Prodrive

[dribbler 6]

He was the only person who stood up to the greed of Ferrari and the general stupidity of the FIA, and that is something that I admire him for

Supidity of the F.I.A? Okay, i can see that, but what is this 'greed of Ferrari' that you speak of?

[Jem of the Shire 0]

1 big reason why I admire Stoddart - he kept Minardi alive from 2001 - 2005

apart from that he came across as a bit of a penis

[cavallino 2]

He did some good and spoke out against the money Ferrari get for nothing

But that's the sport. Mclaren get more sponsors than other teams for nothing. And thanks to how spectacularly the GPWC backfired, Ferrari will get more in 2008 too. The other teams aren't that good at political maneouvring, that doesn't mean they don't try.

[Shane2 0]

Supidity of the F.I.A? Okay, i can see that, but what is this 'greed of Ferrari' that you speak of?

Indy 2005, and refusing to compromise on any terms. I could tell from what Stoddy was saying during the GP that there where options open that would have enabled the michelin teams to race where blocked by ferrari.

[cavallino 2]

Incorrect. The options that would have allowed the race to continue without hindering the teams with the proper equipment i.e. slowing down or going through the pit lane every time were refused by the Michelin teams. The options that would have changed the track to compensate for teams who hadn't brought proper equipment were blocked by the FIA. Ferrari did nothing.

[pabloh20 1]

Indy 2005, and refusing to compromise on any terms. I could tell from what Stoddy was saying during the GP that there where options open that would have enabled the michelin teams to race where blocked by ferrari.

Shane, you keep saying this, but it is completely irrelevant. Charlie Whiting has gone on record saying he would not and did not allow the chicane at Indy. As fas as I understand it, that was the only option that the Michelin runners came up with so whether Ferrari agreed or not is completely irrelevant. It was also the incident that revealed Stoddy for what he was, in my mind - he talked a good fight, but that's it.

[Shane2 0]

Judging by what PS said, there where some other options put forward that where railroaded by ferrari, including allowing the michelin teams to bring some new, modified tyres and race without scoring points. Ferrari instead of doing right by the fans got greedy, and took the points

i.e. slowing down

As DC said after the race, slowing down in a fast corner is an absolutely idiotic idea, one of the most dangerous things that a driver can do, because it is impossible to judge the degree to which each driver slows down, and also it could wrongfoot one of the cars coming in behind at normal speed, causing massive accidents.

[pabloh20 1]

Judging by what PS said, there where some other options put forward that where railroaded by ferrari, including allowing the michelin teams to bring some new, modified tyres and race without scoring points. Ferrari instead of doing right by the fans got greedy, and took the points

As DC said after the race, slowing down in a fast corner is an absolutely idiotic idea, one of the most dangerous things that a driver can do, because it is impossible to judge the degree to which each driver slows down, and also it could wrongfoot one of the cars coming in behind at normal speed, causing massive accidents.

I thought the Michelin runners threw out the idea of modified tyres on safety grounds? Or did I just make that up? I vaguely remember some sort of safety issue with the modified tyres. At the end of the day, the Michelin runners decided on the chicane because that was best for them and Whiting refused.

Edsit: Just found this - http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Relea.../190605-02.html

[Shane2 0]

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.

That could easily have been done, but Ferrari refused to agree to allow the teams to do it, even if running under a penalty or without scoring points, therefore it would have been possible to have had 20 cars on track. There is no escaping the fact, Ferrari DID play a part in the indy fiasco

[pabloh20 1]

That could easily have been done, but Ferrari refused to agree to allow the teams to do it, even if running under a penalty or without scoring points, therefore it would have been possible to have had 20 cars on track. There is no escaping the fact, Ferrari DID play a part in the indy fiasco

It says Stewards' decision.

[cavallino 2]

Judging by what PS said, there where some other options put forward that where railroaded by ferrari, including allowing the michelin teams to bring some new, modified tyres and race without scoring points. Ferrari instead of doing right by the fans got greedy, and took the points

As DC said after the race, slowing down in a fast corner is an absolutely idiotic idea, one of the most dangerous things that a driver can do, because it is impossible to judge the degree to which each driver slows down, and also it could wrongfoot one of the cars coming in behind at normal speed, causing massive accidents.

That could easily have been done, but Ferrari refused to agree to allow the teams to do it, even if running under a penalty or without scoring points, therefore it would have been possible to have had 20 cars on track. There is no escaping the fact, Ferrari DID play a part in the indy fiasco

As usual you're short on facts and long on rhetoric. Michelin talked of shipping new tyres, but themselves abandoned the idea because they believed that the other tyres would have the same issues. Nor did they ever clarify the problem, if the tyres were safe for one flying lap, how many laps were they unsafe for?

I challenge you to produce one credible statement establishing the fact that anyone from Ferrari played an active role in stopping any of the reasonable solutions proposed.

[Shane2 0]

As someone said to you before, do your own research. Watch footage from the Indy weekend.

Michelin had another tyre AT THE TRACK which they could have used. The idea was put forward for them to use that tyre, and race without scoring points, but Ferrari vetoed it, as did Jordan

[pabloh20 1]

As someone said to you before, do your own research. Watch footage from the Indy weekend.

Michelin had another tyre AT THE TRACK which they could have used. The idea was put forward for them to use that tyre, and race without scoring points, but Ferrari vetoed it, as did Jordan

How can that be, when it says in the letter it is the Stewards' decision - how could Ferrari possibly be involved in that decision? It also sounds like, from the FIA letter, Michelin didn't have a backup tyre at the track, or at least, not one which didn't have the same problem.

Or put it another way, why would Ferrari oppose it if the other teams weren't going to get any points. The only risk to Ferrari, in that scenario, would be a Michelin runner taking them out - and the other teams would never do that, surely, seems the other teams are so pure, innocent and sporting!

I thought, as I said earlier, that the Michelin runners opposed the alternative tyre, but Cav has put that it was Michelin that withdrew the idea - I shall trust his memory on this, either way it doesn't make much difference to the point in question, in that sense. However, Michelin withdrawing the idea would seem to fall into place with the part of the letter where they say they don't know the root cause of the problem.

Why didn't the Michelin runners take the option of changing the tyre every 10 laps?

[cavallino 2]

Michelin had another tyre AT THE TRACK which they could have used.

From a statement by your idol:

When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...ic=3160&hl=

It's the pattern of every debate with you, we're never discussing a difference of opinion, it's all either rhetoric, or just you getting the facts wrong.

For a good perspective on ths issue, read Adam Cooper's article here : http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?sh...ic=3191&hl=

[Shane2 0]

Funny that cav, because I think that applies to you more than me. If my guys c#ck up I can admit it. It wouldn't matter to you if Ferrari c#cked up in the biggest and most obvious way possible, you would still find someone else to blame for it.

[cavallino 2]

Ok, so for a start do you admit that Michelin did not have any other tyres available that they could use and that you made a completely false allegation against Ferrari? We'll take it from there then.

[pabloh20 1]

There is no problem with this discussion, but I want to remind you both of another thread that you said to remind you of when there were signs of things going like they were before the thread in question that you asked to be reminded of was created? Is that clear as mud?

I think there are a few pointers in different threads, if you don't mind me saying, guys. If you do, then I shall just shut up and bow out!

[cavallino 2]

That plan's long dead. There is no point being civil here, because the rules are that moderators can call you names, but if you call them anything, you get banned. As for Shane, his posts irk me and that's not going to change. I can't carry a facade.

[Quiet One 15]

Again, the only time I side with the Ferrari *shudder* fans is about the 2005 Indy issue.

Michelin ****ed it big time. Of course it was unintentional but that does not makes it less of a blunder. There was no way the rules or track could be changed to benefit the Michelin teams without making a joke of the sport. 6 cars on track seemed like a bit of a joke too, that's true. But the other options would have been unfair and would allowed Bridgestone teams to ask for the same treatment, should they have a problem in some other track. How would we have reacted then?

[DOF_power 0]

Prodrive.

I hate the idea of spec or customer cars or whatever.

I hope F1 won't become a spec series free for all. Don't want to design your chassi, don't bother with F1.

[Shane2 0]

That plan's long dead. There is no point being civil here, because the rules are that moderators can call you names, but if you call them anything, you get banned. As for Shane, his posts irk me and that's not going to change. I can't carry a facade.

If you don't like being called those names, the general rule of thumb is not to act in a manner to bring it out

I was well within my rights to call you a Prat because you where being one, and to be fair I have been on the bad side of Bruce, so how you can accuse him of any bias is against me. Clearly you are used to getting everything your own way, well its not gonna happen here pal

[pabloh20 1]

If you don't like being called those names, the general rule of thumb is not to act in a manner to bring it out

I was well within my rights to call you a Prat because you where being one, and to be fair I have been on the bad side of Bruce, so how you can accuse him of any bias is against me. Clearly you are used to getting everything your own way, well its not gonna happen here pal

I'm not sure he was referring to you when talking about the name calling, Shane. I think that's a whole different thread altogether.

[Shane2 0]

He was referring to both myself, and Bruce for calling him a Prat

[dribbler 6]

That plan's long dead. There is no point being civil here, because the rules are that moderators can call you names, but if you call them anything, you get banned. As for Shane, his posts irk me and that's not going to change. I can't carry a facade.

Yep. F*ck 'em, f*ck 'em all. See you on the flip side.

[Oli 1]

Again, the only time I side with the Ferrari *shudder* fans is about the 2005 Indy issue.

Michelin ****ed it big time. Of course it was unintentional but that does not makes it less of a blunder. There was no way the rules or track could be changed to benefit the Michelin teams without making a joke of the sport. 6 cars on track seemed like a bit of a joke too, that's true. But the other options would have been unfair and would allowed Bridgestone teams to ask for the same treatment, should they have a problem in some other track. How would we have reacted then?

Totally agree. The Indy fiasco was Michelin's fault plain and simple. I'm not a Ferrari fan but there's no way you can blame them in any portion for the "race" that transpired.