Robin Wilton's esoterica

       
 
« Previous day (Jun 19, 2005) | Main | Next day (Jun 20, 2005) »

20 Jun · Mon 2005

Indianapolis Grand Prix ... Part 2


I thought I would have cooled off about this by now, but I have today had a chance to read the correspondence which passed between, on the one hand, Michelin and the racing team bosses, and on the other, the FIA (Formula One's governing body). The Michelin letter explained that there was a safety problem with the tyres it had supplied, acknowledged that was their problem, and on safety grounds said they could not let teams race using their tyres at full speed on the Indy circuit's unique banked section. They recommended reducing the cars' speed over that section of the circuit - in their subsequent letter they clarified that this should be through a change to the configuration of the circuit (i.e. the safety chicane which was under discussion). Michelin-FIA correspondence The FIA's response was uncompromising. They pointed to the rule book. Track layout can't be changed. Cars could race with tyres other than those which they qualified on, but that would be a rule breach for consideration by the stewards and a heavy penalty. These arguments have some weight, in that F1 is, and needs to be, a heavily-regulated sport. However, they fail to address two major factors:
  • - The sport's huge community of paying stakeholders: the fans, who were utterly let down;
  • - The state of the FIA's contingency planning, as a multi million dollar enterprise.
The FIA sets the rules; it has a massive rule-book which sets out all the race procedures, and is frequently used to penalise drivers and teams for infractions which can be technical, procedural, safety-related etc... but they always find something in there they can cite. But not, apparently, in case of the failure of a major critical point: one of the two tyre suppliers to the whole enterprise. If the FIA were your business, and you couldn't run it without two of your key vendors, would you have a fallback? And if you had no fallback and the worst happened, would you expect to take the blame? Last, let's look at the safety aspect: as most people have acknowledged, Michelin, having identified the problem (and seen two of their tyres fail at speed on the circuit during practice), did the only thing they could: recommend that the tyres should only be used if speed is reduced on the key part of the circuit. The teams, given that advice (and having seen tyres fail after very little track time), did the only thing they could: tell the drivers not to race. Here's what the FIA suggested by way of mitigation, in their letter (I am quoting a part of the letter, but this part is reproduced in full): "... No doubt you will inform your teams what is the maximum safe speed for their cars in Turn 13. We will remind them of the need to follow your advice for safety reasons. We will also ask them to ensure their cars do not obstruct other competitors. 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 [sic] tyres in the future. Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed) ..." So their response is to have some cars driving through the (unmodified) banked corner at some speed specified by the tyre manufacturer, while the other cars come through it flat out. Or to play Russian roulette with each set of tyres, coming in "just before they let go" for a safety-related tyre change. And these recommendations are signed by Charlie Whiting, the Race Director, responsible for the safety of those concerned. I find that hard to believe. I'm afraid I stick by yesterday's judgement - this was a shameful farce, and the fans and competitors deserve better. For a more measured but equally angry comment, see Bill's blahg, here.
Posted by racingsnake @ 01:43 PM GMT+00:00
 
 
 
 
 
« June 2005 »
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today

unsubscribe from human rights abuse in the war on terror
Locations of visitors to this page
Such views as I express in this blog are based on my own opinions, experience and judgements. They do not necessarily represent the policy or views of my employer. It is not my intention to offend readers in any way. If you find anything on this blog offensive, please contact me in the first instance.
Robin Wilton
www.flickr.com

Links to recent entries

[RSS Newsfeed]

Valid XHTML or CSS?

[This is a Roller site]
Theme by Rowell Sotto.
What's this?
 
© racingsnake