If Bridgestone had info that indicated there could/would be danger then
I would hope they would be forthcoming with it. Like Michelin, I have no
idea what the issue with the track may have been.
If Bridgestone had info that indicated there could/would be danger then
I would hope they would be forthcoming with it. Like Michelin, I have no
idea what the issue with the track may have been.
My approach would have been rather simple really - assumed that the FIA write the rules for the sport - assume that my tyre manufacturer had come to town (fdrom their headquarters in South Carolina where, as we all know, the French have taken a beach-head and where no-one in the R&D department of Michelin watched the Indy 500 on TV) without the correct tyres - and accepted that either (a) I was not going to drive and forewarned the jerks that pitched up to watch the race or (b) accept that changing tyres every ten laps or so was a valid option or (c) accepted a speed-limit through that turn with a speed-limit button (which works in the pits) or (d) refused to take part in the warm up lap or (e) refused to take part in the parade lap or (f) got in the car and thought, *** it, I get paid millions and hitting the wall is just part of my profession.
What I would not have done is - defrauded 120,000 people out of their money and then claimed that driving the warm-up lap and parade lap was somehow part of the 'show'.
Well ok Martini, had you have driven a Michelin car, what would your approach have been? :)
If the drivers got no say, why did they have a meeting before hand - and btw they were in the cars, and could have driven had they wanted to - simple, no? What would happen - Coulthard fired for driving at USGP? I think it probably states in his contract - just a guess - that he's hired to drive cars. I think it would be difficult to fire an accountant for accounting - or a driver for driving.
>>> Well, if Bridgestone had info about U.S. roads, they have
>>> demonstrated,
>>> that even in the event where it might save lives, they would not be
>>> prepared
>>> to share that info. Competitive edge is far more important of course!
>> What info did you think they had that was so unusual (for a
>> very high speed banked corner) that it said that Michelin tires would
>> come apart? Do you want Bridgestone to give Michelin all their
>> engineering data on a routine basis? Do you expect Michelin to tell
>> Bridgestone exactly how their tires are constructed?
> If Bridgestone had info that indicated there could/would be danger then
> I would hope they would be forthcoming with it. Like Michelin, I have no
> idea what the issue with the track may have been.
Michelin failed. Everyone else succeeded. Michelin should have come clean -
on Saturday - and cancelled the GP. Not contined with the ***y farce.
Don McCorkle
Don McCorkle
"Byron Forbes"
Its the SAME Friggin corner that has been in that same configuration for 6
years!!!! The corner been there over 100 years. Since Michelin KNEW the
track had been resurfaced and ground, don't you think they would have
brought a compound to error on the side of caution? They are so full of
themselves that Michelin didn't think they needed to. I hear all this talk
about the 500 this, the 500 that, and Bridgestone knew some key issues about
the track surface. Well it wasn't a SECRET that the track was like that,
was it?
--
Sean Higgins
www.higpup.com
My Trans Am Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/ta
Ferrari Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/Ferrari
"Byron Forbes" <
Why doesn't Michelin have their own F1 car, say even some version of some
teams last years car, then they can test where they want when they want with
who they want. Small price to pay compared to the backlash they will get
now.
--
Sean Higgins
www.higpup.com
My Trans Am Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/ta
Ferrari Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/Ferrari
Please tell me how Ferrari sales will suffer for them finishing 1-2 in a
race where 7 teams bailed out of competing?
--
Sean Higgins
www.higpup.com
My Trans Am Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/ta
Ferrari Pictures
http://www.higpup.com/Ferrari
>>I was solidly in the corner of those blaming the FIA and Mosely until I
>> read this.....
>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>> He's not the most articulate guy and his analogies stink, but his
>> fundamental point is a good one. If a competitor brings deficient
>> equipment to a competition, it's unfair to the other teams to change
>> the rules to remove the disadvantage. The fact that it was over half
>> the field doesn't change that.
> Mostly agree. Bridgestone did have the Firestone data advantage though.
>> Michelin pressed the envelope too far, got caught without a backup, and
>> tried to have the FIA save them by removing any disadvantage caused by
>> their***up, with a chicane. I can't see how that would have been
>> the right thing to do.
> Having cut throat tyre rules without testing at a resurfaced track is
> hardly right either. And the FIA failed to provide a testing period here -
> stupid!
> What I have objected to since this happened, is the way so many believe
> Michelin is entirely to blame - an attitude set up by the FIA from the
> outset. Everyone is falling for the FIA's overbearing bullshit position.
> The FIA is totally to blame for having no worthwhile contingency and
> greatly to blame for the lack of testing at a resurfaced track that places
> maximum loads on F1 tyres!
--
Sean Higgins
www.higpup.com
My Trans Am Pictures
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Ferrari Pictures
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Well, according to Bridgestone, the track was the same. Those dirty,
good for nuthin, misleading punks!
Pretty funny stuff that. If ever there was a classic example of
scapegoat, the FIA pointing the finger at Michelin is it.
Even if we agreed Michelin screwed up, it doesn't change the fact that
the FIA's lack of proper contingency was certainly a monumental screwup. And
Ferrari aligned themself with the FIA which means they were quite happy to
***over the fans. Simple facts.
Jordan and Minardi showed good sportsmanship in the face of idiotic FIA
suggestions - Ferrari are scumbags.
"Everyone else succeeded"? I don't think I'd quite put it that way.
It seems you think Michelin are the FIA - how can Michelin cancel a GP?
The farce is purely the fault of the FIA. The 6 car race was a farce and
so was all the idiotic suggestions by the FIA.
a) no driver knew a thing 'til the last moment
b) Ralph went into the wall after 2 laps - you must be a good
guesser I guess?
c) ***- I wouldn't have
d) woopy shit
e) woopy shit
f) bullshit
What I would not have done is - defrauded 120,000 people out of their money
and then claimed that driving the warm-up lap and parade lap was somehow
part of the 'show'.
What a load of shit.
>> As I understand it the corner has been there for years (of course) but
>> the
>> 'diamond cut' surface was new this season. imo someone at Michelin didn't
>> do
>> enough homework & assumed a 'regular' track surface.
> That is what they want you to think, but the surface had nothing to do
> with it. There was not a wear problem, it was the carcass of the tire not
> standing up to the forces applied by the high speed banked turn. Michelin
> tried something new with the structure of the tire and it backfired.
> Their fault.
See the zillions of FIA rules reguarding testing! The FIA failed to
provide any testing for anyone at IMS. Bridgestone were simply lucky to have
Firestone as a sister company and thus got data from the Indy 500. This
might be technically ok but it certainly an advantage that Michelin never
had.
So where was that edge? I'd be pretty sure this was not the plan of
Michelin. If the track was just a little different from last year in T13
then all the Michelin data is obselete.