>> And Ferrari were not involved in the discussion, as Williams have
>> confirmed.

> However, it HAS been reported that 9 of the 10 teams(or 10 of 11, I'm too
> rushed to look it up) had supported a chicane.  Since ALL teams votes were
> needed to make the chane, the fact no chicane went up can 'partially' be
> attributed to Ferrari.  Remember, they also did not want to allow Paul
> Stoddard to run his 2004 spec machinery at Australia.  One could argue
> they
> are being consistant.  Or one could argue they are supporting their
> sponsors.  Or one could argue they are fighting for every point.

> dh

>>> You weren't the guy that threw the water bottle were ya Kyle? :))

>>> Yea what a shame.  Can you get your money back?

>>> Mitch

>> No. I just got my boos in and left after the third or fourth lap. I was
>> going to renew my tickets tomorrow and do the drive a lap on the track
>> thing. That is not going to happen now and I will not be going back to
>> the US Grand Prix or another other F1 race. The FIA obviously does not
>> care about the fans at all. They had options to pursue to have a full
>> grid, but instead they chose to***the fans. I was pissed and only had
>> to drive about 20 miles to the track. I really feel for the people that
>> came from across the U.S. or from other countries to see this
>> "Traveshamockery!

>> Kyle

>> Yup - and while we're at it, can Michelin change the configuration of all
>> tracks they race on so they can get an advantage? And how about a 50bhp
>> reduction in Ferrari's engine output - hey, why not, Michelin write the
>> rules, and everyone that play by the rules - like Bridgestone, who build
>> tyres to last - well, they can just go***off.

>> After all, ferrari raced at the USGP - it's abundantly clear they were at
>> fault for doing so. They should not have raced like the rest of the
>> teams - that is, after all, why they came to the US right?

>    Though ferrari had no say ultimately, Todt made it clear he would not
> agree to any of the proposals that provided a genuine race. That is biting
> the hand that feeds you. That represents ferrari as a bunch of wimps that
> will take a win any way they can get it - well, I wouldn't even call it a
> "win" - they simply got the points. But they were happy to be crapping all
> over their own bread and butter in the process!

>> Isn't Michelin allowed to bring 2 compounds of tire to the track?  I
>> don't think the FIA told them to bring 2 versions that are on the edge.

>    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.

>> "Byron Forbes" <
>>>    Firstly, Firestone obviously tested b4 the race.

>>>    Secondly, a simmer ought to have a clue about the difference in
>>> downforce between an IRL car setup for a superspeedway and and F1 car
>>> setup with it's std rear wing. I'd say the F1 car would put more stress
>>> on the tyre due to greater downforce and the consequent greater lateral
>>> loading - mute point anyway.

>> 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.

>    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.

>>>    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.
>> True - you and Michelin seem to belong to a very modern world in which
>> PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY is sacrificed for finding the closest scapegoat -
>> so Michelin come to town without tyres - BLAME FERRARI - BLAME THE FIA -
>> BLAME THE TRACK - BLAME SCHUMACHER - BLAME BERNIE & MAX - BLAME THE FANS,
>> THE TV, BLAME ANYONE AND EVERYONE AND ANYTHING - but take no blame for
>> one's own personal and acute and dismal and incompetent FAILING to
>> PROVIDE a race-tyre for a race weekend - guess what Byron? F1 is a SPORT.
>> That means that those that are IN the sport are MEANT to know what the
>> hell they are doing - if NIKE built footballs that EXPLODED every ten
>> minutes, FIFA would soon go to Adidas and ask them to make balls (balls
>> being exactly what is missing in today's current crop of F1 drivers).

>    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.

>> Michelin failed. Everyone else succeeded. Michelin should have come
>> clean - on Saturday - and cancelled the GP. Not contined with the ***y
>> farce.

>    "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.

>> "Byron Forbes"

>>>    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.

>> 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?

>    Well, according to Bridgestone, the track was the same. Those dirty,
> good for nuthin, misleading punks!

>>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.

>        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.

>> "Byron Forbes" <
>>>    Firstly, Firestone obviously tested b4 the race.

>>>    Secondly, a simmer ought to have a clue about the difference in
>>> downforce between an IRL car setup for a superspeedway and and F1 car
>>> setup with it's std rear wing. I'd say the F1 car would put more stress
>>> on the tyre due to greater downforce and the consequent greater lateral
>>> loading - mute point anyway.

>> 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.

>    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.

>>> Isn't Michelin allowed to bring 2 compounds of tire to the track?  I
>>> don't think the FIA told them to bring 2 versions that are on the edge.

>>    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.

> So they just guessed what to bring with a World Championship at stake,
> with drivers lives at stake, reputation at stake?  If that is the case,
> those guys at Michelin really are a bunch of roobs!

>>>> Isn't Michelin allowed to bring 2 compounds of tire to the track?  I
>>>> don't think the FIA told them to bring 2 versions that are on the edge.

>>>    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.

>> So they just guessed what to bring with a World Championship at stake,
>> with drivers lives at stake, reputation at stake?  If that is the case,
>> those guys at Michelin really are a bunch of roobs!

> Game, set and match Sean - well done.

>     Proof?