# What a travesty!!!



## MMM (Sep 7, 2003)

Just got back from the USGP fiasco about an hour and a half ago and let me just say as it has been said many times before - it's the fans that take a beating on stuff like this!!

So much for my first and possibly LAST Grand Prix experience given what happened today. What a sour note considering friday and saturday were a lot of fun. There certainly isn't anything like hearing those machines going full bore and wailing down the track, it made the Porsche supercup cars and the Menard's cars look and sound like go-karts. 

Since I am a ferrari fan, it was nice to see schumi and Barrichello go 1 & 2 but not like this, it turned out to be a practice session. Although I was very disappointed at the action of the michellin-tired teams, it was unfortunate that the teams that did race took the brunt of the cat calls at the end, not to mention dodging debris thrown onto the track - completely uncalled for.

It will be interesting to see what penalties arise from this incident. Nice start from Joie Chitwood of Indy to take a hard stance in his statements and suggest that F1 not be invited back if crap like this continues to happen.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Right now I attend a NASCAR and IRL race every year and was seriously thinking of adding the Indianapolis F1 race next year. NO WAY IN HELL will I support F1 and all the self-important parties involved, these people are undermining one of the all time greatest forms of motor racing. 

I will take my money and attend and the American Le Mans and Speed World Challenge races at Road America. 

The racing is better anyways. F1 you suck! :thumbdwn:


----------



## LoneStarM3 (May 12, 2005)

Artslinger said:


> Right now I attend a NASCAR and IRL race every year and was seriously thinking of adding the Indianapolis F1 race next year. NO WAY IN HELL will I support F1 and all the self-important parties involved, these people are undermining one of the all time greatest forms of motor racing.
> 
> I will take my money and attend and the American Le Mans and Speed World Challenge races at Road America.
> 
> The racing is better anyways. F1 you suck! :thumbdwn:


Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can't blame you for yours, but I think you are reading the problem wrong. (BTW I attended previous Indy/F1 but not his year)

The "elephant in the room" that noone is discussing is the cause of all this: The F1 rule change requiring "one set of tires for three days of racing" was possibly the stupidest and most dangerous thing possible. Dangerous because it prevents common sense tire changes (this was flatly an "anti-Ferrari" rule, much like the PGA tried to change rules to disadvantage Tiger Woods. Can't have anyone run away with it just because they are so much better, etc)

But equally important the rule is howlingly stupid because of these and probably other reasons:

1. The "run forever on same tires unless they fail (at up to 200 MPH) forces makers to try to fine tune performance to the edge - which would be fine if it could be done safely for all conditions.

2. It changes the event from a race to a politically correct "save the whales" minded tire-conservation exercise. Fans want to see racing, not demonstrations of forced conservative driving. [Might as well let the Sierra Club, PETA, and Al Gore write the regs and require the cars to get 25 MPG or more so Formula 1 racing doesn't wipe out humanity by being the cause of global warming.]

3. Greatly increases the potential for wrecks and driver injury by forcing the choice between quitting and pushing it to failure - by removing the option of conservatively changing tires.

4. Another big point - a real part of the excitement of F1 is the drama in the pits. The participation of the pit crews is not only thrilling to the fans, but important to the spirit of the teams. We sat directly across from the Ferarri pit at previous Indy, and I was as amazed by the skill of the crew - four tires and fuel in 10 seconds or less - consistently! Wow! 
Now they are gas pumpers and not much else in most stops -- maybe check tire pressures....

Bottom line though: As insane as the events of this year were, there is no reason to blame it on the Bridgestone shod teams. They were completely correct in their decision to run. And although the Michelin teams were correct to decline for safety, it would have been a horrible travesty to either cancel the race, or handicap all the teams by making them run a toy race.

THE TRUTH: If the "shoe" had been from the other shoestore, i.e., if Bridgestone had been the one with the problem, the race would have been run without a question, and if Ferrari and the other "B" teams complained they would have been called "poor sports."

AND the overwhelming defense would have been "Hell, this is great! Of the four teams running Bridgestones, Ferarri is the only one that was a real competitor anyway, and 'putting them in their place' was the whole idea in the first place. Man this new tire rule is slicker than snot on a doorknob!!!"


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

LoneStarM3 said:


> Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can't blame you for yours, but I think you are reading the problem wrong. (BTW I attended previous Indy/F1 but not his year)
> 
> The "elephant in the room" that noone is discussing is the cause of all this: The F1 rule change requiring "one set of tires for three days of racing" was possibly the stupidest and most dangerous thing possible. Dangerous because it prevents common sense tire changes (this was flatly an "anti-Ferrari" rule, much like the PGA tried to change rules to disadvantage Tiger Woods. Can't have anyone run away with it just because they are so much better, etc)
> 
> ...


Very well said :thumbup:


----------



## SergioK (Aug 14, 2002)

LoneStarM3 said:


> The "elephant in the room" that noone is discussing is the cause of all this: The F1 rule change requiring "one set of tires for three days of racing"


Because this would supposedly save money?!?!?! :loco: After yesterday's affair, they'll end up losing quite a bit I think.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

SergioK said:


> Because this would supposedly save money?!?!?! :loco: After yesterday's affair, they'll end up losing quite a bit I think.


Well, they said it was to reduce race speed (see my 'tire rules' thread), but another factor was , IMO, to reduce costs as well.


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

Look at the bright side...



> Officials from the Grand Prix of Cleveland, part of the Champ Car series, said Sunday that they would honor tickets from the United States Grand Prix at their June 26 event.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

LmtdSlip said:


> Look at the bright side...
> 
> :thumbup:


 :yikes:

Wow ! :thumbup:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

LoneStarM3 said:


> Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can't blame you for yours, but I think you are reading the problem wrong.


standard caveat for any response to anyone with a differing opinion. 



> The "elephant in the room" that noone is discussing is the cause of all this: The F1 rule change requiring "one set of tires for three days of racing" was possibly the stupidest and most dangerous thing possible.


First disagreement...it's not the one set rule. The Michelin teams could have used new tires and taken the penalties but they refused to do so. The problem is allowing multiple tire makes instead of forcing everyone to run a spec tire. Have a single tire made by a single company and everyone is in the same boat. The most important part of that aspect is that the tire companies don't need to make a faster tire than the other guy, which is osmetihng that leads to tire wars which leads to tire failures which leads to things a whole lot worse. The kind of thing that happened with Michelin this weekend is a lot less common in single make tire series than multi make tire series...and those rare times when they do happen, the sancitoning body will make the needed adjustments to make sure that the event runs so the most important people in the sport, the fans, don't get screwed.



> 4. Another big point - a real part of the excitement of F1 is the drama in the pits. The participation of the pit crews is not only thrilling to the fans, but important to the spirit of the teams. We sat directly across from the Ferarri pit at previous Indy, and I was as amazed by the skill of the crew - four tires and fuel in 10 seconds or less - consistently! Wow!
> Now they are gas pumpers and not much else in most stops -- maybe check tire pressures....


If pit drama was such an exciting part of F1, why hasn't NASCAR taken over the world yet? They do a lot more work during stops with a lot fewer people in just a little bit more time. And since the drivers are actually racing in NC (in comparison to the F1 parade) what happens in the pits has a much bigger impact on who stands where when the checkered flag falls.

:dunno:


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

LoneStarM3 said:


> Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can't blame you for yours, but I think you are reading the problem wrong. (BTW I attended previous Indy/F1 but not his year)
> 
> The "elephant in the room" that noone is discussing is the cause of all this: The F1 rule change requiring "one set of tires for three days of racing" was possibly the stupidest and most dangerous thing possible. Dangerous because it prevents common sense tire changes (this was flatly an "anti-Ferrari" rule, much like the PGA tried to change rules to disadvantage Tiger Woods. Can't have anyone run away with it just because they are so much better, etc)"


You will get no argument from me on this point, I agree.


----------



## JonW (Jan 6, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> If pit drama was such an exciting part of F1, why hasn't NASCAR taken over the world yet?


Actually, I think NASCAR is very much in the process of taking over the world.

Here's what I wrote in the other, related, longer thread:



JonW said:


> NASCAR would never have let this happen.
> 
> I'm no NASCAR fan, but they are very, very smart when it comes to marketing their game. They just bought up a huge chunk of land around New York City (Staten Island?) as part of their efforts to expand their appeal to the whole US. They recently had an exhbition race in Mexico. NASCAR is going to take over the US and then maybe try to go beyond the lower 48.
> 
> ...


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

JonW said:


> Actually, I think NASCAR is very much in the process of taking over the world.


And they consistantly have 40+ cars and they even send teams home that cannot make the field. NASCAR may be a bunch of southern "good-old-boys", but they know how to put on a show that appeals to a very large group of fans.


----------



## KU Ned (Apr 23, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> If pit drama was such an exciting part of F1, why hasn't NASCAR taken over the world yet? They do a lot more work during stops with a lot fewer people in just a little bit more time. And since the drivers are actually racing in NC (in comparison to the F1 parade) what happens in the pits has a much bigger impact on who stands where when the checkered flag falls.
> 
> :dunno:


I have to disagree with you on this point. While NASCAR pits are important on the inevitable yellow flag with less than 10 laps to go, who cares if you lose a second or two during the first 90% of the race. You always know there will be 4-5 more yellows where you can get back in contention. With only 2-3 pits in an F1 race, the pits were vital to the race.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

KU Ned said:


> I have to disagree with you on this point. While NASCAR pits are important on the inevitable yellow flag with less than 10 laps to go, who cares if you lose a second or two during the first 90% of the race. You always know there will be 4-5 more yellows where you can get back in contention. With only 2-3 pits in an F1 race, the pits were vital to the race.


If that is true why do NASCAR teams practice techniques and make innovations so their team will have the quickest pit stops?

A second or two lost in a pit stop can cost you 5-10 places, and on some tracks this can be difficult to make up. Pit stops in a NASCAR race are compounded be the number per race so that slow pit stops over a course of a race can cost you a win or top ten finish.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

What makes a fast F1 pit stop so important is if you beat another team out, the top five teams are close enough speed-wise that if you are in front the guy behind will have little chance of passing you.


----------



## KU Ned (Apr 23, 2003)

My point is that in NASCAR (and for that matter IRL) there are so many yellow flags that allow all drivers on the lead lap (and a few that are a lap down) to bunch back up that most races become sprints at the end of the race.

For instance, Danika Patrick would not have been in a position to win or take fourth but for a few fortuitous yellow flags toward the end of the race. She spun her car and killed it on a pit yet due to the yellow flags was in a position to win the race. 

That would not happen in a typical F1 race unless the saftey car was dispatched with 10 or less laps remaining.


----------



## KU Ned (Apr 23, 2003)

Sorry to hijack the thread with the pit discussion.

I have been to three USGP's (2001, '02 and '03). We had a watch party yesterday and were planning a KC BMW Club trip to the '06 USGP and Hoosier Chapter BMW Corral. It will be interesting to see if there will be an '06 USGP at IMS or anywhere in the US.

I feel badly for everyone that attended. The race tickets are expensive.

With that said I have often said that if told I could go to Friday and Saturday or just the race, I would pick Friday and Saturday in a heartbeat. I love walking the facility and watching the different practice sessions from different vantage points. $25.00 access to the event on Friday and Saturday is a steal in my book.


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

apparently some of you have forgotten Hoosier Tire's foray into NASCAR racing against Goodyear, the only difference was there were a whole lot more teams and only a few got hung out to dry

if everyone had been on Bridgestone there'd have been no issue, not to mention that everybody could have been on Bridgestone, but alas, quite a few put all their eggs in the Michelin basket. Yeah, it was a suck situation, but why should the teams that met the requirements of the rules be penalized for those that didn't, and why should the race be altered for those who didn't meet the requirements of the race when a number of teams showed that achieving compliane was not an issue? Whether or not you agree with the rules is inconsequential; the rules were the same for everyone. Michelin f'd up. Sure it sucks, but stop blaming everyone else for their Michelin's mistake. :thumbdwn: :tsk:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

KU Ned said:


> I have to disagree with you on this point. While NASCAR pits are important on the inevitable yellow flag with less than 10 laps to go, who cares if you lose a second or two during the first 90% of the race. You always know there will be 4-5 more yellows where you can get back in contention. With only 2-3 pits in an F1 race, the pits were vital to the race.


Because the extra second or two between places in an F1 race don't matter since they aren't racing on the track anyway?

What's the point of actually going out on the track when the real racing has already been done in the shops and on the computers before the teams every load up the trailers and head for the venue?

The competition is fierce and there's a lot of neat stuff going on, but calling F1 a "race series" is kind of misleading IMO. It's a wonderful high tech exhibition/demonstration/parade/carnival, but I don't see guys on the track actually racing. :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

TeamM3 said:


> apparently some of you have forgotten Hoosier Tire's foray into NASCAR racing against Goodyear


Not everyone.


----------

