Post Farce: Let Battle Commence

Well, the arguments have started already. In this post by a fellow Malaysian, he clearly sides with the FIA on this one. He's also left a message on my previous posting to which I've responded.

Clearly, one also needs to look at the big picture. Our friend argues that Michelin deliberately caused this mess in the first place. He cites that the Michelin tyres were plainly unsafe (true!) and that Michelin knew they would embarrasingly lose the race. From this the argument follows that they deliberately created this comical situation.

Now, I don't think a global company like Michelin are quite so petty in their thinking as that. They have won every race so far this year. And quite frankly, its beyond all their expectations. In competition you'd win some and lose some. But to argue that they couldn't take losing in the chin is just plain silly. I think they've demonstrated up to now a level of sportsmanship and class for at least owning up to their mistake. Even though such an admission is a massive blow to their image.

And even if they did lose badly here, there's still 10 races left in the championship to give it to Bridgestone and Ferrari a good thumping, which I fully expect they will. Magny Cours is up next, then Silverstone and dearth of Tilke designed tracks at which the French concern has proven itself superior.

But I think one must look at this argument put forward by PlanetF1 which I quote:

"Ross Brawn’s drinking buddy 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."

Of course Charlie Whiting would change the rules for Bridgestone. Because its Ferrari's tyre! Had the situation been in the reverse in Indianapolis, dear CCCP, you can very well expect that Charlie Whiting would have accomodated the Bridgestone runners and Ferrari quite well thank you very much.

My fellow Malaysian makes the claim that the Michelin runners were playing politics. Perhaps. But at the beginning 9 teams out of 10 were in agreement regarding the need for the FIA to take safety precautions. All of them except for Ferrari.

The choice, dear sir, as I said in my reply belonged to the FIA. And as I said in my previous post, what were the Michelin teams supposed to do? You make the argument yourself that the Michelin tyres were unsafe. Were they supposed to run in such unsafe conditions and risk fatalities? More than the embarassment of losing a race, if such a thing had come to pass, would be devastating to Michelin and for the teams.

Yet, the FIA had a choice. Having known the situation, they could have played it smart for the sake of the fans. Yet they chose not too. This is the point that you have quite a difficult time understanding. The FIA stuck to their guns instead of compromising with the MAJORITY of the teams.

And quite frankly, just what the hell big deal would it have been to stick one lousy chicane in Turn 13? Especially when the Michelin teams were ready to concede their points in the race and even promote the Bridgestone teams at the head of the field. After Ayrton Senna's death at Imola in 1994 the FIA readily stuck chicanes at Barcelona and god help us, at Eau Rouge at Spa for the 1994 Belgian Grand Prix. For the sake of safety. But not in Indianapolis. Why?

Would you sir, have preferred to see another Ralf Schumacher incident instead? Or perhaps the Senna incident would have been to more to sir's liking? Let me say it again, the Michelin runners were willing to CONCEDE POINTS and their world championship standings for the sake of running. Yes, quite frankly they were willing to be embarassed by the whole thing. Just as they are right now. What the hell did the FIA concede? Just who the hell is playing politics here?

I'll tell you who. The people who invented motor racing politics that is Ferrari. And that dumb ass FIA president bitch of theirs. And his good buddy Bernie.