OTT: US Formula 1 race great for Ferarri, bad for Michelin

[Brett Dikeman]

On Jun 20, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Dave Eaton wrote:

> that is incorrect.  ferrari had no part in the decision not to  
> proceed with
> a chicane.

All the teams agreed to the chicane except Ferrari, and all the  
Michelin-equipped teams were willing to race for no points.  Either  
"no points for anyone", or "no points of Michelin teams".

>   the decision was solely for the fia to make, as they run the
> series, and they made it.

It is widely argued that FIA management caters to Ferrari's whim,  
because if Ferrari takes their blocks and plays elsewhere, F1 would  
be in extremely deep dog food.  Regardless of Michelin's problem, FIA  
had a responsibility to present an event, not piss off thousands of  
ticketholders and millions of fans.

> frank williams has confirmed that fact this
> morning on autosport.com, and completely exonerated ferrari.

 From the Reuters story (which Sports Illustrated, among others, has  
for free):
-- Williams said the Italian team, who use Bridgestone tyres, were  
blameless for everything that happened at Indianapolis.  "They were  
totally innocent in this affair entirely," he said. "They had no  
reason not to race."--

That's the line of an apologist.  There is an obligation to the fans  
to put on a good race, and to have a fair competition.  If a majority  
of teams suffer from something out of their control, as you've  
pointed out- it does behoove the unaffected teams to make SOME  
concession, in the interests of sportsmanship, and most everyone did,  
for that reason; it's good sportsmanship.  When the other teams make  
a concession (all the other teams were willing to give up points for  
the race), and one team takes a hard line- that's beyond business.   
That's a vendetta.

You know what?  Stop by the pits at an SCCA race, and see what real  
motorsport is about.  If the guy in the pits needs a part or he's got  
to pack it in and head home, and someone in his class with the same  
car has the part in his trailer...the part is his, even if its owner  
might need it.  Why?  Because everyone values his presence as a  
competitor, and respects him because they know the commitment in  
time, effort and money you've put into it all too well.

FIA is desperately trying to spin it: "we don't change the rules  
because a competitor arrives with the wrong equipment".  "A  
competitor", feh.  Change the sentence to be accurate, and see how  
asinine it sounds: "we don't change the rules because the majority of  
competitors arrive with what turns out to be defective equipment".

> i find it interesting that a last minute decision to install a  
> chicane seems
> so fair to all the arm-chair f1 racers out there.  particularly  
> without the
> chance to practice or setup for it.  lemme see, turn 13 (the  
> highest speed
> corner in f1) is now reduced to 2nd gear...

Of course it's fair.  It's a problem and challenge that would have  
been equal for all teams.  I bet a lot of teams said yes because they  
saw it as yet another way to compete- see who could do the best job  
of setting up the car.  It'd give everyone a run for their money, and  
put fans in suspense.  Heaven forbid drivers and teams should  
actually have a challenge on their hands- and are you seriously  
arguing that F1 teams would be flummoxed as to how the addition of a  
chicane would affect their gear ratios et al?

Brett
-- 
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/