US Formula 1 race great for Ferarri, bad for Michelin

[Sébastien ROUL]

> The track had been recently resurfaced, and Bridgestone, which is owned
> by Firestone, had received some data from them based on their experience
> at the Indy 500.   But Michelin was aware of the resurfacing and came to
> Indy completely unprepared.

That's so true that IRL was stopped on April 5th because of a "surprising
tyre trouble" (said by Firestone spokesman), the new track part was
resurfaced and Firestone made a new tyre before the IRL race.

> Saturday night they petitioned FIA to have a chicane added to turn 13
> prior to the start of the race to slow the speeds down.  FIA rightly
> refused and gave them three options.

Why rightly? In 1994 FIA itself has decided unliateraly to put chicanes on
Barcelona track after the death of two drivers at Imola GP (Senna and
Ratzenberger), so was it "unrightly" in 1994? Perhaps should Ralf Schumacher
have died friday in order to put a chicane?...

>They tell their teams/drivers to slow down in the areas of concern, turns
13 and 1
slow down to what speed? and should a Sauber wich is a weaker car than a
Renault slow more than a Renault in this area?
what about a race with a "speed trap" area as the FIA gave as an option???

> they could start the race with new tires (new compound tires were flown in
> Sunday morning though they weren't guaranteed to be much better) and go
> to the back of the pack (not a big hit as there was only 6 non-Michelin
> cars); or they could change their tires throughout the race as
> necessary, which FIA would allow from a safety perspective, as long as
> they didn't get a competitive advantage from it.

FIA didn"t say that : they told STEWARDS would choose if it was a matter of
security or not, AFTER the race.


> Michelin refused.

THAT'S RIGHT ! ;)

> They came unprepared, and wanted to have those that were prepared, to
> acquiesce to new rules so they wouldn't be at a disadvantage.

THAT'S FALSE !

they wanted to take part of the race with a chicane BUT without gaining any
point in the championship in order to satisfy the public and TVs.

> Michelin didn't refuse to run because of safety.  They did it because they
> couldn't get their way, and in the process they screwed all the fans at
> the race, and dealt a big, big blow to F1 racing in the US.

should I remember to you that the 4 first cars on the grill were Michelin
eqquiped?

and you don't know if it was for safety or not. MICHELIN is a great
manufacturer and they would'nt compromise their reputation either in a
"known before tyre problem and driver death" or in a "we won't be able to
race and win so we don't race"... remembre MICHELIN has won 8 (eight) races
this year... BIRDGESTONE only one (INDY... lol).