rec.autos.simulators

by **alex martin** » Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:20:10

BAR are on a suspended sentence after having been caught cheating - now they
have been caught bringing the sport into disrepute. I have a feeling we
won't be seeing BAR/HONDA anywhere near a race track for the rest of the
season.

>> 0 points

>> > I guess that depends on the definition of major. They didn't send
>> McLaren or Renault. They did send Sauber and BAR.

>> I would argue that BAR are a major team - 2nd in the championship last
>> season, and part owned by Honda.

> Yup, nil points, but more because the team admit they are going for
> performance rather than reliability (and largely failing this year). The
> car has run well more recently, and it's only race bans and non-races
> stopping them now really.

> --
> AG

> Remove removes from address to remove anti-spam measures.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Never for me the lowered banner, never the last endeavour!
> (Damon Hill - 16th June 1999)

by **Stephen F** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:19:53

Paul Stoddart's (potentially biased) timeline of events (on the Minardi
website) makes it pretty clear that the only one to be given the boot should
be Max Mosely. This guy is long past his "sell by" date and the FIA under
Mosely is completely out of touch with what their actual role in motorsports
should be.

by **Alan Gauto** » Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:47:19

> 0 points

> > I guess that depends on the definition of major. They didn't send McLaren or Renault. They did send Sauber and BAR.

> I would argue that BAR are a major team - 2nd in the championship last
> season, and part owned by Honda.

Yup, nil points, but more because the team admit they are going for
performance rather than reliability (and largely failing this year). The
car has run well more recently, and it's only race bans and non-races
stopping them now really.

--
AG

Remove removes from address to remove anti-spam measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never for me the lowered banner, never the last endeavour!
(Damon Hill - 16th June 1999)

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:21:00

> I'm suprised I'm not the first to address this...

While we're on the subject, looks like an interesting week in F1 all
round.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4118472.stm

Andrew McP

by **alex martin** » Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:35:59

Indeed; but if the FIA do not ban a team that have been found to be cheating
and bringing the sport into disrepute all in the matter of three months,
then it's a free for all. Somewhere someone's gonna have to draw the line.
In 9 races so far this season, BAR have managed to be DQ'd from one - and
Did Not Start three. Not bad eh - I'm sure Honda in Japan are having a good
chuckle at how their reputed 400 million dollars are being spent.

>> BAR are on a suspended sentence after having been caught cheating - now
>> they have been caught bringing the sport into disrepute. I have a feeling
>> we won't be seeing BAR/HONDA anywhere near a race track for the rest of
>> the season.

> So then we have the contractual problem of the minimum number of starters.
> Is it 18 or 20? Maybe Minardi and Jordan can each field a third car...

by **alex martin** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:20:58

Sure, Stoddard the sheepshagger would say that - since he decided NOT to
race even though his tyres were fine - I wonder what his excuse was for
trying to boycott racing - I like Ron Dennis too much to race?

>> Indeed; but if the FIA do not ban a team that have been found to be
>> cheating and bringing the sport into disrepute all in the matter of three
>> months, then it's a free for all. Somewhere someone's gonna have to draw
>> the line. In 9 races so far this season, BAR have managed to be DQ'd from
>> one - and Did Not Start three. Not bad eh - I'm sure Honda in Japan are
>> having a good chuckle at how their reputed 400 million dollars are being
>> spent.

> Paul Stoddart's (potentially biased) timeline of events (on the Minardi
> website) makes it pretty clear that the only one to be given the boot
> should be Max Mosely. This guy is long past his "sell by" date and the
> FIA under Mosely is completely out of touch with what their actual role in
> motorsports should be.

by **B Wegne** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:49:19

Alex don't waste your time with this guy.........there will always be people who will deflect blame and those who condone it. He doesn't deserve the time of your response - and mine either.

Wag

Getting killed, last time I checked, is why these cowards get paid the money they get paid - otherwise we'd be watching sim racers, better racing, better skill, and now, more danger too.

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:50:55

The excuse was "what's the point of a 6 car field or idiotic proposals
otherwise?".

What's the excuse of the FIA to have no proper contingency for this?
They are crude, inflexible and vindictive - the core needs replacing. This
is a very foreseeable circumstance with the present rules and all they can
do is say "oh, it's their fault and their fault". Pathetic!

> Sure, Stoddard the sheepshagger would say that - since he decided NOT to
> race even though his tyres were fine - I wonder what his excuse was for
> trying to boycott racing - I like Ron Dennis too much to race?

>>> Indeed; but if the FIA do not ban a team that have been found to be
>>> cheating and bringing the sport into disrepute all in the matter of
>>> three months, then it's a free for all. Somewhere someone's gonna have
>>> to draw the line. In 9 races so far this season, BAR have managed to be
>>> DQ'd from one - and Did Not Start three. Not bad eh - I'm sure Honda in
>>> Japan are having a good chuckle at how their reputed 400 million dollars
>>> are being spent.

>> Paul Stoddart's (potentially biased) timeline of events (on the Minardi
>> website) makes it pretty clear that the only one to be given the boot
>> should be Max Mosely. This guy is long past his "sell by" date and the
>> FIA under Mosely is completely out of touch with what their actual role
>> in motorsports should be.

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:52:24

kettle.....black

by **alex martin** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:49:24

Oh give it up Byron; you're just a F1 newbie Ferrari-hater - dime a dozen
mate. Take your xenophobia elsewhere.

>>I called Michelin's customer service center yesterday (1 800 847 3435)
>> yesterday and complained. The monkey on the phone blamed it all on the
>> diamond grind and put out the company line of the
>> Firestone/Bridgestone/Indy
>> 500 connection. He claimed Michelin had no way of testing the new surface
>> and that Firestone supplied their partner Bridgestone with all sorts of
>> info
>> re: the diamond grind gleaned from the 500. I laughed at him. No one is
>> to
>> blame here but Michelin, and they are accepting none. How utterly
>> contemptable.

> The only contemptible one here is you. Where's the laughable bit?

> Are you all really so utterly stupid that you can't see that
> Bridgestone had data on the newly resurfaced track that Michelin did not.
> I suppose this is completely irrelevent and has no bearing on what occured
> at all?

> Get off the idiot Ferrari owned FIA bandwagon and use your brain!

by **Byron Forbe** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:59:24

The only contemptible one here is you. Where's the laughable bit?

Are you all really so utterly stupid that you can't see that Bridgestone
had data on the newly resurfaced track that Michelin did not. I suppose this
is completely irrelevent and has no bearing on what occured at all?

Get off the idiot Ferrari owned FIA bandwagon and use your brain!

by **TigBit** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:50:02

> >I called Michelin's customer service center yesterday (1 800 847 3435)
> > yesterday and complained. The monkey on the phone blamed it all on the
> > diamond grind and put out the company line of the
> > Firestone/Bridgestone/Indy
> > 500 connection. He claimed Michelin had no way of testing the new
surface
> > and that Firestone supplied their partner Bridgestone with all sorts of
> > info
> > re: the diamond grind gleaned from the 500. I laughed at him. No one is
to
> > blame here but Michelin, and they are accepting none. How utterly
> > contemptable.

> The only contemptible one here is you. Where's the laughable bit?

> Are you all really so utterly stupid that you can't see that
Bridgestone
> had data on the newly resurfaced track that Michelin did not. I suppose
this
> is completely irrelevent and has no bearing on what occured at all?

> Get off the idiot Ferrari owned FIA bandwagon and use your brain!

Hi-

Michelin is the largest tire manufacturer in the world. The IMS was not
repaved and/or ground the night before the race, it was done months before.
Since Michelin did not schedule a test at the newly ground track, I hold
them responsible. My friend, "the laughable bit" is that Michelin will
accept NO RESPONSIBILITY at all for what happened Sunday, when in fact the
blame lies firmly on their shoulders, no one elses'
.
Please tell me why you think I'm on a bandwagon - there is no way that the
FIA should change the rules hours, even minutes, before a race because a
team or teams has/have faulty equipment. Don't get me wrong, it sure
would've been nice if Bernie OR Michelin would've budged a little, as I'd
have loved to seen any sort of different show than the shit we all saw.

Bottom line: In my opinion, Michelin couldn't make a safe enough tire to go
around a track that EVERYONE knew had been resurfaced and ground, therefore
changing the characteristics it had from the previous year. The
responsibility was theirs and theirs alone to investigate and test at the
resurfaced track and produce a safe tire for the race. As we all know, they
failed.

--
TigBits
(o)Y(o)

by **Dave Henri** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:05:00

u:

AT some point, Bridgestone/Firestone had to run on the newly grinded
surface. As a rule, I only pay partial attention to the Biggest Spectacle
in Racing, but offhand, I don't recall any rash of Firestone tires
shredding. Keep in mind, Michelin only had to build a tire that would
handle the load at 180mph and only once per lap for 78ish laps. Firestone
came to Indy with a tire that did 4 turns per lap at over 200mph for
probably 30 laps per stint. (well except for that AJ Foyt Jr guy, I don't
think he broke 200mph on the straights)

dave henrie

by **mcewen** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:16:26

Did you read the link I included?

http://www.formula1.com/news/3119.html

Given that every time an F1 car comes out of the garage it's got 100
photographers around it, show me the photos of the Michelin tire test
at IMS then?

by **Bob** » Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:12:51

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.

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.

rec.autos.simulators

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?

OT: WELL?