# Armchair USGP Quarterback time



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

Ok, people, put aside what has been said by the FIA, Michelin, and everyone on all the race teams. What would you do if you were put in charge of arbitrating the situation? Your decision is the final decision, and that's how the race would be run.

What would YOU have chosen to do, and why? 'Nothing' is a valid option, but you'd better explain why that is better or worse than any other decision.

Here's my take.

-Install the Chicane
-Put Bridgestone teams' cars ahead of the Michelin teams' cars.

Why? 

-Makes the race safer
-Penalizes Michelin teams, promotes Bridgestone teams.
-Makes the race safer
-Michelin teams might still have to changes tires, for safety, which advances Bridgestone drivers further in the standings.
-Makes the race safer


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

If I where F1 King I would have made everyone run Bridgestone’s, allow tire changes, and require a mandatory tire change sometime before lap ten to check for tire wear. 

As far as I’m concerned Michelin voided their contract for the race by not supplying a safe tire.

Hell nothing else was agreed upon and this would have been the best solution for the fans and sponsers.


----------



## mwette (Sep 16, 2002)

I would declare that tires are not safe and have required all Michelin cars to pull into 
the pits to change tires on the first lap. (I believe Michelin did bring new tires in on 
Saturday, right?)


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

You cant arbitrate unless the two parties are willing participants. It sounds like from the press reports that both sides retreated to their respective positions and didnt budge.

I think the onus was on Michelin to offer something that wouldnt penelize the Bridgestone teams. They never did that. 

I think Michelin was very shortsighted in its position however, I do applaude them for saying that they couldnt determine the reason for the failures and that they don't recommend there use in the race.


----------



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

LmtdSlip said:


> You cant arbitrate unless the two parties are willing ... BLAH BLAH BLAH


I already said, "If you were put in charge of arbitrating the situation", thus implying the parties have AGREED to submit to arbitration.

I'm begging you, please leave the 'political' rhetoric OUT of this. We'll have NONE of that in this thread, thank you very much. :soapbox:


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

WileECoyote said:


> I already said, "If you were put in charge of arbitrating the situation", thus implying the parties have AGREED to submit to arbitration.
> 
> I'm begging you, please leave the 'political' rhetoric OUT of this. We'll have NONE of that in this thread, thank you very much. :soapbox:


Well arbitration assumes some sort of negotiation between the parties...so your choice of words may have been off if you were looking for a dictatorial decision. I believe the FIA provided that.


----------



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

LmtdSlip said:


> Well arbitration assumes some sort of negotiation between the parties...so your choice of words may have been off if you were looking for a dictatorial decision. I believe the FIA provided that.


If I'd said dictatorial decision, I'd have said dictatorial decision.

ar·bi·tra·tion

 The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.

Mutual Consent is NOT a dictatorial decision.

Alright, I'll ask you the same question in another way (since you can't seem to grasp the concept as I asked it).

What would you have chosen as the course of action, that would have allowed all 10 teams to race at the USGP in a safe manner. Try thinking outside the box, as if you ran the FIA, Bridgestone, Michelin, and the 10 teams. Instead of bitching about the situation, how would you have changed it?

You've ruined this thread (I wish they'd allow us to delete threads again!)


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

WileECoyote said:


> Mutual Consent is NOT a dictatorial decision.


Exactly what I was saying.... :doh:



> You've ruined this thread (I wish they'd allow us to delete threads again!)


----------



## Mr. E (Dec 19, 2001)

LmtdSlip said:


> I think the onus was on Michelin to offer something that wouldnt penelize the Bridgestone teams. They never did that.


How would the chicane "penalize" the Bridgestone teams? By keeping all the Michelin runners from crashing to a wall at 180, like they were supposed to?

After further thought I believe, given the circumstances, that the Michelin teams did the only thing they could do. They *could not* race without a chicane. At best, they could have:


Gone very slowly through turn 13, making the race a parade. 
Changed tires at least seven times, making the race a parade, and probably get disqualified after the fact. 
 Neither of those "choices" provided by the FIA would have made the event any better to watch, and the first of them would have made for a very unsafe situation on track.

If I were in charge of the FIA, I would probably have canceled the event altogether, fined Michelin big time, and started lining up a spec tire supplier.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Sorry, it was Michelin's problem, and Michelin took the hit. If it had been Bridgestone that had the problems, the SAME THING would happen.

You can't go change the rules everytime someone screws something up.

So my answr is NO CHANGE to what happened, and just announce to the crowd why Michelin cars pulled out.


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> Sorry, it was Michelin's problem, and Michelin took the hit. If it had been Bridgestone that had the problems, the SAME THING would happen.
> 
> You can't go change the rules everytime someone screws something up.
> 
> So my answr is NO CHANGE to what happened, and just announce to the crowd why Michelin cars pulled out.


That rather ignores the fan part of the equation. F1 wouldn't exist if not for the fans, both who watch the races and who buy the products because of the sponsorship. Sure, Michelin will probably suffer in the eyes of race fans. But at least 100k fans, plus many viewers througout the world got shortchanged as a result.

The real problem was taking the approach that everyone had to agree to change the rules. Ferrari didn't agree, but the other teams did. While it wouldn't have been fair to Ferrari (they weren't to blame), I (as Commissioner or whatever) would have installed the chicane, as 9 teams agreed (despite whatever problems that would have created for testing/safety/etc.) and let Ferrari withdraw or bellyache. If only Ferrari had withdrawn in protest (and I doubt it would have), the problem would have been far smaller. Then go fine Michelin bigtime, and consider rule changes to prevent recurrences of the problem.

The problem with the decision is that it looked not at the best interest of the sport but rather at hte best interest of the individual teams and sponsors. When that happens, a sport runs into problems. Look at baseball 10 years ago, when it installed an owner (Selig) as the puppet commissioner. Look at hockey now, with the owners shutting down the sport and basically killing their own goose.


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

sure, if your attitude is to totally ignore the rules of competition and do as you [email protected] well please, which IMO defeats the purpose of havng rules or sanctioning body to begin with

my solution is to kick Michelin out of F1 and have Bridgestone as the sole tire supplier from here on out. Michelin made the teams not run, some of the teams/drivers would have competed at reduced speeds and/or increased number of pit stops if Michelin hadn't strong-armed them. :thumbdwn: 

I disagree with Terry though, I personally respect an organization that stands by it's principles. My chagrin for Michelin is closely followed by my chagrin for the self-centered, short-sighted fans who really don't give a sh-t about anything but getting what they want. I agree that it sucked for them, but IMO their hostility towards both Indy and FIA is unwarranted, ignorant, and misguided. They really sould be more open-minded about why and how this happened, instead they are acting like emotional nincumpoops

I personally will never buy another Michelin tire as long as I live :thumbdwn:



WileECoyote said:


> Ok, people, put aside what has been said by the FIA, Michelin, and everyone on all the race teams. What would you do if you were put in charge of arbitrating the situation? Your decision is the final decision, and that's how the race would be run.
> 
> What would YOU have chosen to do, and why? 'Nothing' is a valid option, but you'd better explain why that is better or worse than any other decision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lee (Aug 27, 2003)

TeamM3 said:


> sure, if your attitude is to totally ignore the rules of competition and do as you [email protected] well please, which IMO defeats the purpose of havng rules or sanctioning body to begin with
> 
> my solution is to kick Michelin out of F1 and have Bridgestone as the sole tire supplier from here on out. Michelin made the teams not run, some of the teams/drivers would have competed at reduced speeds and/or increased number of pit stops if Michelin hadn't strong-armed them. :thumbdwn:
> 
> ...


Not having races also defeats the purpose of having a sanctioning body. Moss, Stewart and Mansell all thought the chicane was a good idea. So do I.

I also think Indy is partially responsible. I see that you disagree. I can handle that without calling you names.

"Openminded" and unemotional are not words that occurred to me as I read your post.

Lee


----------



## indyzhp (Mar 29, 2004)

*Agree with decision and fantasy answer*

I do agree with the FIA for sticking to their guns on the rules. Somebody at Michelin must have known there was the potential for disaster before they even came over to North America, so they just outright dropped the ball.

Now in a fantasy decision:
IMS (Tony George) evaluates the potential losses involved. He knows that if a race does not occur, there is the potential for angry fans and ticket refunds. Plus, there probably won't be a race the next year after the dust settles. Therefore, he overrules the FIA, stages his own impromptu race. Michelin teams can run the alternate tires after a pitstop. Obviously it is not a sanctioned race, so he can pull from the ticket sales a prize $ purse for the winners. Fans happy, sponsors happy, teams keep getting their money from sponsors.

I know, I know, this could never happen. Bernie would yank the TV coverage, no support equipment (safety cars, etc), teams not willing to risk damage to their equipment for little gain, but it could have elevated Tony Georges public status after what happened with the IRL/CART split, and left much happier fans in Indianapolis.

I would think one thing is for sure now. Michelin will not be the ONE tire supplier in 2008, the manufacturers GP series probably got stronger support, as most of the parties involved were Michelin teams anyway, and are probably partially blaming the FIA.


----------



## tsbrown (Apr 25, 2003)

WileECoyote said:


> ....
> Here's my take.
> 
> -Install the Chicane
> ...


I'm responding as a person who was there, paid $420 for my set of 4 tickets, is pi**ed that I didn't get to see my favorite team (BMW.Williams/Michelin) racing on Sunday, yet still think Michelin is to blame and the FIA acted responsibly.

My take...No Change. The Michelin teams have to race within the limitations of their equipment just as the B-stone teams do. And if you make the exception at this race, there will be exceptions requested at every other GP for any number of reasons. And people already complain of the FIA's apparent arbitrary application of the rules.

How does the chicane solution make it safer for anybody on an untested track? Suddenly, it's not a potential problem with the tires, but possibly it's the brakes or some other vital component (hard to fathom in F1, but still possible). What if a bad accident happens at that chicane, wheels fly off their tethers into the stands, or maybe it's shards of carbon fiber, and injure or kill a fan or track worker? The chicane is suddenly a bad idea. Especially in litigious-happy US of A. It didn't even take 24 hours for fans to file a class-action suit to get their money back. And remember that the Italian courts just finished their 3rd try at convicting Patrick Head and Adrian Newey of manslaughter in Senna's '94 Imola death.

Like every racing car component, they are designed and built for maximum performance to fail/become unuseable one lap after the race distance (or 2 race distances plus practices for the engines). At this level of competition, you don't risk something in a race that hasn't been tested in some way in controlled conditions. Where was the opportunity to do this with a chicane? Or for that matter with 14 Michelin cars now on Bridgestones?

The other thing that seems to be missed is this...everyone focuses on Ferrari, but what about the Minardis and Jordans. These backmarkers didn't deserve to be penalized by a chicane, or some other artificial handicap just to get all 20 cars in the race. They were ready to race and they did. They got the points they deserved when Michelin screwed up. Nobody feels sorry for them when they finish 17th thru 20th and tries to penalize the top teams for being too good (except if it's Ferrari). Everyone assumes Ferrari would get the 1-2 as they did, but how would you fairly award the points to Minardi and Jordan without a true 73 lap race on the course they came prepared to race on?

The FIA took the only responsible decision that was fair to all teams and safe for the spectators.

Now, I'd like to have seen several 10 lap sprint races on the original course with all 20 cars after the official "race" but it's impractical. Fans wouldn't stay that long, there may not have been enough tires, fuel, etc.

What the FIA should do is fine Michelin the cost equal to the ticket sales for the race, payable to IMS so that IMS can provide refunds. It should also include the cost of a free ticket (to registered ticket holders or anyone that can produce a ticket stub) to the 2006 USGP or, if the USGP is not on the calendar, the nearest GP to the ticketholder's place of residence. This does little to compensate many fans who spent $1000s of dollars to travel to the race, but it's better than nothing. Basically they pay for the fans to see the race this year and next...plus maybe make them pay the USGP sanctioning fee that Bernie charges. That way IMS would get something out of it too (not that I'm a fan of Tony George).

There was not a simple, satisfactory-for-all-parties solution to this, other than for Michelin to be better prepared. Yet I think I'd still go next year if the race is held at IMS even though I think it's a boring track.


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

The one thing that keeps being said in different articles is that Michelin only brought 1 tire type to the race... there was no "option" tire. At almost all other tracks they have a soft tire and a hard tire. If they didn't bring a hard tire as an option, it only lowers my opinion of them, which I did not think was possible...

And the other thing is that Michelin, in their lame apologies, keeps touting safety, safety, safety. Fine. That's ok.

What they conveniently gloss over is the fact that they didn't test adequately, and that they only brought one tire type... which were failures even before they got to the track. They dropped the ball months ago.

[email protected], I am feeling some serious Michelin hate right now...


----------



## CaliJeff (Jan 28, 2002)

My call? OK it goes down just like it did. The rules are in place (like them or not) so the playing field has been defined. You didn't bring a pencil to class? Sucks to be you.


----------



## MMM (Sep 7, 2003)

I agree with TS Brown on his points above about not adding a chicane, the dangers of modifying the track last minute, its not Ferrari's fault and finally fine the hell out of Michellin.

I was just as shocked and pissed off as the other spectators at what unfolded this past weekend, but if I were F1 supremo, I would have nixed the chicane, put the 3 bridgestone teams in front and had all the teams on bridgestones.

Now, I don't know if they had enough tires to supply all the teams, but I would've given all the teams new tires to start with, given them 30 minutes to break-in the tires, same # of laps for all teams and ran the race.

Finally, Michellin would pay for all the associated costs for the actions above.


----------



## CaliJeff (Jan 28, 2002)

MMM said:


> I agree with TS Brown on his points above about not adding a chicane, the dangers of modifying the track last minute, its not Ferrari's fault and finally fine the hell out of Michellin.
> 
> I was just as shocked and pissed off as the other spectators at what unfolded this past weekend, but if I were F1 supremo, I would have nixed the chicane, put the 3 bridgestone teams in front and had all the teams on bridgestones.
> 
> ...


I hope that you are kidding. Do you have any idea just how big a part a tire plays within the confines of a F1 car suspension? They did well just pulling into the garage like they did rather than swap onto bridgstones.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

TeamM3 said:


> sure, if your attitude is to totally ignore the rules of competition and do as you [email protected] well please, which IMO defeats the purpose of havng rules or sanctioning body to begin with
> 
> my solution is to kick Michelin out of F1 and have Bridgestone as the sole tire supplier from here on out. Michelin made the teams not run, some of the teams/drivers would have competed at reduced speeds and/or increased number of pit stops if Michelin hadn't strong-armed them. :thumbdwn:
> 
> ...


Me? Where did I say that I disrespect them for following their own rules? I don't respect Max Mosely though for many reasons. 

As for the fans, WHAT kind of race would it have been with the Michelin teams runing for no points and thinking about engine abuse for the next race?

Actually the 6 cars that ran could have run 1 or 2 laps and pulling in themselves and gone home. The final finishing order would have stood.


----------

