Max justifies his decision

[oddlycalm]

Max held forth on his decisions relating to the USGP
Max holds forth (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15090.html)

As pointed out in another thread in regard to Bernie, it's amazing that to me that the two loudest voices in FOCA back in the days of the FISA/FOCA war of the early 1980's would now sound almost exactly like their predecessors did some 20 odd years ago. :laugh: Max is doing a right decent job of channeling Jean-Marie Balestre at the moment.

oc

[Gnam]

It is worth mentioning, however, that the federation is asking the questions and supplying the answers in the latest press release and it is not an actual interview by an independent journalist, although this is perhaps how it appearsoc
At first, I pictured Max sitting at his desk asking himself a question and then answering it like a mental patient.

But about halfway through, it reminded me of a deposition or lawyer questioning a friendly witness on the stand. The questions set Max up to give the best answer possible. weird.

Also what's up with all the analogies: Downhill skiing, 100m sprint, rowing?

[dando]

How fitting. A farce of an interview to go with a farce of a race. :shakehead


Didn't this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?

"No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example."

:saywhat:

-Kevin

[Andrew Longman]

A non-interview to go with the non prix.

The man has no connection with reality

[oddlycalm]

The man has no connection with reality I gotta agree, Max seems to have outstayed his sell date by a couple years. Both he and Bernie brought a breath of fresh air to the sport and made some much needed changes back in the 80's, but the time has come for both to move on.

oc

[RTKar]

I wouldn't trust anything he say's or does simply because of his old man. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[TorontoWorker]

So here is where I get a weird feeling that the reason Ferrari would not agree to track changes in turn 13 is contained in this quote from the Max interview.




Question: Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?

Max: "Okay, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane."

OR, as I read... (My quotes)

Imagine you have a team who is a major pain in the ass - but does however, support the FIA and does not support the break away teams. Imagine once more that their team principal calls in a panic when he hears news of what the other teams are going to do concerning a track layout change. He rants that his engine has been built for maximum revs and has oil supply problems if it enters a banked turn from high speed and is forced to sweep right, left and then right again with full power right after...

"What can be done"?

"Look, don't show up at any meetings, say your with another tire company - it's not your problem. Just don't go to the meetings. They'll all call me, I'll clamp down on them under the FIA rules section reguarding course changes not approved without FIA testing. Look, they'll have to either stop more often or slow down. Either way your postion will be it's not MY problem, I'm not involved. We'll say the FIA's hands are tied by rules put in place for SAFETY. See, we're covered - they'll never risk pissing off the Americans.

"What about Bernie"?

"I'll handle Bernie, he's screwed anyway as the teams know he is between a rock and a hard place. He NEEDS the cars to start or he loses money to George.

"What if they don't leave the pits..."?

"He'll force them to the grid and they'll have to choose their own poison - go slow through 13 or pit for tires all the time. You guys just get to the grid with the rest of the Bridgestone cars. All your Bridgestone teams HAVE to start, or you risk fines as there is nothing wrong with your tires. Just don't go to any meetings and for christ sake and don't let on about your motor issue to anyone.

"Ok".

"Bye Jean". *click*

[RacinM3]

It's all academic. Regardless of the decisions made, Michelin was sent a letter June 1 telling them to ensure their tires were adequate. Bridgestone brought tires that were safe. The teams had options that would have created a "race within a race", whether it be changing the left rear every 10 laps, driving up pit lane every lap, or limiting top gear speed. None of them are very palatable, except maybe the tire change every 10 laps.

The teams were not banned from the race, they CHOSE not to participate. They were not locked out, they went on strike.

Regardless of your opinion of the FIA or Mosely, the simple fact remains, the whole fiasco was brought about by Michelin, and fault for everything that happened after Friday at that Grand Prix lies at their feet.

Regarding the penalties the teams could face, here is another link from the website linked above that raises some interesting questions: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15083.html

[oddlycalm]

Regardless of your opinion of the FIA or Mosely, the simple fact remains, the whole fiasco was brought about by Michelin, and fault for everything that happened after Friday at that Grand Prix lies at their feet.

Regarding the penalties the teams could face, here is another link from the website linked above that raises some interesting questions: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15083.html Nobody is claiming that Michelin didn't poop in their mess kit, at least nobody with a functioning brain. That said, Max held fast to positions that meant that the Michelin and the teams were effectively forced to take the actions they did unless they wanted to expose themselves to massive liability under US law. The chances of Max not knowing this full well are right between zero and none.


"Unnecessary controversy should be eliminated. Management by consensus is needed, with less talk and more listening. The president should avoid unnecessary polemics."

Are we to take seriously what Max says, or what he actually does? I would invite anyone to jump into the Wayback machine, dial up the early 1980's and revisit some of Balestre's more inspired decisions and what Max and Bernie had to say about them during the FISA/FOCA war. For those that have forgotten, or never knew, Bernie was the team principle at Brabham and Max was a part owner of March, which brought us some great Champcars during the 80's as well.

While there is no doubt that Balestre made a huge contribution to moving F1 forward, as have Max and Bernie, all three of them stayed beyond their shelf life and did things that cast a cloud over their many accomplishments IMO.

oc

[eiregosod]

:rofl: Thanks oddlycalm for that snippet from Max's election manifesto This is gold

"Unnecessary controversy should be eliminated. Management by consensus is needed, with less talk and more listening. The president should avoid unnecessary polemics."

Unnecessary controversy should be eliminated. I'm all for sport not modelled on WWF events. :thumbup:

That managment by concensus sure did a lot of good on Sunday. 'less talk and more lstening'. Ok who exactly does the talking and who is doing the listening?? Still its just the same time wasted.

Avoiding unnecessary polemics, all those necessary polemics like abolishing all electronic control (1994) , grooved slicks & narrow cars (1998) , legalisation of electronic gozmos (2002), defending ferrari like it was your favorite daughter? (1950 to God knows when) all were absolutely necessary?

Thanks Max

[Gnam]

Interesting, TorontoWorker...but I think Max was searching for a problem that didn't involve tires. Plus according to Stoddart, the Ferrari drivers were at the Sunday meeting.

[Ankf00]

It's all academic. Regardless of the decisions made, Michelin was sent a letter June 1 telling them to ensure their tires were adequate. Bridgestone brought tires that were safe. The teams had options that would have created a "race within a race", whether it be changing the left rear every 10 laps, driving up pit lane every lap, or limiting top gear speed. None of them are very palatable, except maybe the tire change every 10 laps.

The teams were not banned from the race, they CHOSE not to participate. They were not locked out, they went on strike.

Regardless of your opinion of the FIA or Mosely, the simple fact remains, the whole fiasco was brought about by Michelin, and fault for everything that happened after Friday at that Grand Prix lies at their feet.

Regarding the penalties the teams could face, here is another link from the website linked above that raises some interesting questions: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15083.html


so what's the official word on Michelin saying they weren't allowed to test out there? and when was that track re-ground after that cancelled test?

[cameraman]

FTG's groundskeepers are always going on about how it takes several weeks to move all the concrete to convert the oval to the road course and then several weeks to convert it back again. So there is one reason why they don't test at Indy.

The second reason is Indy is not on the list of tracks that the F1 teams are allowed to test on. I don't know who makes the list but Indy ain't on it. So neither Bridgestone nor Michelin tested at Indy.

The Michelin tire test people talk about was held in Barcelona Spain on a track that is nothing like Indy. Which would go a long way to explaining why most Michelin teams did not bother to go.

[racer2c]

I look forward to the day the engine manufactures run the sport. :gomer:

[mapguy]

So neither Bridgestone nor Michelin tested at Indy.



Bridgestone got plenty of data about the track surface via their Firestone brand at the Indy 500. They may not have tested there but they sure as hell knew what the track surface was like.

[cameraman]

Bridgestone got plenty of data about the track surface via their Firestone brand at the Indy 500. They may not have tested there but they sure as hell knew what the track surface was like.

I've said that numerous times but my point is no F1 car turned a lap at Indy prior to the race weekend. People keep talking about the Michelin tire test and leaving out the Barcelona part.

[Ankf00]

FTG's groundskeepers are always going on about how it takes several weeks to move all the concrete to convert the oval to the road course and then several weeks to convert it back again. So there is one reason why they don't test at Indy.

The second reason is Indy is not on the list of tracks that the F1 teams are allowed to test on. I don't know who makes the list but Indy ain't on it. So neither Bridgestone nor Michelin tested at Indy.

The Michelin tire test people talk about was held in Barcelona Spain on a track that is nothing like Indy. Which would go a long way to explaining why most Michelin teams did not bother to go.


alright, so I take back my comments if this is true, Michelin may have failed last weekend, but this is by no means their fault or doing. Yea, I'm going to design something streched to the limit w/o applicable data and expect it to be spot on :rolleyes:

[Insomniac]

FTG's groundskeepers are always going on about how it takes several weeks to move all the concrete to convert the oval to the road course and then several weeks to convert it back again. So there is one reason why they don't test at Indy.

The second reason is Indy is not on the list of tracks that the F1 teams are allowed to test on. I don't know who makes the list but Indy ain't on it. So neither Bridgestone nor Michelin tested at Indy.

The Michelin tire test people talk about was held in Barcelona Spain on a track that is nothing like Indy. Which would go a long way to explaining why most Michelin teams did not bother to go.

No teams tested at Indy the 5 times before, and yet the tires were always fine. They don't have to test there to get it right.

[Insomniac]

Bridgestone got plenty of data about the track surface via their Firestone brand at the Indy 500. They may not have tested there but they sure as hell knew what the track surface was like.

All that data was from the oval. It's not like Michelin never ran on an oval before...

[Ankf00]

No teams tested at Indy the 5 times before, and yet the tires were always fine. They don't have to test there to get it right.

so they're supposed to pull predictions about that ****ed up track surface out of their asses? :saywhat: oh yea, that's some great design methodology....

I doubt the past 5 years have had multiple tire test cancellations as well...

[racer2c]

so they're supposed to pull predictions about that ****ed up track surface out of their asses? :saywhat: oh yea, that's some great design methodology....

I doubt the past 5 years have had multiple tire test cancellations as well...

Evidently Bridgestone didn't have a problem with it. hey, going around in circles in F.U.N. Fun!

[Ankf00]

Evidently Bridgestone didn't have a problem with it. hey, going around in circles in F.U.N. Fun!


see, that's the beauty of real world TEST DATA, it makes **** easier, you know, because the numbers are REAL instead being spit out by a computer.... :gomer:

but hey, have fun with your strawman and fantasy world of engineers being able to predict everything b/c they have fancy Cray computers...

[racer2c]

see, that's the beauty of real world TEST DATA, it makes **** easier, you know, because the numbers are REAL instead being spit out by a computer.... :gomer:

but hey, have fun with your strawman and fantasy world of engineers being able to predict everything b/c they have fancy Cray computers...

Like I said, Bridgestone didn't have a problem. I guess they use 'murican 'puters instead of furrin Apples. :gomer:

[Ankf00]

Like I said, Bridgestone didn't have a problem. I guess they use 'murican 'puters instead of furrin Apples. :gomer:

"Donny, were you listening to the dude's story? You have no frame of reference, you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and asks..."

"shut the **** up walter! we're not talking about the guy who built the railroads"


again, present day test data vs. year old test data, gee, I wonder which is going to help you build a better tire, go try designing something with 0 room for insurance, it's sorta hard :gomer: now if Michelin had a chance to get data, that'd be their fault, but seeing as they didn't have a chance, guess what, it's not their fault, again, try making something on total guesses and no pertinent data, have fun with the ensuing cluster****.

[mapguy]

All that data was from the oval. It's not like Michelin never ran on an oval before...

Yes, and which part of the track was causing the problems? Turn 13. Which is Turn 1 of the OVAL.

:rolleyes:

[Ankf00]

Yes, and which part of the track was causing the problems? Turn 13. Which is Turn 1 of the OVAL.

:rolleyes:

I think what he's trying to say is all ovals are equal, all tracks are equal, and making a tire is a piece of cake no matter what conditions exist... and i'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all prick, but try designing something w/ minimal safety factor on ZERO applicable information, that **** sucks ass and you're probably gonna end up with something completely wrong, it happens, it will almost always happen...

now if Michelin had fair opportunity to test the current surface, my story completely changes, but assuming everything that's out so far is true, this has nothing to do with their enigineers dropping the ball and any condemnation to the contrary comes from ignorance.

[racer2c]

I think what he's trying to say is all ovals are equal, all tracks are equal, and making a tire is a piece of cake no matter what conditions exist... and i'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all prick, but try designing something w/ minimal safety factor on ZERO applicable information, that **** sucks ass and you're probably gonna end up with something completely wrong, it happens, it will almost always happen...

now if Michelin had fair opportunity to test the current surface, my story completely changes, but assuming everything that's out so far is true, this has nothing to do with their enigineers dropping the ball and any condemnation to the contrary comes from ignorance.

Sorry kid, I forgot this is your forum. Keep paddin' your count. :gomer:

[Insomniac]

so they're supposed to pull predictions about that ****ed up track surface out of their asses? :saywhat: oh yea, that's some great design methodology....

I doubt the past 5 years have had multiple tire test cancellations as well...

I'm not saying they should, but I did not hear anyone from Michelin blame the track. I agree there weren't all these cancellations because all was fine, but the end result was Indy diamond ground the oval and that surface was fine.

[Insomniac]

Yes, and which part of the track was causing the problems? Turn 13. Which is Turn 1 of the OVAL.

:rolleyes:

And why was it a problem? It sure wasn't the surface, it was diamond ground. The entire oval was. If you say the problem is the load the banking placed on the tire, then Michelin has no excuse. This is not the first time they ever experienced the load of a banked turn.

[Insomniac]

I think what he's trying to say is all ovals are equal, all tracks are equal, and making a tire is a piece of cake no matter what conditions exist... and i'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all prick, but try designing something w/ minimal safety factor on ZERO applicable information, that **** sucks ass and you're probably gonna end up with something completely wrong, it happens, it will almost always happen...

now if Michelin had fair opportunity to test the current surface, my story completely changes, but assuming everything that's out so far is true, this has nothing to do with their enigineers dropping the ball and any condemnation to the contrary comes from ignorance.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. every track is identical... :rolleyes:

You talk about zero applicable information. Really? The engineers never designed a tire that was going to be used on a banked track? They have no starting point to draw upon? I can certainly agree they didn't have adequate information about the surface, but they didn't go into it with no information. Also, whose fault is it that they didn't design a little more conservative a tire instead of going into it not knowing what they will have? That was a design decision.

You act like Micheln was doing this for the first time and had no idea what they were dealing with. They weren't Igo Sikorsky building a helicopter and trying to fly it. They have been building tires for races for a long long time and they made design decision and assumptions for their tires that were wrong. Especially when they had no data.

[Ankf00]

race distance vs 10 laps isn't just "they were over-aggressive", race distance vs 10 laps is totally F'ed up. they're designing race tires, not commercial equipment, their stuff is supposed to be operating on the very edge, if 10 laps is all they can guarantee instead of race distance alot more went wrong than just "over-aggressiveness"

[Ankf00]

Like I said, Bridgestone didn't have a problem. I guess they use 'murican 'puters instead of furrin Apples. :gomer:
didnt know east coastrs thought cal was foreign land too :D

[racer2c]

didnt know east coastrs thought cal was foreign land too :D

Of course!

[Mark521]

didnt know east coastrs thought cal was foreign land too :D

We consider both CA and TX as foreign land :p

[Insomniac]

Did anyone here what Derek Daly said yesterday? Firestone used the same exact tires they used at last year's Indy 500 and had less wear. Bridgestone did not have or get any information that helped them from Firestone.

[Andrew Longman]

Did anyone here what Derek Daly said yesterday? Firestone used the same exact tires they used at last year's Indy 500 and had less wear. Bridgestone did not have or get any information that helped them from Firestone.

Yes I heard that too. Not sure how cutting grooves in the surface could produce less lateral wear though. Sounds like it could be B/F just giving another kick to Michelin's ribs.

That said, a big difference is that the Firestone is not competing against anyone. Just as in CCWS the Firestone is pretty consistent through the stint and changing tires doesn't produce a big advantage in lap times. The tire could be hard enough that the change in surface had little impact

[Insomniac]

Yes I heard that too. Not sure how cutting grooves in the surface could produce less lateral wear though. Sounds like it could be B/F just giving another kick to Michelin's ribs.

That said, a big difference is that the Firestone is not competing against anyone. Just as in CCWS the Firestone is pretty consistent through the stint and changing tires doesn't produce a big advantage in lap times. The tire could be hard enough that the change in surface had little impact

I agree the ChampCar tires are much more conservative, they extimate if there was a tire war in ChampCar, they would gain a good bit of time, so there is a lot more they could do with the tires. However, my point was, the track surface is even better this year.

At the same time, nothing has come out about the road course surface. I haven't seen any indication of whether the road course surface was repaved and if so, was it also diamond ground. The oval surface was clearly crap until it was diamond ground, so if the road course was paved at the same time, I would expect it to be crap. Which could explain the increased wear that Michelin did not anticipate. Michelin hasn't said much either. They said this yesterday:


The company concluded that the tires taken to Indianapolis were not intrinsically flawed in their construction, but rather “insufficiently suited to the extreme racing conditions encountered through Turn 13 of the Indianapolis circuit this year," due to mistaken calculations by Michelin’s engineers.

That discrepancy was credited to Turn 13’s uniqueness - “the only of its kind in a season of 19 races” according to the French company - and the fact there were no opportunities to test at Indianapolis Motor Speedway this year, in spite of new aerodynamic and tire regulations introduced for this season.

Which isn't much. We now all know turn 13 was easier on tires this year than last, so they really look bad blaming turn 13. They didn't change the banking.

[Insomniac]

It turns out that Michelin is also saying this in e-mails to customers:


“Michelin was not allowed to test on the resurfaced track before the race weekend, and therefore needed to make several assumptions about the surface, the race and its interaction with the tires,” the e-mail stated. “Bridgestone (through its Firestone brand) participated in the Indianapolis 500, which allowed it to experience the new surface ahead of the F1 race.”

Quite a bit of foresight from Al Speyer to say they used the same exact tire as last year and the wear was even less (indicating the surface was even better).