News from Paris

[TedN]

Doesn't sound good. Link (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15122.html)

Ted

[RTKar]

Pack up the champcars and take 'em to Magny Cours.

[Cam]

Doesn't sound good. Link (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15122.html)

Ted

/.ed..... Fark Max and Fark the FIA..... Just want to get the jabs in early.....

[Methanolandbrats]

Is Max elected or appointed? Does anyone have the power to remove the ********? That's the only way to save this thing. Stoddard refused entry? BAR banned? Teams being chastised like naughty toddlers? What pompous crap. :mad:

[Cam]

Is Max elected or appointed? Does anyone have the power to remove the ********? That's the only way to save this thing. Stoddard refused entry? BAR banned? Teams being chastised like naughty toddlers? What pompous crap. :mad:

Yes he is elected.... R.I.P. F1..... Died June 19 2005. Buried June 29th 2005.

Max... You killed it. ARSEHOLE! :rolleyes:

[trauma1]

F1 ,say hello to the split, bernie and max have really screwed the pouch on this one, these teams were just looking for an excuse to bail and start GPWC

[Methanolandbrats]

Great, now we have two splits to follow. Fantastic news.

[Night Train]

Synopsis? I can't get the site to load....

[Dirty Sanchez]

The seven Michelin teams have been found guilty on two of their five charges of damaging Formula One over the United States Grand Prix tyre fiasco, but must wait until September to find out what their penalty will be.

FIA president Max Mosley told a press conference in Paris on Wednesday, following a hearing of the FIA World Motor Sport Council, that the teams were guilty of not being in possession of suitable tyres and wrongfully refusing to start the race.

The teams were exonerated of charges of refusing to race subject to a speed limit, conspiring to make a demonstration by stopping after the parade lap and of not telling the race stewards.

More to follow.

[Methanolandbrats]

FIA World Motor Sport Council, that the teams were guilty of not being in possession of suitable tyres and wrongfully refusing to start the race.

The teams were exonerated of charges of refusing to race subject to a speed limit, conspiring to make a demonstration by stopping after the parade lap and of not telling the race stewards.

More to follow.Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

[Insomniac]

A working link: http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17903/

Doesn't seem like there is too much information. Going to have to wait until September to see the penalties/fallout.

[Cam]

Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

Benny Hill.... Max is slapping F1 on the head just like Benny did that little bald guy.... :rolleyes:

Only Benny Hill was kinda funny. Max is beyond a joke!

[BobN]

A working link: http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17903/

Doesn't seem like there is too much information. Going to have to wait until September to see the penalties/fallout.

I would seem the September timing would be to continue interest in the series deeper into the season. If penalities were announced now it may effectively end the season today.

My guess is that the penalties will probably involve points reduction totalling an amount just more than would make it possible for someone to beat Schumacher during the remaining races. Then the FIA marketing his "major" accomplishment of yet another World Championship.

[Dirty Sanchez]

^oldcamber guesswork at its finest right there :gomer:


Mosley Defends Decision to Delay Penalty

By Jonathan Noble Wednesday, 29 June 2005 13:49


FIA president Max Mosley has defended the decision to delay the punishment of teams for their behaviour in the United States Grand Prix tyre fiasco until September by claiming it is much fairer on the parties involved.

The seven Michelin teams were found guilty on two charges of damaging the image of F1, by not having suitable tyres for the race and wrongfully refusing to start the event, at a meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council on Wednesday.

But in explaining why the FIA decided to delay a decision on the punishments until an extraordinary meeting on September 14, Mosley claimed it allows the team a chance to repair the damage their actions have caused.

"It would be unfair to impose severe penalties today," he said. "By September, if nothing has been changed, then it would be fair."

Mosley claims that the priority of the FIA is to ensure that the United States Grand Prix fans are sufficiently compensated for what happened at Indianapolis, and that the teams guarantee there will be no repeat of such tyre problems at future races.

Should the teams be able to resolve those issues then the likelihood is that they will escape severe punishments in September.

"The main thing was to secure compensation for the guys in the States, that was our number one priority and to make sure F1 maintains a position in the United States," explained Mosley.

"I want to give them fair and reasonable time to sort everything out."

Mosley also made it clear that BAR would not be singled out for extra punishment, even though the outfit are under a six-month suspended ban for breaching the technical regulations earlier this year.

Referring to the fact that BAR were not alone in withdrawing from the US GP, Mosley said: "The suspended ban was for a reason and as long as they (BAR) did not transgress in a similar area then it would not be a problem. It would be unfair to single them out when the others had a problem."

[DagoFast]

Max is simply keeping the carrot visible and the stick hidden. He's hoping to break the solidarity of the teams with a few months to do a few backroom deals with a couple desperate championship contenders. Crazy like a fox he is.

[FRANKY]

"Mosley claims that the priority of the FIA is to ensure that the United States Grand Prix fans are sufficiently compensated for what happened at Indianapolis"

I wonder if he's thinking beyond the race ticket price, which for most was the smallest expediture of the weekend.

[coolhand]

Is Max elected or appointed? Does anyone have the power to remove the ********? That's the only way to save this thing. Stoddard refused entry? BAR banned? Teams being chastised like naughty toddlers? What pompous crap. :mad:
\
why blame MAx instead of the Manufactureres?

[coolhand]

F1 ,say hello to the split, bernie and max have really screwed the pouch on this one, these teams were just looking for an excuse to bail and start GPWC

this dood gets it :thumbup:

[Methanolandbrats]

\
why blame MAx instead of the Manufactureres?He makes lots of stupid rules and he's a total dickhead.

[Dirty Sanchez]

the single tire rule was Michelin's idea :gomer:

[Steve99]

the single tire rule was Michelin's idea :gomer:
First time I've heard that.

[extramundane]

6 teams respond. (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24992)

Nothing from Red Bull yet.

[Dirty Sanchez]

First time I've heard that.that doesn't mean it's not true (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showpost.php?p=109865&postcount=1)

[trauma1]

6 teams respond. (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24992)

Nothing from Red Bull yet.
they will wimp out because they want ferrari engines next year :shakehead

[Racing Truth]

Great, now we have two splits to follow. Fantastic news.

Wonderful, eh? :shakehead

[pchall]

As the F1 World Turns will always get better ratings than real sport. But, like Susan Lucci, it will never earn a daytime Emmy.

[JoeBob]

Bold Prediction:
In September, they'll announce that the teams are retroactively disqualfied for the season. Kind of like when the NCAA makes teams forfeit games they already won.

The "official" history books will show only 6 entrants for most races. The world will know better.

[trauma1]

Bold Prediction:
In September, they'll announce that the teams are retroactively disqualfied for the season. Kind of like when the NCAA makes teams forfeit games they already won.

The "official" history books will show only 6 entrants for most races. The world will know better.

and GPWC forms the next day and bernie and MAX are left with ferrari and red bull

[Racing Truth]

and GPWC forms the next day and bernie and MAX are left with ferrari and red bull

JB and you might be on to something here.

[Dirty Sanchez]

yeah, its called crack :gomer:




just say no thank you.

[Dr. Corkski]

Minardi's Paul Stoddart came to Paris, but was refused entry to the World Council meeting.Serves that wanker right. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[coolhand]

^^^^I wish i saw them refuse him entry, funny stuff :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Racing Truth]

yeah, its called crack :gomer:




just say no thank you.

Oh, c'mon. In OW racing, US or Int'l, you look at what is logical and good for the sport, and automatically assume the opposite happens. Given the politics and ego involved, it seems plausible to me.

[JT265]

News from Paris

Huh. I thought she'd released another video. Silly me. :cry:












:rofl:

[Mr. Toad]

The seven Michelin teams have been found guilty on two of their five charges of damaging Formula One over the United States Grand Prix tyre fiasco, but must wait until September to find out what their penalty will be.

FIA president Max Mosley told a press conference in Paris on Wednesday, following a hearing of the FIA World Motor Sport Council, that the teams were guilty of not being in possession of suitable tyres and wrongfully refusing to start the race.

The teams were exonerated of charges of refusing to race subject to a speed limit, conspiring to make a demonstration by stopping after the parade lap and of not telling the race stewards.

More to follow.


Or, in the words of Dean Vernon Wormer (John Vernon) in Animal House "They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!"

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jmalchow/images/wormer.jpg

Oops..........maybe I should post this in the movie quote thread.

Regards: Mr. Toad ;)

[Jervis Tetch 1]

yeah, its called crack :gomer:




just say no thank you.The idiots at Crack Forum can't say no. :gomer:

[oddlycalm]

yeah, its called crack :gomer: Crack, eh? Forgotten that we've been here before? Raise your hand if you are too young to remember the FISA/FOCA war of 1982.

Ironic that the leaders of that little palace coup were (act surprised now) Bernie and Max who were at Brabham and March respectively at the time. Among the issues were increasingly eratic and arbitrary governance and unfair distribution of the commercial proceeds. Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

oc

[pchall]

Crack, eh? Forgotten that we've been here before? Raise your hand if you are too young to remember the FISA/FOCA war of 1982.

Ironic that the leaders of that little palace coup were (act surprised now) Bernie and Max who were at Brabham and March respectively at the time. Among the issues were increasingly eratic and arbitrary governance and unfair distribution of the commercial proceeds. Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

oc

I remember how quickly Max and Bernie were able to change the face of F1 and sow the seeds of its destruction. F1 started morphing away from being the World Driver's Championship into a series driven by manufacturers' interests. In my book 1993 was the last WDC season of any note. After that the passion I had for F1 begain to wane.

[Dirty Sanchez]

well, in the context of this discussion (Michelin's massive USGP tire blunder, remember?) you might be on to something if you could demonstrate how Max or Bernie have governed unfairly.

in the absence of that your post is completely off topic :thumdown: :gomer:

but keep on trying :laugh:

[Mc Vicious]

Just my second post here but I have to say there is a good number of posts by members in this thread that ring the truth.
Though some appear very lost.
As far as Max , Bernie and the FISA/FOCA wars and today; what goes around comes around. :p
Right about now Balestre looks fair in contrast.

[TorontoWorker]

I made a post on a UK based F1 forum that used to laugh at the CART-OWRS/IRL situation and so having a looooong memory I posted a "So hows it feel to have your own racing *split* guys..." Freakin silence! I think they are shocked in Europe - "Oh it can't happen o'vr here... only in the colonies I say chap"! I can see it now. We say FTG - They say FMM!! Or is it FBE? Whatever...

[RacinM3]

I made a post on a UK based F1 forum that used to laugh at the CART-OWRS/IRL situation and so having a looooong memory I posted a "So hows it feel to have your own racing *split* guys..." Freakin silence! I think they are shocked in Europe - "Oh it can't happen o'vr here... only in the colonies I say chap"! I can see it now. We say FTG - They say FMM!! Or is it FBE? Whatever...


Please link to post for OC entertainment.

[coolhand]

I made a post on a UK based F1 forum that used to laugh at the CART-OWRS/IRL situation and so having a looooong memory I posted a "So hows it feel to have your own racing *split* guys..." Freakin silence! I think they are shocked in Europe - "Oh it can't happen o'vr here... only in the colonies I say chap"! I can see it now. We say FTG - They say FMM!! Or is it FBE? Whatever...

link? :D

[Cam]

well, in the context of this discussion (Michelin's massive USGP tire blunder, remember?) you might be on to something if you could demonstrate how Max or Bernie have governed unfairly.

Bernie was all for a compromise..... Max told Bernie and all of F1 to pound sand..... How is that ruling fairly? :rolleyes:

Oh wait.... It was fair because Maxs' decision sided with the wishes of the Scuderia. :shakehead

[Ed_Severson]

Bernie was all for a compromise..... Max told Bernie and all of F1 to pound sand..... How is that ruling fairly? :rolleyes:

Oh wait.... It was fair because Maxs' decision sided with the wishes of the Scuderia. :shakehead

It was fair because, believe it or not, the FIA had rules in place before the event started -- rules, mind you, which all of the particpants were well aware of -- and the FIA enforced those rules uniformly.

In what universe is it considered fair to change the rules as you go?

[RacinM3]

Still awaiting link to laugh at forum foreigners. Or foreign forumers, if you like.

[Cam]

It was fair because, believe it or not, the FIA had rules in place before the event started -- rules, mind you, which all of the particpants were well aware of -- and the FIA enforced those rules uniformly.

In what universe is it considered fair to change the rules as you go?

Where did I say rules were being changed???? Maybe I should have used the word "governing" the sport rather than "ruling" :rolleyes:

[Ed_Severson]

Where did I say rules were being changed?

Nowhere. You merely expressed your total disgust that they weren't.

You asked how the FIA had ruled fairly. I answered. If that answer is not satisfactory, then it's no wonder we're having this discussion.

[Cam]

Nowhere. You merely expressed your total disgust that they weren't.


Again.... You misquote. My comment was that all parties barring Max and the Scuderia were in agreement to make an alteration to the course (NOTE: not a rule change) in order to put on a race for the paying attendees at the event and those millions waiting eagerly to watch on TV around the world.

Wouldn't this "compromise" (Again NOT a rule change) have been much more FAIR to those that paid with cold hard cash? :shakehead

[Ed_Severson]

Again.... You misquote.

I quoted you precisely, thank you very much. You may not like my interpretation of what you said, but I did not misquote you.


My comment was that all parties barring Max and the Scuderia were in agreement to make an alteration to the course (NOTE: not a rule change) in order to put on a race for the paying attendees at the event and those millions waiting eagerly to watch on TV around the world.

Essentially, it is a rule change -- it's a change in the circumstances of the event for some reason other than a uniform safety concern. Changing the circuit would have been unfair to those teams who came prepared for the layout approved by the FIA.


Wouldn't this "compromise" (Again NOT a rule change) have been much more FAIR to those that paid with cold hard cash?

It isn't the FIA's responsibility to be fair to the fans, and nobody in attendance purchased a product from the FIA. They have a responsibility to treat the competitors fairly, and that is where their responsibility ends.

Make no mistake -- Max Mosley has made some bad decisions in his tenure. This was not one of them.

[FTG]

It isn't the FIA's responsibility to be fair to the fans,

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Ankf00]

Essentially, it is a rule change -- it's a change in the circumstances of the event for some reason other than a uniform safety concern. Changing the circuit would have been unfair to those teams who came prepared for the layout approved by the FIA.
tracks are not rules, tracks are tracks, it may be something that you consider analagous but there is a very distinct difference, the rules of the competition and the equipment remained the same regardless


It isn't the FIA's responsibility to be fair to the fans, care to explain the crock of **** that WRC's becoming?

[Ed_Severson]

tracks are not rules, tracks are tracks, it may be something that you consider analagous but there is a very distinct difference, the rules of the competition and the equipment remained the same regardless

Of course they're different, but changing the course in the middle of the event is no less destructive -- and presents no less an offense against the spirit of fair competition -- than changing the rules.

Quite simply, changing the course should never have been considered unless the circuit posed a uniform safety risk to all competitors. The only motivation for doing so would have been to alter the competitive balance between the teams, which has the same effect as a change in rules.

If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to take that up with someone else. I'm not the one who claimed that the FIA ruled unfairly, nor am I the one who expressed the outrageous idea that the ruling was only considered fair because it benefitted Ferrari. It was fair because the FIA set the rules, applied them evenly to all competitors, and refused to compromise that principle.


care to explain the crock of **** that WRC's becoming?

Sorry, but I don't watch WRC at all. Not only do I not know what you're referring to, I fail to see how it could possibly be relevant. The issue is the FIA ruling at the United States Grand Prix. If they've made mistakes in uniform rule enforcement elsewhere, that does nothing to alter the fact that they got it right in Indianapolis.

[Cam]

Fine... Back Mosely if you want. You are in the minority. :gomer:

[Ed_Severson]

Fine... Back Mosely if you want. You are in the minority. :gomer:

And?

He got it right. Who gives a crap whether the majority agrees with that or not?

[oddlycalm]

well, in the context of this discussion (Michelin's massive USGP tire blunder, remember?) you might be on to something if you could demonstrate how Max or Bernie have governed unfairly.

in the absence of that your post is completely off topic :thumdown: :gomer:

but keep on trying :laugh: The title of the thread is "News From Paris." If you want to put on blinders to shield yourself from the underlying politics, that's your decision and don't expect others to be thusly bound.

oc

[Ankf00]

Of course they're different, but changing the course in the middle of the event is no less destructive -- and presents no less an offense against the spirit of fair competition -- than changing the rules.

Quite simply, changing the course should never have been considered unless the circuit posed a uniform safety risk to all competitors. The only motivation for doing so would have been to alter the competitive balance between the teams, which has the same effect as a change in rules.

If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to take that up with someone else. I'm not the one who claimed that the FIA ruled unfairly, nor am I the one who expressed the outrageous idea that the ruling was only considered fair because it benefitted Ferrari. It was fair because the FIA set the rules, applied them evenly to all competitors, and refused to compromise that principle.



Sorry, but I don't watch WRC at all. Not only do I not know what you're referring to, I fail to see how it could possibly be relevant. The issue is the FIA ruling at the United States Grand Prix. If they've made mistakes in uniform rule enforcement elsewhere, that does nothing to alter the fact that they got it right in Indianapolis.


your point was the FIA is there for sport and not to deal with fans, their ******** with WRC would paint the opposite picture, if sport was in their interest WRC wouldn't be the neutered shell it currently is

and again, tracks are not in the sporting or technical regulations, so I fail to see your point, if the race is run in the same fashion and it's the same equipment, then it's a race, I don't see "facilities regulations" anywhere in the FIA handbook taht dictate that only the 19 approved F1 course layouts are the only ones which may count towards a world championship, the semantics are on your end, the sporting and tech regs are the 2 books that define the sport, nothing else

[Dr. Corkski]

If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to take that up with someone else. I'm not the one who claimed that the FIA ruled unfairly, nor am I the one who expressed the outrageous idea that the ruling was only considered fair because it benefitted Ferrari. It was fair because the FIA set the rules, applied them evenly to all competitors, and refused to compromise that principle.Any ruling would have only been fair had it benefitted Ferrari (and Jordan and Minardi), because they came to the race with proper equipment to race. If the situation was reversed and Mosley bent the rules for Ferrari, everyone of the bend the rules crowd would be saying it's unsporting.

Bottom line is the "safety" concern was directly due to equipment failure on a portion of the field, not due to the track layout. Blame Michelin for brining a tire that wasn't even durable enough for 5 stop strategies.

[Ed_Severson]

your point was the FIA is there for sport and not to deal with fans, their ******** with WRC would paint the opposite picture, if sport was in their interest WRC wouldn't be the neutered shell it currently is

And yet, none of that matters. As I said earlier, if the FIA has made mistakes in rules enforcement elsewhere, that does not change the fact that they got it right in Indianapolis.


and again, tracks are not in the sporting or technical regulations, so I fail to see your point

Of course you do, because my point doesn't make it very convenient to bash Ferrari or Max Mosley.

The teams spend an enormous amount of time and money to prepare for circuits that the FIA approves. To change the circuit, particularly in the middle of the weekend, is totally disingenuous unless the circuit poses a uniform safety risk to all competitors. That was not the case here. To pretend like altering the circuit would be completely on the level and would not have been done to alter the competitive balance is absurd.

Again, it is not the FIA's role to maximize the entertainment value for the fans. That is left to FOM and the promoter. The FIA exists to set and uniformly enforce the rules to ensure fair competition, which is exactly what they did.

[Ankf00]

yes, because I spend so much time on here bashing Ferrari...

black helicopters are coming for you ;)

[Ed_Severson]

You've spent plenty of time bashing Max, but I guess that slipped your mind.

Bottom line -- somebody claimed the FIA had ruled unfairly by sticking to the existing regulations. I pointed out how ridiculous an idea that is. You arguing with me about it makes no sense, since you haven't made any attempt to demonstrate how the ruling was unfair.

So, would you care to explain the unfairness? If not, I don't see much point in continuing this since you apparently have no aim here other than to prove your disdain for the sport's governing body, which is well-documented.

[Ankf00]

again, I never had much to say about Max until before this most recent incident, so I don't see where that fits into the causation of my pre-existing opinion and arguments

and again, sporting regs, tech regs, save the track semantics for when we come up with track regs, tracks are certified based on quality and facilities, cleveland was supposed to have a barrell this weekend mid-weekend, *gasp* so that's not a dangerous course change that involves safety hazards only because ferrari's not involved on the short end of the situation, or because it affects everyone equally?

and yes, the ruling's bull, sending people out on uncertified tires is a stupid thing to do and it wasn't the teams' fault that the situation came to be, they did the responsible thing. as for the decisions at the race, my opinions have been posted previously as have my arguments

[Ed_Severson]

cleveland was supposed to have a barrell this weekend mid-weekend, *gasp* so that's not a dangerous course change that involves safety hazards only because ferrari's not involved on the short end of the situation, or because it affects everyone equally?

I don't know where you think this is going to get you. The circuit at Cleveland was not modified to make certain teams competitive who otherwise would not have been.


and yes, the ruling's bull

It was absolutely fair. Of course, you're delirious enough to think that nobody would have gained a competitive advantage from a change in the circuit, so you think it's "bull." Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.


sending people out on uncertified tires is a stupid thing to do

Indeed, and that is precisely why Michelin advised their teams not to race. Lest we forget, it was Michelin who caused this problem, not the FIA. And you can save the crap line about Michelin not having the ability to predict their performance -- they've raced there before, they knew the track conditions had changed, and they opted not to test on the new surface. There was plenty of foreseeable trouble, and they chose to gamble.

[Lizzerd]

I'm late chiming in here, but I place myself firmly in Ed's corner. Max/FIA followed and enforced the RULES. Would I have loved to see a chicane in T13? Heck yes! Has Max been a complete idiot in recent years? Oh, dear Lord, you know he has been!

As I said before, Bridgestone won, Michelin and the fans lost. Truly unfortunate for millions of fans and for me who was sitting in my primo T1 Stand J seat.

Forget it and move on.

[Ankf00]

I don't know where you think this is going to get you. The circuit at Cleveland was not modified to make certain teams competitive who otherwise would not have been.



It was absolutely fair. Of course, you're delirious enough to think that nobody would have gained a competitive advantage from a change in the circuit, so you think it's "bull." Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.



Indeed, and that is precisely why Michelin advised their teams not to race. Lest we forget, it was Michelin who caused this problem, not the FIA. And you can save the crap line about Michelin not having the ability to predict their performance -- they've raced there before, they knew the track conditions had changed, and they opted not to test on the new surface. There was plenty of foreseeable trouble, and they chose to gamble.


"they opted not to test" you should let them know about that ;)

as for "competitive advantage" if the cars were ready to race, they were ready to race, if they weren't, they weren't, regardless if sporting regs and tech regs wouldv'e been adhered to, it's a legit formula 1 race no matter what new standards you want to concoct to legitimize the decisions. you want to talk about rules, I see 2 books of rules, nothing else

[Ed_Severson]

Okay f00boy, if you insist in going 'round and 'round, I'll ask again.

Would you care to take a stab at explaining which rule in your favorite book Max applied unfairly? You seem awfully long on accusations and short on substance so far. Here's your big chance to make your case.

[Ankf00]

I don't see where putting in a chicane is against either the technical or sporting regulations which govern the sport. Those 2 books define what Formula 1 is. I also don't see how it's more just to hold a farce of a race and punish Michelin's teams later than putting in the chicane and then punishing the Michelin teams later. I don't see how a chicane removes the legitimacy of the results if the cars are the same and the manner in which the event is conducted is consistent with the sporting regulations.


and again, if they didnt have the opportunity to test you can't blame them for delivering a faulty tire

but in the end, what happened? michelin teams were punished, gee, big surprise, much has been accomplished.

again, hey, if i'm full of bull let me know, just show me that book that lays out what the tracks are to always be laid out as and I'll get off of Max's back for adhering to the books. :gomer:

[Ed_Severson]

That's a nice song and dance, but you don't seem to be able to point to any specific rule which was applied unfairly.

As for this ...


I don't see how a chicane removes the legitimacy of the results if the cars are the same and the manner in which the event is conduct is consistent with the sporting regulations.

Yeah, that's a tough one to figure out. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, Mr. Todt. I realize you were 8 seconds a lap faster than the rest of the field on the old configuration, but I don't see how a chicane removed the legitimacy of the results.

:gomer: at its finest.

[Ankf00]

wait, wasn't the point that putting in a chicane is the FIA not upholding the rules? which rule were they not upholding? seeing as I'm mr accusations and all :gomer:


and the chicane's there for safety, not to intentionally meddle with the finishing order, a slight difference.

[Ed_Severson]

wait, wasn't the point that putting in a chicane is the FIA not upholding the rules?

Uh, no. The point is that somebody made the accusation that Max ruled unfairly, and you took up the cause. You are arguing in support of the original claim, but you don't seem to have any specific evidence.


and the chicane's there for safety

Not for everybody; just for the Michelin shod teams. I suppose you think the FIA should have shortened the European GP on the fly as well. I mean, it would have been done "for safety" and not "to intentionally meddle with the finishing order," although anyone based in reality knows that would have been the end result.

The FIA has no obligation to modify the circuit because some of the teams cannot navigate it properly.

[Ankf00]

Uh, no. The point is that somebody made the accusation that Max ruled unfairly, and you took up the cause. You are arguing in support of the original claim, but you don't seem to have any specific evidence.



Not for everybody; just for the Michelin shod teams. I suppose you think the FIA should have shortened the European GP on the fly as well. I mean, it would have been done "for safety" and not "to intentionally meddle with the finishing order," although anyone based in reality knows that would have been the end result.

The FIA has no obligation to modify the circuit because some of the teams cannot navigate it properly.

dude, Max's idea was to impose a speed limit on michelin teams and force drive through penalties on them when they exceeded it, you think THAT'S adhering to the sporting regs?

the european GP was kimi's fault, yes it's a safety problem but arguing that you shorten the race on the fly to protect the leader due to his own actions is a bit different than starting a race on a level playing field and letting the teams race according to the regulations, for someone so insistent upon facts and fair analogies it's hilarious that you're offering that up

you think my argument's bull, I think yours is utter bull, you think i'm making no points, I think you're making no points, mission accomplished. :thumbup:

btw, read up, my argument in this thread originated from the lack of track layouts being part of either of the rulebooks that govern what formula 1 is, that hasn't changed


I still remember one of the first times I posted on 7g and it was prefaced with "dude!" and doc austin or some other lemming doucherocket got on my case with an utterly condescending reply... :rofl: this was then followed by a lecture of why his writing is so wonderful and award winning... he defined doucherocket :laugh:

[Ed_Severson]

dude, Max's idea was to impose a speed limit on michelin teams and force drive through penalties on them when they exceeded it, you think THAT'S adhering to the sporting regs?

What about it doesn't adhere to the rules? The layout would have been exactly what the FIA approved and the teams prepared for. The teams who were unable to navigate that layout properly would have been putting the other competitors at undue risk by driving so slowly through Turn 13, so the only way to allow them to compete without punishing the teams whose technical partners didn't completely **** up would be to find an alternate route within the existing circuit. The pit lane fits the bill nicely, and the pitlane is subject to a speed limit at all times, no matter how many times you have to drive through it.

If you want sporting, the Michelin teams could have opted for this course of action, and they would have given the fans a race within the race and would have had the opportunity to compete for 7th and 8th place points (or better had one of the other 6 experienced mechanical problems). Instead, though, they chose not to participate at all. That's hardly sporting, is it? They knew they would have been embarrassed on track by Ferrari, so instead they chose to humiliate the entire sport.


the european GP was kimi's fault, yes it's a safety problem but arguing that you shorten the race on the fly to protect the leader due to his own actions is a bit different than starting a race on a level playing field

Indianapolis was also started on a level playing field. Lest you forget, the weekend starts on Friday, not Sunday, and even on Sunday, all 10 teams had the opportunity to race on the same circuit with the same rules of they had chosen to do so. It is up to the FIA to provide a level playing field, but you're suggesting that it's up to the FIA to make sure none of the competitors get left behind on that field. That's just not true.

[Ankf00]

"embarrassed on track by ferrari"

notice you're the only one bringing them up in this conversation, I'm talking about holding a race, not rewarding/punishing certain specific teams I may like or dislike

aas for the rest, round and round we go :gomer:

cheers buddy, peace out :)

[Ed_Severson]

"embarrassed on track by ferrari"

notice you're the only one bringing them up in this conversation, I'm talking about holding a race, not rewarding/punishing certain specific teams I may like or dislike

I'm not either. If you think I'm a Ferrari fan, you're out of your damn mind. :D

But, seriously, why should they have agreed to jeopardize their results when they did everything right? They were given the same task as everybody else, and the fact that nobody could even remotely compete with them at that task is no excuse for altering the layout of the course.

It ain't about the fans for the FIA, and that's all there is to it.

[Dirty Sanchez]

final analysis... ank = super:gomer:tard

bottomline, the FIA doesn't make crap tires.

they do not have to accomodate teams that do not come prepared or suppliers that fail miserably at their job... in fact they should not accomodate these teams/suppliers. not in the name of fair competition (because doing so would not be fair to those that came prepared) and also not in the name of entertainment for the fans. the FIA did its job... others did not.

[Dirty Sanchez]

The title of the thread is "News From Paris." If you want to put on blinders to shield yourself from the underlying politics, that's your decision and don't expect others to be thusly bound.

ocoh, I'm well aware of the underlying politics. its that political powerplay by the teams who thought they could leverage a competitive (not safe) resolution by sticking together and holding the sport hostage that got them on the hot seat in Paris ;)

and you still haven't demonstrated how Max, Bernie, or the FIA have governed unfairly :gomer: next.

and now they keep trying to tie this situation to safety like bush tries to tie Iraq to 9/11. oh no... my blinders are off, homesicle. :laugh:

[Insomniac]

Ankf00: I agree adding a chiucane and racing on the new course would not give anyone an advantage since they are all racing on the same track configuration, but you have to look at the reason to make that change. It would be made to change the competitive balance on the original configuration because one tire supplier's performance was significantly lower than anothers. Just in the spirit of competition that is the wrong thng to do. There may not be any rules in that situation to prevent the reconfiguration of the track, but doing so is grossly unfair to the Bridgestone teams. I certainly understand the desire to do it in the interest of giving the fans a race with 20 cars, but F1 is a competition first. If BMW brought an engine that couldn't go full out through the oval section, would it be fair to rev limit all the other teams? What if 7 teams brought poorly performing engines, would it be fair? The problem here is the screwup affected a lot of cars to an extreme case (they refused to race). If it wasn't the majority, people would scream bloody hell iof the FIA reconfigured the track. Yes the fans got screwed, but the FIA's hands were tied. They need to make sure the rules (that includes the spirit of competition) are enforced to ensure a legitimate championship. And no one has provided a fair way for them to do in a way that would avoid change to the competitive balance.

[Insomniac]

As the F1 World Turns will always get better ratings than real sport. But, like Susan Lucci, it will never earn a daytime Emmy.

Susan Lucci won a daytime Emmy finally.

[Ed_Severson]

Why do you know that? :saywhat:

[Insomniac]

Why do you know that? :saywhat:

No idea, it's just one of those things in my head. Probably from reading it somewhere.