Michelin teams to boycott Indy USGP?

[TC]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

I will agree that all the proposals were major compromises and had their flaws, but the chicane was the most reasonable especially because it has been said that the Michelin teams were willing to give up all the post and give them all to Ferrari just to be able to race for the fans. Obviously this is their position on the matter and if it is true, they would have raced for the fans. Either way they would have zero points but at least the show would have gone on with 20 cars on the grid. .

FIA letter published today seems to indicate that the Michelin teams were not willing to race for no points, or the last 3 points. They wanted all cars slowed equally so that they would have a shot at winning the race.

"At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount."\

Some of the Michelin drivers said that Bridgestone teams should be given the points, but that was not the view of the team principals. Peter Windsor made similar remarks yesterday on Windtunnel - that the Michelin teams wanted the chicane AND no penalty (as in anything that would make them slower than Bridgestone cars).

At least with the chicane which has been reported that all 9 teams inlcuding Bernie Ecclestone were in areement of on Saturday would have saved face for the entire sport. Only Ferrari refused to agree outright, but said they will leave it up too the FIA and abide by their decision. It would not have been outright unfair to the Bridgestone teams since the Michelin teams were willing to forgo all the points to Ferrari and the other Bridgestone teams.

Again, I don't believe that the teams were agreed to put in the chicane and give up the points. They wanted it all - the chicane and a shot to win. Also, the FIA pointed out that they (the FIA themselves) would have serious legal liabilities if they authorized the chicane without following their own rules and processes for changing a track configuration and someone got hurt. Makes sense to me.

While I'm not a Ferrari fan I can understand why they are always on the opposite side of the 9 other teams - everyone is trying to beat them. Many of the rule changes in the past 3 years were made (by/with the FIA) intentially to give other teams a chance to beat Ferrari. Two years ago, the FIA even considered making Ferrari run with balast. Why are all of the top teams except Ferrari on Michelin tires? They figure if Michelin develops an edge in the tires, they will have an edge on Ferrari. If they ran the same tire, then there is no possibility of having an edge (in tires). The 9 other teams all vote to reduce testing, but that would leave Ferrari and two back marker teams to do tire testing versus 7 top-flight and mid-packers. Are those teams being genuine in their interest to reduce cost or find another way to knock Ferrari down a peg? All 7 of the Michelin teams voted against a proposal to give both tire manufacturers equal testing time. Minardi is the only team truly concerned about cost - the other 8 teams are either backed by a company at least as big as Ferrari or owned by billionaires (Red Bull and Jordan).

Maybe you are right that the teams had no options other than to sit out. But I don't see how the FIA and Ferrari can be blamed at all. F1 is the most costly sport on the planet and teams are there to win. Ferrari has taken its lumps this years - to the delight of the competition - and just sucked it up and worked harder. If the Michelin teams, as I understand it, wanted to slow the whole field down and have a race at that point, then they were just being unreasonable.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

Like I said, we have to wait and see if we can figure ou the real truth. Frank Williams and others are stating they all [Michelin teams] agreed to race for no points. Who are we going to believe? We all know both the FIA and the teams spin it in their favor, but I have to think Frank Williams is telling a more correct version of the teams side since of the two possibilities of not racing at all which they did or race for no points, not racing at all makes them all the teams a bigger looser not only points wise but with the public as well. I still find it hard to believe that all teams would favor for the bigger of two evils, especially McLareen who is so close to taking the lead in the WCC and Kimi being so close to catching Alonso. If you are right and the teams were willing to commit political suicide, what would be the reason? It can't be the GPWC since Red Bull and even Sauber was involved in this fiasco. If it were solely the a full points thing like you suggested, surely some of the teams would have backed down and elected to pick up whatever valueable points were left. Minardi and Jordan even running at their full strength is not a garanteed 3rd place, so that means even a podium finish would still be up for grabs. Why would all 7 throw that away just to make a point? This doesn't just effect one race, this could throw away the whole seaons. It just doens't make sense.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

Maybe you are right that the teams had no options other than to sit out. But I don't see how the FIA and Ferrari can be blamed at all. F1 is the most costly sport on the planet and teams are there to win. Ferrari has taken its lumps this years - to the delight of the competition - and just sucked it up and worked harder. If the Michelin teams, as I understand it, wanted to slow the whole field down and have a race at that point, then they were just being unreasonable.

I'm definately not blaming Ferrari. They just walked into a gold mine. If I were them I would take all the advantage I could get from this becaus it literally put them right back in the chase. The FIA I only blame on how they could have saved face for the entire sport. If they compromised, the back lash could have stayed within F1 and the teams. Either way the weekend was screwed for the Michelin teams, so as a face saving geture for the fans, especially those that made the trip to Infy they should have found it within themselves to compromise, maybe bend a rule or two and put on a show for the crowed that showed up. They can always go back the day after and heavily saction and even strip points away from teams like they have done it the past. The real goal should have been to get all 20 cars on the track to race for the fans. Now, technically Ill say it again, the FIA was correct and within their rights and rules, but politically I feel they made the wrong choicce to hold to their guns. Now, everyone looses including tghe FIA and F1. Otherwise they could have saved face and still come down hard with penalties and sanctions on the teams to make a point.

If having a race just to please the fans is not an option, than there is really no argument about this whole race weekend at all. We should just chalk it up to shit happens and move on to the next GP.

 

[fannsx]

Re: Usgp Debacle - A Fan’s View

Are the Michelin teams playing the by the rules and within their rights to withdraw their cars if the cars are unsafe for a race?
Michelin also said that they rather admit mistake than having any of the driver or spectator get hurt.
Maybe everyone did the right thing for their own reasons.

 

[DPG]

Re: Usgp Debacle - A Fan’s View

Other than Bernie Eclestone not allowing the new tires shipped from France to be used, or the teams not wanting to used the tires (whichever it was), there was nothing that he could have done to change the race. He gave them the option to run either through the pit lane or take turn 13 slower for safety. This may seem outragous but to change the track would be an advantage to the michelin runners and a disadvantage to the bridgestone runners. The B-stone runners came prepared and were able to run without fault. The Michelin guys had the choice to run but decided not to. I am sure that there is much more political mumbo jumbo that we don't know but knowing what we know...

P.S. I agree with Ferrari on not agreeing with the chicane! Who would want to agree with a disadavantage to themselves?!? And more importantly it did not matter whether the teams agreed or disagreed, it was completely up to the FIA sanctioning body!!

That is my 2-cents.

 

[slashmatt]

Re: U S G P

Screw that. The tires were found to be bad in practice. The FIA would not allow safe tires to be flown in from France. That's where the scam ends. The only way for the Michelin teams to change tires would be for a few things to happen.

1. They would have had to start their drivers on unsafe tires
2. They would have to come into the pits to change tires
3. Prove the tires were unsafe to drive on while in the pits
4. Prove that the new tires provided NO performance enhancement while in the pits

The rules didn't account for this situation. It is the FIA's fault for not working out the scenario correctly, not Michelin's or any team's or Ferrari's. Bernie Eccelstone always defaults by saying that he has no control over the FIA, just the marketing rights. Well, Bernie, here's a big two finger salute for you.

\nln nln/

 

[ajnsx]

Re: F1 begins to count the cost of its darkest hour

Think positively, more room for super-gt!

 

[svalleynsx]

New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

I'm already hearing the rumor mill churning out ideas of returning the USGP to places like Long Beach and Watkins Glen.

Unfortunately I see little chance of it happening, with FIA's apparent love of "sanitized, ultra-modern tracks", ultra-sophisticated press and guest facilities, garage areas and so forth.

The only 2 tracks that even come remotely close would be 1. Laguna Seca out here in Northern Ca., but unfortunately that is strictly a "counter-clockwise circuit" and couldn't be configured to run "both directions such as Indy Motor Speedway, plus it barely meets the minimum FIA course length of 2.2 miles around, and is just overall too small of a facility to hold something as large as a World Grand Prix event. Otherwise, it's just a beautiful, and unique(corkscrew) track for viewing a race, and all the drivers seem to really enjoy it. :smile:

The 2nd is unfortunately Indy But after what happened this past Sun. I'm not sure if things can ever be what the organizers envisioned or hoped for, and more importantly, whether the fans can ever forgive and forget the travesty they were forced to watch or choose to leave altogether.

Just curious if any members here have any suggestions for an alternate USGP location should Indy fall off the calender? Maybe Watkins Glen? It seems to be making a comeback in the sports car racing scene, but can it support a modern day F1 circus atmosphere?

 

[NSX-Racer]

Re: New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

I heard that Bernie E. wanted to talk with some guys from Las Vegas during the Indy desaster about a track down there (no existing track I guess). I'm pretty sure these guys returned quickly to their gambling machines because the result there is much more predictable than the F 1 circus.

 

[TyraNSX]

Re: New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

Watkins Glen is in the middle of nowhere. No easy highway or air access. Not the ticket for lots of people, transporters, helicopters, celebrities, etc.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Usgp Debacle - A Fan’s View

As an F1 fan that was not there I feel very sorry for those of you that were there. The fans lost out big time, but the longer I think about it can you really blame anyone for a sub par show? For example, if one of the engine builders for the team builds a poor engine and that team has to pull out of the race, would any of us be in the uproar we are right now? What if the NFL football helmet provider says they found a problem with a batch of their helmets and it affects half of one of the football teams playing. Would we be in an uproar when that teams has to play with half its roster?

The unfortunate problem is that Michelin made a mistake with their tire contruction and the tire was not safe, and they provide tires for 7/10th of the field. It's not like they did it intentionally. Let me elaborate on this. When the two Toyota's crashed in practice and they also started to see imminent tire failure on Scott Speeds Red Bull car, that is when they became aware that they might have a problem. Up until then they had no way of knowing they had a poorley designed tire. As far as they knew they are competing with the best product and their teams were among the fastes at the track. Early on during Saturday they did not know the exact cause of the tire failures, so as a precaution they flew in tires for the Barcelona track I believe as a back up. Now, my time line could be off a bit but I will continue. Early Sunday morning I believe Michelin was able to reproduce the tire failure at their test facility/labortory. What they found was that the tire would experience tire separation at the side wall contruction causing tire failure especially at corner 13 at speed particularly because of the heat in the tire which rapidly elevated tire pressure in that corner.

Once they learned that they realized that not only the secondary harder compound tires they had along with the softer compound tires they had for the Indy track were no good, but the tires for the Barcelona track that they flew in as a back up were also no good since it used the same design contruction. Before I continue it is a spin by the FIA when they say the teams and Michelin failed to provide a known safe harder compound tire. They did have a hard compound tire and up until the problems arrose, they believed it was safe. At this point it really didn't matter if Bernie or whomever in a position to make the call let them use the back up tires or not since all the tires they had were prone to the same tire failure even the ones flown in at the last minute. Michelin now realized they desinged and contructed a defective tire that was unsafe to use at the current track.

Upon their test deta, they estimate that at speed, the tires could last 10 laps before imminent tire failure would occur. Another possibility was that a reduced speed probably could keep the heat in the tire low enough and not raise tire pressures high enough to prevent a tire failure thus the chinane proposal. The FIA well within their rights and rules rejected this idea. Okay, so far at least everyone is trying to find a solution right?

The FIA proposed a couple of options. Run at full race speed on all sectors of the track, but for the Michelin teams slow down on turn 13 to what is deemed a safe speed for the tires. This sounds okay at first, but you have to make a few assumptions. One, the drivers will actually slow down, and also what exactly is the safe speed to prevent tire failure? Engineers can guess, but what if they guess wrong? Michelin already made a mistake with their tire contruction, are you willing to trust them when they say XXX speed is safe around corner 13?

Another proposal is that the teams could bypass corner 13 and use the pit lane. Sounds reasonable, but would it really be reasonable to have 14 cars come around turn 11 at nearly 150+ MPH, then slow down to 60 MPH to run through the pit lane, then speed back up to race speed and do that for 69 laps? You can't lift the 60 MPH pit lane speed limit because not all cars pit at the same time, so when cars do pit and teams are working on the cars, is it really safe to have cars racing at speed though the pit lane? That is why there is a pit lane speed limit in the first place.

Another proposal was to change the tires with penalty to a new safe tire. This would have been a good choice but Michelin had no safe tire because all their tires had the same defective side wall contruction. It was a design flaw that they did not catch so they had nothing.

Next proposal is to keep changing the rear tire with no sanctioned penalty, but the penalty will just be frequent pit stops every 10 laps. This again sounds okay at first, but you have to make more assumptions. You have to assume that the 10 safe laps that Michelin predicted is correct. What if they are wrong? What if some of the tires only last 6-7 laps and fails? Who will be held liable for letting a race car race on tires that are known will imminently fail under certain conditions when it still fails because those guessed conditions were wrong? Will Michelin be held liable for potential death and injury because they estimated wrong on how long a defective tire will last? Will the FIA be held responsible because they approved the alternative solution? Will the teams be held responsible because they raced a car knowing full well they had a defective tire? Frank Williams said it best in an interview. Given the information they had, and from past experience with Ayerton Senna, the crash with Ralph Shumacher last year at turn 13 when he was with BMW/Williams, and the crach with Ralph Shumacher at turn 13 with Toyota because of the defective tire, he had no choice but to not race and would not take that kind of risk with his drivers. Would any of us risk it?

Bottom line IMHO is that everyone agrees that Michelin made a mistake and contructed a defective tire that became known to fail under certain conditions. The predicted safe lap times and predicted safe speed is all educated guesses and the tire could last longer or shorter. How irresponsible would it be to still race on that tire period? There was no single alternative that I would have felt fully comfortable with. In other topics I said the chinane with Michelin teams getting no points was the best solutions, but I personally would not put my reputation or legal liability on the line even with that alternative. With all the infornmation we are getting, I too would choose not to race. The criminal liability is just too great if those educated guess were wrong and somthing bad happened because of the tire failure on a known defective product.

The longer we look at this subject the more we see that for all Michelin teams not to race was the only option. All the solutions proposed is just like Firestone saying that we have a defective tire, but the tire only fails when you run too low tire pressure and under certain conditions than tread separation may occur and potentially cause a major accident, serious injury and or death. However, if you keep the tire pressure above a certain level and avoid certain conditions, the tires probably are safe and will not fail. Seriously, would that fly with anyone if Firestone came out with that solution to the Ford SUV Tire problem?

The only exception is if Michelin were full of crap and they did not really believe they had a defective tire contruction. However, two Toyota crashes and tire problems with other teams show that had some sort of problem that causes tires to fail, so I don't think that is the case.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

By the way, I changed my position. The action to not race at all was the only real sensible action to protect everyone involved from potential legal action. Michelin and the FIA shouldn't have even given the teams an option once they found out Michelin admited they had defective tires.

Anyway, I just read this on the F1 forums of possible major punishment for BAR/Honda. Remember they have a suspended 18 month sentence for the under weight car and Imola? The probation means they can't break any more rules or the FIA can elect to impose the rest of the 18 month suspended sentence. That means if for some reason the 7 teams are found guilty of breaking the rules and bringing F1 into disarray is the FIA charges them, they could actually suspend BAR/Honda for the rest of the seaon and even part of next season as well I believe. This is just early talk and really comes down to what happens next Wednesday.

 

[TC]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

From the FIA today - detailing the charges against the 7 Michelin teams:

The “prejudicial acts” listed are:

“-failed to ensure that you had a supply of suitable tires for the race and/or
-wrongfully refused to allow your cars to start the race and/or
-wrongfully refused to allow your cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tires as they had available and/or
-combined with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula 1 by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race and failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race, in breach of Article 131 of the FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations.”

Article 131 mandates that the starting grid will be published four hours prior to the start of a race, and that competitors willing to withdraw from the competition must inform race stewards “no later than 45 minutes” before the start of the race.

So, if the Michelin 7 were truly interested in safety, why didn't they properly withdraw from the event per the rules and regulations? To perform the formation lap and then file into the pits was as much about making a statement as dealing with a safety issue.

There is no doubt that Michelin is at fault - a major screw-up just 2 weeks after the FIA warned them (and Bridgestone) in writing about compromising tire performance for safety. But the Michelin 7 were also lax in their preparations for Indy - sending only 2 cars to the tire test at Indy.

 

[kenjiMR]

Re: New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

Las Vegas Street Race

 

[BladesNSX]

Re: Bar-Honda is a Total Disgrace

I agree, I rather see nore tire manufactures in F1 rather than just two much less a single provider. If we had more tire manufactures, possible only 2-3 teams would have been on Michelin and only those teams would have had to widthdraw from the USGP. If you have a single tire provider and somthing like this come up again there would be no race at all as it would be cancelled.

By the way, I believe Bridgestone would have gotten the deal even without the Michelin fiasco at the USGP if that 1 tire provider rule went into effect.

Yes, I would like to see other tire manufacturers like Pirelli or Dunlops. I know other tire companies just don't have the financial resources to compete in F1; still, it would be nice to see a variety.

I have used Bridgestone Potenzaz on my NSX, coupled with an upgraded suspension system, my car rides like a dream to me. I first purchased the Bridgestone SO2 Pole Positions for my NSX on the front, and was forced to Get the Bridgestone SO3's for the rear since the SO2's were no longer in stock. Long story short, I changed my rear tires three times (Due to previously bad suspension set up), yet those front tires lasted for almost 50K miles before I had to replace them. I've already put a good 15k miles on my rear tires and they still ride like a dream.

 

[BladesNSX]

Re: F1 begins to count the cost of its darkest hour

In other posts, it was argued who is to blame. Then it was argued, what if any compramises could have been made and what was acceptable. In the end, the Blame lands squarely on Michelin's shoulders. None of the compramises would have worked as it would have been unfair for one party or the other; or, it would have led to a safety/liability issue that the teams, FIA, F1 association would not commit to.

It's very sad as F1 will take a hard hit in the US market. I really wonder if there will be an INDY race with F1 next year.

 

[BladesNSX]

Re: New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

It's too bad the ubsurd love affair with NASCAR or stockcar racing has taking such a foothold in the states.

Think about it! We can't even come up, in all of this very large country, a single large decent track that can accomodate an F1 race. How many Oval tracks do we have though?! That was sort of a rhetorical question but now I am curious. What is the Oval to GT course tracks ratio in America?

 

[BladesNSX]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

By the way, I changed my position. The action to not race at all was the only real sensible action to protect everyone involved from potential legal action. Michelin and the FIA shouldn't have even given the teams an option once they found out Michelin admited they had defective tires.

Anyway, I just read this on the F1 forums of possible major punishment for BAR/Honda. Remember they have a suspended 18 month sentence for the under weight car and Imola? The probation means they can't break any more rules or the FIA can elect to impose the rest of the 18 month suspended sentence. That means if for some reason the 7 teams are found guilty of breaking the rules and bringing F1 into disarray is the FIA charges them, they could actually suspend BAR/Honda for the rest of the seaon and even part of next season as well I believe. This is just early talk and really comes down to what happens next Wednesday.

I truly hope that isn't the case. This will be a major blow against our Honda Team. I don't think it would be a fair ruling. I think there was a bit of manipulation involved that convinced the teams to all go out on the starting grid for the parade lap. There must have been so much confusion going on wiht some teams planning on pulling out, other teams waiting for a chicane, or some mandate of how they are to race without compromising tire safety, or even perhaps teams that were waiting to see what other teams were doing.

I hope BAR-Honda will be able to defend themselves in this one. It would be nice to see them race again. It would be a shame to suspend what is clearly a competative team from the rest of the season.

 

[svalleynsx]

Re: New venue for USGP after Indy disgrace?

Las Vegas Street Race

That is sort of my gut feeling the trend F1 is taking these days, but hopefully it won't be another "parking lot" course "a la" the Cesar's Palace "mickey mouse" circuit they ran on in the early '80's :frown:

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

F
So, if the Michelin 7 were truly interested in safety, why didn't they properly withdraw from the event per the rules and regulations? To perform the formation lap and then file into the pits was as much about making a statement as dealing with a safety issue.

There is no doubt that Michelin is at fault - a major screw-up just 2 weeks after the FIA warned them (and Bridgestone) in writing about compromising tire performance for safety. But the Michelin 7 were also lax in their preparations for Indy - sending only 2 cars to the tire test at Indy.

I believe it all has to to with protecting their own interests. I'm not sure if it was Bernie protecting himself or the teams protecting themselves. As I mentioned above, I now believe the teams should not have had any option to race at all once they knew they had defective tires. However, up until about 5 minutes before the start of the race they said they were still trying to broker a deal to race. I think that was a mistake, but that explains why they didn't pull out long before since they were trying to race. At least that is what they say. Anyway, there is a $250,000 fine for any team that doesn't show up and race at a GP unless they were not allowed to race as was the case with the 2 race ban BAR got early this season. One reason why they may have come out on the starting grid could be so they don't aquire that $250,000 fine. Another reason could because Bernie Ecclestone has a contractual comitment to his sponsors to garantee a minimum of 14 cars (Some say it is 20) at the start of the GP. The formation lap or parade/warm up lap counts as 1 official lap, so by the teams doing that one warn up/parade lap the officially completed 1 sanctioned USGP lap and thus Bernie can say he fulflled his conctactual comitment to have 20 cars start the GP. Thenafter any team can withdraw from any race for safety reasons, or any reason for that matter. If you withdraw for safety reasons though you don't aquire and penalties for the next GP. If you retire just to retire, you can aquire penalties for the next GP. Probably poor qualifying position, or 10 spot penalty. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

I truly hope that isn't the case. This will be a major blow against our Honda Team. I don't think it would be a fair ruling. I think there was a bit of manipulation involved that convinced the teams to all go out on the starting grid for the parade lap. There must have been so much confusion going on wiht some teams planning on pulling out, other teams waiting for a chicane, or some mandate of how they are to race without compromising tire safety, or even perhaps teams that were waiting to see what other teams were doing.

I hope BAR-Honda will be able to defend themselves in this one. It would be nice to see them race again. It would be a shame to suspend what is clearly a competative team from the rest of the season.

Truthfully, unless we are all being lied to and Michelin was full of crap and actually had good tires that they could have used, I can't see them coming down on the teams too hard if at all. Michelin on the other hand even if it was an accident and unintentional to have defective tires will receive a heavy hand. Who knows what the FIA could do? Not only fine Michelin but maybe even ban them from F1 for a few years?

Now, if the FIA does get their way and win the case agaist the 7 teams, it could be big trouble for all of them. An all out ban would not work otherwise you would have 6 cars racing at the next few GPs again or until the ban is over. Forcing the teams to use Briedgestone tires by banning Michelin for the rest of the seaon wont work either. Some talks were simply heavy fines this year and loss of championship points. Now, if Renault and McLaren is forced to give up earned points that could put Ferrai in first place, but surely a solid 2nd in the contructors and Micheal Shumacher will also jump into 2nd for the drivers points as he is only 3 points behind Kimi in 3rd. Basically, a points penalty would really hurt McLaren and Renaults championship efforts and the next closest teams (Toyota and Williams tied for 4th) would fall a good deal behind. Talk about conspiracy theories if that were to happen

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Michelin teams to boycott Indy?

But the Michelin 7 were also lax in their preparations for Indy - sending only 2 cars to the tire test at Indy.

Fortunately for us BAR/Honda fans Anthony Davidson was one of the two drivers, so if they (FIA) tries to use that against the 7 BAR/Honda could say in their defence that they did their fair part :biggrin: Interestingly as well, BAR and Williams were two teams that did not feel the had a tire problem and were prepared to race, as is, but they had to trust Michelin that there was indeed a tire problem. Maybe one reason why BAR/Honda did not have a problem was because they were one of the Michelin test cars? Toyota on the other hand that had the most trouble with the tires has been reported/said to be running a very low tire pressure and less wing. That is why they were fast on the high speed straight (Fastest top speed I believe) and still very close to the others on the in field. It has been said they used a low tire pressue to increase mechanical grip. Renault also uses a similar set up I think and I beieve Renault also had signs of tire trouble as well as Red Bull. Williams also said they did not have tire trouble. I wonder who the other Michelin test driver wa? Could he have been from Williams? I'll have to look that up.

 

[mdb]

Very good piece about what really happened from Minardi:

F1Racinglive.com

 

[NSXrebel]

Looks like the teams are being blamed and not Michelin

dont know what they are thinking at FIA


http://msn.foxsports.com/motor/story/3706544

 

[RACERnsX]

Hope this doesn't violate any copyright laws but I just couldn't resist!