. Break them (or find yourself unable to run because of safety concerns) and you're out. No compromises, no changes. V
I'm no fan of the FIA, but even they would admit that if they didn't turn a blind eye to the odd breach (or quietly invite teams to rectify 'mistakes') there would never been any racing.
The fine art of compromise is what has kept the egos at bay for years. It drained away because of the fall-out from the authorities doing a deal for the future with one team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
