Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Formula 1 stinker at the US Grand Prix
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Eunoia



Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Location: In a seedy karakoe bar by the banks of the mighty Bosphorus

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Formula 1 stinker at the US Grand Prix Reply with quote

kprrok wrote:

Quote:
FIA wouldn't ease its rule that forbids teams to change tires after qualifying.


As I stated earlier, the FIA did not forbid them to do this. They actually suggested it. They simply said that if this course of action was taken, the teams could expect penalties as laid out in the rules of the championship.


As I understand it, Michelin DID bring in another set of tires. However, still being unable to explain the previous failures, they could not guarantee that the replacement tires would not also suffer the same faliure.

The teams would have been willing to accept the penalty, had there been tires they could change to. Instead, they tried to find another alternative, even offering to race for no points, but FIA rejected them.


kprrok wrote:
Quote:
And it absolutely refused to consider installing a chicane in turn 13 to slow the speeds.


Quite rightly so. To do this would have contravened several sporting regulations and made the race perhaps even more dangerous for all the competitors.


That's an interesting statement, KPPROK. There are several tracks around the world which have had chicanes added to long straits in order to bring speeds down. Are all these tracks, then, more dangerous?

Let's not forget FIA's sage advice to the 7 Michelin teams regarding turn 13:

"Just slow down before the corner, and don't go so fast"

(Is it a race, or isn't it? Isn't the point of racing to go as FAST as possible?)


For another angle, take a look at this from PlanetF1's website:

Quote:
Ross Brawn¡¯s drinking buddy (Charlie Whiting, F1 Race Director - who, incidentally, wasn't even IN Indianapolis - no, he was back home in Jolly old England) released a letter that he got from Michelin with some smart answers as to why they couldn¡¯t use different tyres on Sunday.

But he¡¯s changed the rules for Bridgestone prior to a race so we¡¯ve been here before. It's surprising nobody¡¯s questioned why Whiting changed the tyre rules at the beginning of the 2003 Brazilian GP.

Back in 2003 you were only allowed to take one wet tyre to races, so you had to make your mind up before the event. Bridgestone arrived at Interlagos with their legendary intermediate tyre that was quite good in wet and mixed conditions. Michelin had a full wet that could run in more rain.

When the heavens opened before the race, Whiting delayed the start because the Bridgestone runners wouldn¡¯t have been able to make it round safely. It was clearly Bridgestone¡¯s fault for not bringing a full wet tyre, but as the argument has gone this weekend – they knew the situation¡¦

After delaying the start the field was then sent round Interlagos behind the Safety Car until enough water was taken off the circuit. Had they released the field when it was suitable for the Michelins on full wets, then Fisichella would never have won the race in his Jordan and Kimi Raikkonen may well have got the win.

Nobody complained because it was a safety issue. Fast forward two years and Whiting is not prepared to compromise in another safety situation. This interpretation of the rules when it suits them makes F1 fans deeply suspicius - it's like there was an agenda here from the FIA.


Surprise, surprise. F1/FIA is willing to bend the rules for Bridgestone/Ferrari (in the name of "safety"), but not for Michelin & SEVEN other teams.

Don't get me wrong, now - I put just as much blame on Michelin for not being able to supply a satisfactory tire as I do on FIA/F1/ Bernie/Charlie/Max.

It's just a sad state of affairs when grown men can't find some sort of a compromise to save a race for the sake of the fans.

Having said all that, I have to add that the soap opera behind F1 is far more interesting than the races themselves, and it's the only reason I still follow it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Draven



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kprrok,

Another nice post. Also thanks for posting those links in your other post. I think I'm going cross eyed from all the reading I've been doing about this issue on that forum link you posted.

I guess I wonder two things: First, where do you think the blame lies? Solely with Michelin for not bringing along another set of tires as the regulations allow? Second, what do you think would have been the appropriate solution, or do you think the solution was what transpired?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shifty



Joined: 21 Jun 2004

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The debacle might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, from my point of view.

It might precipitate the earlier use of a control tire, provided by only one supplier. This is, in any case, in the pipeline.

That would entail a return to slicks, ie no grooves and the cars would look better. They don't look that bad at the mo, but I'm always shocked when I see a rerun of the Prost Senna Rosberg Mansell days.

Those were the days!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Formula 1 stinker at the US Grand Prix Reply with quote

Eunoia wrote:
As I understand it, Michelin DID bring in another set of tires. However, still being unable to explain the previous failures, they could not guarantee that the replacement tires would not also suffer the same faliure.

The teams would have been willing to accept the penalty, had there been tires they could change to. Instead, they tried to find another alternative, even offering to race for no points, but FIA rejected them.


You are correct, at least I believe so. I never did hear if Michelin actually did get around to bringing in the other tire, but I believe they did. But your assumption that the teams would have accepted expulsion from the event and a possible future ban is unfounded. I don't believe any team, especially the front running Renaults and McLarens would risk this in a tight championship race. But that's just my opinion there.

As to the teams running for no points, that was contingent upon the FIA installing a chicane, which they weren't going to do. Bottom line, the Michelin teams bluffed, and the FIA called it.

Quote:
Quote:
And it (the FIA) absolutely refused to consider installing a chicane in turn 13 to slow the speeds.

Quite rightly so. To do this would have contravened several sporting regulations and made the race perhaps even more dangerous for all the competitors.


That's an interesting statement, KPPROK. There are several tracks around the world which have had chicanes added to long straits in order to bring speeds down. Are all these tracks, then, more dangerous?


No, chicanes themselves aren't inherently dangerous. But installing one with less than 12 hours notice and no chance for the teams to practice with it is dangerous. I believe it was Schumi who said after the race that he would not have raced with the chicane as the drivers would be tyring to find their braking points in the race, and that would be terribly unsafe.

Quote:
Let's not forget FIA's sage advice to the 7 Michelin teams regarding turn 13:

"Just slow down before the corner, and don't go so fast"

(Is it a race, or isn't it? Isn't the point of racing to go as FAST as possible?)


I'll grant you this one. That was a stupid idea. But it was only one of three or four proposals to be given to the Michelin teams.

Quote:
For another angle, take a look at this from PlanetF1's website:

Quote:
Ross Brawn¡¯s drinking buddy (Charlie Whiting, F1 Race Director - who, incidentally, wasn't even IN Indianapolis - no, he was back home in Jolly old England) released a letter that he got from Michelin with some smart answers as to why they couldn¡¯t use different tyres on Sunday.

But he¡¯s changed the rules for Bridgestone prior to a race so we¡¯ve been here before. It's surprising nobody¡¯s questioned why Whiting changed the tyre rules at the beginning of the 2003 Brazilian GP.

Back in 2003 you were only allowed to take one wet tyre to races, so you had to make your mind up before the event. Bridgestone arrived at Interlagos with their legendary intermediate tyre that was quite good in wet and mixed conditions. Michelin had a full wet that could run in more rain.

When the heavens opened before the race, Whiting delayed the start because the Bridgestone runners wouldn¡¯t have been able to make it round safely. It was clearly Bridgestone¡¯s fault for not bringing a full wet tyre, but as the argument has gone this weekend – they knew the situation¡¦

**rest of article deleted**


Where to start here. PlanetF1....that site is a total joke. Just look at the first lines of that story and you can figure out that it's not exactly unbiased journalism. Come on...referring to Charlie Whiting as Ross Brawn's "drinking buddy"???? If this is the site you're going to quote, I'm not even going to bother explaining to you what's wrong here.

Now let's look at Interlagos 2003. In 2003, FIA tire regulations stated that only one type of wet/intermediate tire may be taken to each event. In that Grand Prix, the heavens opened up and the tires brought by both Bridgestone and Micheline were not up to snuff.

"AtlasF1 wrote:
All drivers were forced to run on intermediate tyres on a very wet Interlagos circuit as the tyre suppliers are allowed to take only one wet weather specification to each race. Both Bridgestone and Michelin opted for intermediates hence the drivers' struggles in today's conditions.


So, that race was not held up simply because Bridgestone didn't bring a good enough tire to the race, it was done so because neither manufacturer's tires were up to snuff. And just for reference, in 2003, the 10 teams were evenly split 5-5 with Bridgestone and Michelin.

KPRROK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:31 pm    Post subject: The Letters between Michelin and the FIA Reply with quote

From the FIA website:

2005 UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
20.06.2005


Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race.

At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.

The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams¡¯ lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that ¡°tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances¡± (see correspondence attached).

A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally – from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.

The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe.

What about the American fans? What about Formula One fans world-wide? Rather than boycott the race the Michelin teams should have agreed to run at reduced speed in turn 13. The rules would have been kept, they would have earned Championship points and the fans would have had a race. As it is, by refusing to run unless the FIA broke the rules and handicapped the Bridgestone runners, they have damaged themselves and the sport.

It should also be made clear that Formula One Management and Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as commercial entities, can have no role in the enforcement of the rules.

And more from here

Letter from Representatives of Michelin to Charlie Whiting, the FIA Formula One Race Director:

Saturday June 18 2005
Indianapolis

Charlie Whiting, FIA Race Director and Safety delegate

Dear Mr Whiting

Having analysed and fully evaluated the tyre failures that have occurred over the Indianapolis Grand Prix practice sessions we have been unable to identify a root cause.

The current rules and timescale do not permit the use of an alternative tyre solution and the race must be performed with the qualifying tyres.

Michelin has in the sole interest of safety informed its partner teams that we do not have total assurance that all tyres that qualified the cars can be used unless the vehicle speed in turn 13 can be reduced.

Michelin very much regrets this situation, but has taken this decision after careful consideration and in the best interests of safety at the event.

We trust that the FIA can understand our position and we remain at your disposal if you want any further information.

Pierre Dupasquier
Michelin Motorsport Director

Nick Shorrock
Director of Michelin F1 activities

Cc:
Bernie Ecclestone
Michelin teams
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)
-----
Letter from Charlie Whiting, the FIA Formula One Race Director, in reply to above letter from Representatives of Michelin:

19 June, 2005

Dear Mr Dupasquier,
Dear Mr Shorrock,

We have received your letter of 18 June.

We are very surprised that this difficulty has arisen. As you know, each team is allowed to bring two different types of tyre to an event so as to ensure that a back-up (usually of lower performance) is available should problems occur. It is hard to understand why you have not supplied your teams with such a tyre given your years of experience at Indianapolis.

That the teams you supply are not in possession of such a tyre will also be a matter for the FIA to consider in due course under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code.

No doubt you will inform your teams what is the maximum safe speed for their cars in Turn 13. We will remind them of the need to follow your advice for safety reasons. We will also ask them to ensure their cars do not obstruct other competitors.

Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.

Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams¡¯ allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.

Finally, it has been suggested that a chicane should be laid out in Turn 13. I am sure you will appreciate that this is out of the question. To change the course in order to help some of the teams with a performance problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct tyres.

Yours sincerely,

Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Race Director

cc:
Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)
Jean Todt (Scuderia Ferrari)
Colin Kolles (Jordan Grand Prix)
Paul Stoddart (Minardi F1 Team)
Formula One Press Corps
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Draven wrote:
kprrok,

Another nice post. Also thanks for posting those links in your other post. I think I'm going cross eyed from all the reading I've been doing about this issue on that forum link you posted.

I guess I wonder two things: First, where do you think the blame lies? Solely with Michelin for not bringing along another set of tires as the regulations allow? Second, what do you think would have been the appropriate solution, or do you think the solution was what transpired?


No problem for the links. If you ever do want to subscribe to an F1 website, I would recommend no other site than Autosport-AtlasF1. It is the only website accredited to send journalists to the races. I believe you can take a 1-day preview or something on their main page. It's cheap too, and well worth it.

For my opinion...I don't know. I'm torn to be honest. Micheline royally screwed up, as Dupasquier has even admitted. They should take the lion's share of blame for this. But that isn't to say that no one else isn't also at fault. The teams share some, and the FIA a little.

Let me expand on that. The Michelin teams and Minardi/Jordan (Group of 9) tried to bluff the FIA into making modifications contrary to the sporting regulations in a way that was essentially blackmail. "Change the track or we're not racing." That's a tactic that they're using far too often these days. They've tried it with Ferrari ("join our testing limits or you'll look bad" etc.) and they got called on it. They left themselves no room to wiggle out of it, and they got burned.

The FIA has some blame, mainly because of the stupid rules they enacted for this year. I don't think they get much of the blame for what they did this weekend, but for what they did that caused the problem beforehand.

The way I looked at the race was that 20 cars started, and 14 had technical failures. That left 6 cars racing. That's it.

More later after my next class.

KPRROK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lunalilo



Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: somewhere in-between

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kprrok wrote:
lunalilo wrote:

Yes, however, it was resurfaced just a month ago. Keep in mind the Bridgestone equiped cars have a huge advantage because its sister company Firestone in the U.S. just finished a race a few weeks ago on this same resurfaced track.

Michelin has not had the time come up with right construction and compound. How can anyone argue when a team pull out for a safety reason?


Let's start with this one. You obviously don't know much about the differences between the IRL and F1. Let me give you a couple examples of how these differences make the argument about Firestone giving info to Bridgestone helped them...

1.) IRL runs anti-clockwise around the entire oval. This stresses the tires in a completely different manner than the F1 cars driving clockwise through just one turn of the oval and a twisty, flat infield circuit.

2.) IRL uses slick tires with no grooves whereas F1 uses tires with grooves. This alone negates any advantage as the tires are constructed completely differently.

3.) IRL tires are built to last a maximum of about 100 miles. F1 tires must last almost 225-250 miles.

4.) IRL runs the true oval (as I stated) and are thus set up for minimal downforce and maximum speed. F1 cars are set up with much more downforce for the infield as they are on the oval for only 1 mile vs. the 2.5 miles of IRL.

These simple reasons negate any advantage they might have had. I guess I could concede that they did gain an advantage in that they saw the new surface degraded the tires more and therefore built a sturdier tire.

KPRROK




You obviously don't want to assume what people know or don't. And you obviously know very little about the importance of having the right compound whether in slick tires with grooves or no grooves. Yes, I do race in SCCA, so should know something tires.

(Yawn) Besides, I have no idea how my general point about tire technology and road surface lead your 100,000 word exposition on the difference between F1 and IRL. Rolling Eyes

Yes, it DOES make a HUGE difference when a sister company fielded over 30 cars and having driven over 10,000 miles just a week prior to the race on this same track. Definitely, the tire technology are shared commodity even between F1 and IRL. And this gave BS a huge advantage. It was ONLY during the practice runs that Michelin realized that it had the wrong tires.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lunalilo



Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: somewhere in-between

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kprrok"]
lunalilo wrote:



Regulations are in place this year that prevented them from bringing in a different, untested, tire to replace the dangerous one. But this would be a moot point as running untested tires that weren't designed for the circuit in question would be even more dangerous than running the original tires. I'll return to this further down this post...


I've already addressed not blaming Michelin. But let's talk about the FIA now. How can they be blamed? They as a body established the rules that have been set down since the beginning of the season and that all of the competitors have been aware of. The FIA was unable and unwilling to change those regulations now because of the precedent that would set.

KPRROK



Oh really? Rolling Eyes Precedence...

Did you know during a race in Brazil in 2003, Bridgestone did exactly the same thing? Despite repeated warnings by FIA about the possibility of the downpour, BS brought only one set of tires. Michelin teams brought two just in case, and was ready to race under the existing condition. Guess what happened during the race? BS team appealed to FIA due to the supposed "dangerous" condition. Yes, FIA CHANGED the rule just before the race. They accomodated the BS teams by delaying the race for several hours until the weather condition changed, which is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the FIA rules just because some teams brought inadequate equipment to the race.

Btw, if you have followed the FIA, you would have known about this major precedence setting race as well as others in the past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lunalilo wrote:
Oh really? Rolling Eyes Precedence...

Did you know during a race in Brazil in 2003, Bridgestone did exactly the same thing? Despite repeated warnings by FIA about the possibility of the downpour, BS brought only one set of tires. Michelin teams brought two just in case, and was ready to race under the existing condition. Guess what happened during the race? BS team appealed to FIA due to the supposed "dangerous" condition. Yes, FIA CHANGED the rule just before the race. They accomodated the BS teams by delaying the race for several hours until the weather condition changed, which is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the FIA rules just because some teams brought inadequate equipment to the race.

Btw, if you have followed the FIA, you would have known about this major precedence setting race as well as others in the past.


No. If you do a little research, you will uncover that Michelin also had their Intermediate tires at the Brazillian GP of 2003. How's this little gem for ya?

AtlasF1 wrote:
Bridgestone Say Tyre Rule Needs Change

Friday April 4th, 2003

Bridgestone's technical manager Hisao Suganuma has called for changes to the current rules regarding wet weather tyres following today's qualifying for the Brazilian Grand Prix.

After a torrential rain and on a very wet track, the drivers were forced to run on intermediates as, under a new FIA ruling, tyre suppliers are only allowed to take only one wet weather specification to the races.

Both Bridgestone and Michelin opted to take intermediates to Brazil, with the subsequent danger for the drivers, who were running on a virtually flooded track. Suganuma said the FIA should at least allow two specifications.

"We have a situation where if we are limited to one wet tyre, most teams will choose a wet tyre that is connected to the dry range - and that is an intermediate tyre," said Suganuma after qualifying.

"But if we have heavy rain conditions as seen in this morning's practice session, drivers on intermediates will struggle. If we have to run in these conditions, we should have at least two types of wet tyre from which to choose."


Or if you prefer, how about this one:

Autosport wrote:
A tale of two tyres

Michael Schumacher supports a return to the situation where tyre manufacturers could bring two rain tyres to a grand prix instead of the one specified under the new regulations this year.

Although an easing of the morning rain ahead of first qualifying in Brazil meant that a driver petition to cancel the session was no longer relevant, it does not take an Einstein to foresee a potential repeat of the situation.

Rather than produce pure wet tyres, both Bridgestone and Michelin produce a ¡®wet' which is actually much closer to the old intermediate, because it offers advantages in anything other than heavy rain. The hope, presumably, is that if faced with such conditions in a race, the FIA will deploy a Safety Car.

In practice and qualifying, however, that obviously does not apply. Talking about the best way to solve the problem, Schumacher suggested a return to two rain tyres and said that the Ferrari management, at least, would support such a move.

The tyre companies also have every right to feel slightly nervous about the current situation, given that in the event of an accident, the performance of the tyre is likely to be a central issue, with resulting negative publicity.

Schumacher said: ¡°I guess that after the experience, whoever voted to have only one tyre will maybe see the complication of it and maybe has a different opinion now.¡±

Schumacher himself had the worst of the rain en route to fifth fastest time in first qualifying and actually spun on his ¡®out' lap. He denied that he had been merely trying to find the limit.

¡°No, actually, it was just aquaplaning and then off you go. I think there were two issues. First of all the water, probably enough to make me spin, plus on top of this, the commercial break that we have during the session meant that there was no car running right in front of me to help clear a dry line.¡±


Or, how about this one, regarding the FIAs response to this issue:

AtlasF1 wrote:
FIA Respond to Tyre Rule Criticism

Saturday April 5th, 2003

Formula One's governing body, the FIA, have sent a veiled criticism to the sport's tyre suppliers when they suggested that they were "surprised" by their choice of wet weather tyre for this weekend's Brazilian Grand Prix.

Controversy erupted at Interlagos on Friday when the drivers threatened to boycott qualifying after being given only intermediate tyres to drive on in torrential rain. A new rule allowing just one type of wet weather tyre per race left them unable to fit specialised wet weather tyres and there have been calls for a change to the rules at a meeting next week.

But the FIA appear to be taking a typically tough approach on the new rules and said: "In October 2002 the Formula One teams unanimously voted to change the rules to limit wet tyres to one type.

"Given the wet weather conditions commonly experienced in Brazil, it is perhaps surprising that the teams decided to bring intermediate, rather than wet-weather tyres."


So you see, all this talk of Brazil 2003 already setting a precedent is uttler bullocks. Besides, if Michelin had, as you contest, brought 2 compounds of wet tires to the race, they would have been in direct violation of the regulations and wouldn't have been allowed to race. So, since they raced, I assume that they didn't violate the regulations and only brought one compound.

KPRROK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lunalilo wrote:
(Yawn) Besides, I have no idea how my general point about tire technology and road surface lead your 100,000 word exposition on the difference between F1 and IRL. Rolling Eyes


Wow. How my 144 word explanation got confused with a "100.000 word exposition" is baffling. Maybe if you saw 100.000 words there you should stop racing as your eyes are playing some good tricks on ya.

On another note, that link that Derrek posted is really out of date. It does have some good info, but it's not entirely accurate. There are many more differences than the superficial ones listed therein.

KPRROK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lunalilo



Joined: 11 May 2005
Location: somewhere in-between

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kprrok wrote:
lunalilo wrote:
Oh really? Rolling Eyes Precedence...

Did you know during a race in Brazil in 2003, Bridgestone did exactly the same thing? Despite repeated warnings by FIA about the possibility of the downpour, BS brought only one set of tires. Michelin teams brought two just in case, and was ready to race under the existing condition. Guess what happened during the race? BS team appealed to FIA due to the supposed "dangerous" condition. Yes, FIA CHANGED the rule just before the race. They accomodated the BS teams by delaying the race for several hours until the weather condition changed, which is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the FIA rules just because some teams brought inadequate equipment to the race.

Btw, if you have followed the FIA, you would have known about this major precedence setting race as well as others in the past.


No. If you do a little research, you will uncover that Michelin also had their Intermediate tires at the Brazillian GP of 2003. How's this little gem for ya?

AtlasF1 wrote:
Bridgestone Say Tyre Rule Needs Change

Friday April 4th, 2003

Bridgestone's technical manager Hisao Suganuma has called for changes to the current rules regarding wet weather tyres following today's qualifying for the Brazilian Grand Prix.

After a torrential rain and on a very wet track, the drivers were forced to run on intermediates as, under a new FIA ruling, tyre suppliers are only allowed to take only one wet weather specification to the races.

Both Bridgestone and Michelin opted to take intermediates to Brazil, with the subsequent danger for the drivers, who were running on a virtually flooded track. Suganuma said the FIA should at least allow two specifications.

"We have a situation where if we are limited to one wet tyre, most teams will choose a wet tyre that is connected to the dry range - and that is an intermediate tyre," said Suganuma after qualifying.

"But if we have heavy rain conditions as seen in this morning's practice session, drivers on intermediates will struggle. If we have to run in these conditions, we should have at least two types of wet tyre from which to choose."


Or if you prefer, how about this one:

Autosport wrote:
A tale of two tyres

Michael Schumacher supports a return to the situation where tyre manufacturers could bring two rain tyres to a grand prix instead of the one specified under the new regulations this year.

Although an easing of the morning rain ahead of first qualifying in Brazil meant that a driver petition to cancel the session was no longer relevant, it does not take an Einstein to foresee a potential repeat of the situation.

Rather than produce pure wet tyres, both Bridgestone and Michelin produce a ¡®wet' which is actually much closer to the old intermediate, because it offers advantages in anything other than heavy rain. The hope, presumably, is that if faced with such conditions in a race, the FIA will deploy a Safety Car.

In practice and qualifying, however, that obviously does not apply. Talking about the best way to solve the problem, Schumacher suggested a return to two rain tyres and said that the Ferrari management, at least, would support such a move.

The tyre companies also have every right to feel slightly nervous about the current situation, given that in the event of an accident, the performance of the tyre is likely to be a central issue, with resulting negative publicity.

Schumacher said: ¡°I guess that after the experience, whoever voted to have only one tyre will maybe see the complication of it and maybe has a different opinion now.¡±

Schumacher himself had the worst of the rain en route to fifth fastest time in first qualifying and actually spun on his ¡®out' lap. He denied that he had been merely trying to find the limit.

¡°No, actually, it was just aquaplaning and then off you go. I think there were two issues. First of all the water, probably enough to make me spin, plus on top of this, the commercial break that we have during the session meant that there was no car running right in front of me to help clear a dry line.¡±


Or, how about this one, regarding the FIAs response to this issue:

AtlasF1 wrote:
FIA Respond to Tyre Rule Criticism

Saturday April 5th, 2003

Formula One's governing body, the FIA, have sent a veiled criticism to the sport's tyre suppliers when they suggested that they were "surprised" by their choice of wet weather tyre for this weekend's Brazilian Grand Prix.

Controversy erupted at Interlagos on Friday when the drivers threatened to boycott qualifying after being given only intermediate tyres to drive on in torrential rain. A new rule allowing just one type of wet weather tyre per race left them unable to fit specialised wet weather tyres and there have been calls for a change to the rules at a meeting next week.

But the FIA appear to be taking a typically tough approach on the new rules and said: "In October 2002 the Formula One teams unanimously voted to change the rules to limit wet tyres to one type.

"Given the wet weather conditions commonly experienced in Brazil, it is perhaps surprising that the teams decided to bring intermediate, rather than wet-weather tyres."


So you see, all this talk of Brazil 2003 already setting a precedent is uttler bullocks. Besides, if Michelin had, as you contest, brought 2 compounds of wet tires to the race, they would have been in direct violation of the regulations and wouldn't have been allowed to race. So, since they raced, I assume that they didn't violate the regulations and only brought one compound.

KPRROK




You missed the point. First of all, out of my vague tire and track re-surface analogy, you made an assumption and went off into a tangent, rampaging about my lack of understanding between F1 vs. IRL. Hence, I pointed out that you wasted a tons of cyberspace time and effort making redundant and useless points about the different racing circults. I was being figurative about the 50,000 words.

You stated changing a rule to accomodate safety issue is not precedented by FIA. I then pointed out the fact that FIA did change "rule" to accomdate the safety concerns of the drivers during the 2003 Brazil Grand Prix. You assumed again that a team(s)bringing two sets of the same tires of different "compound" is same as bringing two different "types" of tires. Under the F1 rules, teams are allow to bring the former. They just need to choice one, and start and finish a race with it. Yes, it is correct, a team is not allowed to bring two different "types" of tires, because in an F1 race there is no such thing as a "back up" tires, and you will get penalized for it.

When I gave you the 2003 Brazil example, you again assumed again, therefore, misquoted what my point was; it was the other way around. Again, don't get compound confused with types. It was the Michelin teams which brought the two types of the same tires with different "compound" for the race. BS did bring the "intermediate" tires, however, one type suited for ALL CONDITIONS. Thus, my comparision between this year's U.S. Grand Prix and the 2003 Brazil.


It's funny how you quote some of the articles from this site: http://journal.autosport-atlas.com/news_archive.php?day=05&month=04&year=2003&submit=Jump+to+Date however, picked and chose to suit you point.

And, you negect to point out the articles: "FIA Postpone Meeting to Review Rule Changes"; "FIA Respond to Tyre Rule Criticism"; "Tyre Rule Could Change, Says Ecclestone"; "A tale of two tyres"; and "Michelin Pleased with its Wet Weather Tyres."

For some reason, they deleted the articles; just the titles are left alone. To summed it up, I cannot stand the hypocracy of the FIA, their behind the door dealing & wheeling, their arrogance and elitism, and their our ways or highways attitude. I am not going to go as far as some of the internet jockeys, but what if there is something factual about the FIA being in bed with the Ferrari teams? Was the event taht transpired in the 2005 U.S. Grand Prix some sort of a hint by the Michelin teams?

I don't know. As much as I hate the NASCAR series, there's something to say about their tranparency, their "wholesomeness" approach to marketing, their down to earth attitude, all inclusive fan-base, and the idea that anyone from any class, social-economic status can become a NASCAR driver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kprrok



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: back in Jeju

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lunalilo wrote:
You missed the point. First of all, out of my vague tire and track re-surface analogy, you made an assumption and went off into a tangent, rampaging about my lack of understanding between F1 vs. IRL. Hence, I pointed out that you wasted a tons of cyberspace time and effort making redundant and useless points about the different racing circults. I was being figurative about the 50,000 words.


No, your vague assumption about resurfacing was misleading to someone who isn't fully informed and that could pose problems. I merely set out to explain why that was not a big factor. And then to talk about wasting cyberspace when you quote my entire lengthy post for no reason, that's just hypocritical.

Quote:
You stated changing a rule to accomodate safety issue is not precedented by FIA. I then pointed out the fact that FIA did change "rule" to accomdate the safety concerns of the drivers during the 2003 Brazil Grand Prix.


No, the FIA changed no rule whatsoever at the 2003 Brazillian GP. Allow me to recap what happened yet again since you are still in the dark about the facts. Both Bridgestone and Michelin brought Intermediate wet tires to the race instead of full wets. Intermediate tires are good for small amounts of rain, and not full on monsoon downpours. At approximately 11:00 AM the day of the race, a torrential downpour hit the track and did not let up much before the race. This downpour turned the track into basically a lake or a river. Because both tire companies brought tires insufficient to deal with the conditions, the FIA agreed that it was for the sake of safety to delay the start and hope the conditions would improve and then start the race behind the safety car. NO RULE WAS CHANGED!!

Quote:
You assumed again that a team(s)bringing two sets of the same tires of different "compound" is same as bringing two different "types" of tires. Under the F1 rules, teams are allow to bring the former. They just need to choice one, and start and finish a race with it. Yes, it is correct, a team is not allowed to bring two different "types" of tires, because in an F1 race there is no such thing as a "back up" tires, and you will get penalized for it.


Now you're just confusing me and trying to play semantics. In 2003, tire manufacturers were allowed to bring two different dry compounds of tires (usually one harder more durable, and one softer and faster). The team had to decide which one they would use for the race before Saturday practice and could change tires during the pitstops. But, the tire manufacturers were only allowed to bring one compound of wet tire. In all, that means that only three different compounds of tires were brought to each race, thus saving money.

In 2005, each manufacturer is still allowed to bring two different compounds to each race, and the choice must be made before Qualifying for which tire will be used for that session and the race. No changes of tires are allowed. If Michelin had brought a second compound of dry tires to the race, the FIA may have allowed them to change after the first was found dangerous for some penalty. But that is a hypothetical of course.

Quote:
When I gave you the 2003 Brazil example, you again assumed again, therefore, misquoted what my point was; it was the other way around. Again, don't get compound confused with types. It was the Michelin teams which brought the two types of the same tires with different "compound" for the race. BS did bring the "intermediate" tires, however, one type suited for ALL CONDITIONS. Thus, my comparision between this year's U.S. Grand Prix and the 2003 Brazil.


So what shall we define as a "type" of tire? Radial vs. non-radial? Slick vs. grooved? Dry vs. wet? In F1, a "type" of tire is generally defined as a dry versus wet because all the other choices are not used. So, again, a manufacturer is allowed to bring 2 compounds of dry tires to the race. Michelin only brought 1 to Indy. That's it.

And Brazil 2003 was nothing like Indy 2005. The rain which caused the delay affected all the teams equally and none of the teams had tires adequate to the conditions. Michelin did not have 2 compounds of intermediate tires available, that would have been in contravention of the regulations. Therefore, a delay of start. No rule was changed.

Quote:
It's funny how you quote some of the articles from this site: http://journal.autosport-atlas.com/news_archive.php?day=05&month=04&year=2003&submit=Jump+to+Date however, picked and chose to suit you point.

And, you negect to point out the articles: "FIA Postpone Meeting to Review Rule Changes"; "FIA Respond to Tyre Rule Criticism"; "Tyre Rule Could Change, Says Ecclestone"; "A tale of two tyres"; and "Michelin Pleased with its Wet Weather Tyres."

For some reason, they deleted the articles; just the titles are left alone.


Nope, not deleted. And here they are for you in all their glory.

---------------
FIA Postpone Meeting to Review Rule Changes

Saturday April 5th, 2003

Formula One bosses have postponed for a week a meeting to review the sport's new rules after the first three races of the season.

Team sources at the Brazilian Grand Prix said on Saturday that the meeting, scheduled for next Friday in London, would be delayed a week due to the inability of all 10 team bosses to attend. It will now take place at Imola ahead of the April 20 San Marino Grand Prix.

International Automobile Federation (FIA) president Max Mosley had called the meeting to review rule changes including single-lap qualifying and a ban on refuelling cars between Saturday and Sunday's race.

A separate meeting involving FIA race director Charlie Whiting and the team technical directors will take place as planned on Wednesday, April 9.
-----
FIA Respond to Tyre Rule Criticism

Saturday April 5th, 2003

Formula One's governing body, the FIA, have sent a veiled criticism to the sport's tyre suppliers when they suggested that they were "surprised" by their choice of wet weather tyre for this weekend's Brazilian Grand Prix.

Controversy erupted at Interlagos on Friday when the drivers threatened to boycott qualifying after being given only intermediate tyres to drive on in torrential rain. A new rule allowing just one type of wet weather tyre per race left them unable to fit specialised wet weather tyres and there have been calls for a change to the rules at a meeting next week.

But the FIA appear to be taking a typically tough approach on the new rules and said: "In October 2002 the Formula One teams unanimously voted to change the rules to limit wet tyres to one type.

"Given the wet weather conditions commonly experienced in Brazil, it is perhaps surprising that the teams decided to bring intermediate, rather than wet-weather tyres."
-----
Tyre Rule Could Change, Says Ecclestone

Saturday April 5th, 2003

By Alan Baldwin

Formula One bosses could give the tyre rules a re-tread after heavy rain at the Brazilian Grand Prix raised safety fears and driver protests.

Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone said on Saturday that a new regulation introduced this season limiting teams to just one choice of wet-weather tyre was under scrutiny.

"We're having a look at that," he told Reuters. "This is what happens when you change regulations, it is the side effects you need to look at. And that's what we're getting, the side effects."

The rules have been changed in an effort to liven up the show and cut costs after a year of Ferrari domination and declining television audiences in some countries. Whereas tyre manufacturers were previously able to bring two types of wet weather tyres as well as intermediates to a race, they are now limited to just one kind of wet tyre.

For Brazil, Bridgestone and Michelin have brought an intermediate tyre. That led to chaotic scenes in Friday free practice where teams went out in torrential rain on a slippery track with tyres offering insufficient grip.

"I would like the one wet tyre rule reconsidered because it compromises safety," said Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn afterwards, echoing driver fears. The weather cleared up for Friday's first qualifying after many of the drivers had signed a document stating their unwillingness to take part if conditions were as difficult as they were in practice.

Rain Hope

Ecclestone, who has criticised a new Saturday qualifying format which has become more a question of strategy than speed, had no problem with Friday's session that saw Australian Mark Webber surprisingly set the fastest time in his Jaguar.

"Yesterday's qualifying was no different (to usual), there was no fuel on board. Normally you'd see the quickest car but obviously we didn't," he said.

"The rain always helps doesn't it?," added Ecclestone when asked about the show. "Let's hope it rains today and rains tomorrow."

Team bosses are due to meet Ecclestone and the governing International Automobile Federation (FIA) in London next Friday to assess the impact of the new regulations after the first three races. The major changes introduced this season include the single-lap qualifying format and a ban on teams changing car settings and refuelling between the final Saturday session and Sunday's race.

That has led to drivers qualifying on Saturday with different fuel loads on board. Most agree that something needs to be done.

"I would change qualifying probably," said Colombian Juan Pablo Montoya, who took seven poles last year for Williams and has yet to start on the front row in 2003. "Change the way qualifying is with the fuel and everything."

McLaren's David Coulthard, winner in Australia, agreed with Montoya that qualifying should reward the fastest car. Ferrari's five-times Formula One World Champion Michael Schumacher said he would like teams to be able to work on the cars before the race.

"Now it's less of a challenge," he said. "I preferred the work with the engineers and changing little things on the cars."
-----
Michelin Pleased with its Wet Weather Tyres

Saturday April 5th, 2003

French tyre maker Michelin was pleased with the results of Friday's qualifying, which saw Mark Webber in a Jaguar on provisional pole, stating the results prove its wet weather tyres are working well.

Michelin's wet weather tyres were under criticism last year, and have been considered the tyre manufacturer's weak point. Michelin worked hard to improve the performance of its wet-weather tyres during the winter months – but Michelin's motorsport director Pierre Dupasquier says he does not believe today's result should come as a surprise.

"Despite some comments... we believe we were competitive last season and today's result underlines what we already knew," he said.

Moreover, Dupasquier expressed confidence the Michelin-shod teams will have the advantage for the rest of the weekend no matter what the weather conditions are like. "I really don't mind what happens with the weather," he said, "because from what I have seen so far I believe we will be competitive in any conditions.

"A wet race might be interesting – and from what I hear that might well be what we get. You can never tell in Sao Paulo, though. Things can change very dramatically in a matter of minutes."
----------------

So there ya go. All of those articles are about Friday practice where the rain was not as bad as Sunday, but the drivers were still worried. So that actually reinforces my point. I didn't post them before becaus they were about Friday and not the Sunday race.

To summarize my points, I'm still right. There is no correlation between Brazil 2003 and Indy 2005 other than ill-conceived tire regulations caused problems. In Brazil, the situation was solved by a change in the weather which was enough to allow the teams to race (albeit a shortened race eventually won by Fisichella in a Jordan). At Indy, the problem was inherent to 1 tire manufacturer and there was no easy solution.

End of story.

KPRROK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International