More signs of the FIA's genius
freakray
10-28-2005, 08:31 PM
Have a read about the 'new' tire rule:
http://f1.racing-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/051028100040.shtml
I can only imagine which team will benefit the most from this and which teams won't..... :rolleyes:
http://f1.racing-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/051028100040.shtml
I can only imagine which team will benefit the most from this and which teams won't..... :rolleyes:
RallyRaider
10-29-2005, 06:48 PM
It is all Michelin's fault. How dare anybody do a better job than Ferrari/Bridgestone. Renault and McLaren were fortunate they were able to use their advantage for a whole season this time.
Five more years of FIA engineered Ferrari domination will keep Max happy (and the dollars flowing under the table no doubt).
Five more years of FIA engineered Ferrari domination will keep Max happy (and the dollars flowing under the table no doubt).
freakray
10-29-2005, 09:23 PM
I can't believe the statement made by Mosley today to the press:
Michelin are clearly confused
No doubt we all are confused, why wouldn't we be when they continually change the rules.
Michelin are clearly confused
No doubt we all are confused, why wouldn't we be when they continually change the rules.
Jimster
10-30-2005, 11:12 PM
If Michellin and the Michellin clad teams can not make as good of a short distance tyre and car as Bridgestone and Ferrari (respectively) then how is that Ferraris problem? The one tyre rule was a load of crap from the onset and I'm gald to see it gone.
RallyRaider
10-31-2005, 02:48 AM
If Michellin and the Michellin clad teams can not make as good of a short distance tyre and car as Bridgestone and Ferrari (respectively) then how is that Ferraris problem?
Well it ain't anymore. That is the difference, if Ferrari can't do what you described they don't need to up their game. They have the FIA in their pocket and only need to wait for the playing field to be altered back to their favour. They have it made on so many levels, lucky sods!
This is just another in a long line of backflips by Max Mosely (the fact they usually seem to be in the best interests of one team in particular is just an added mystery). The man is a synonym for inconsistency, hypocrisy and self serving, power hungry, pig headedness. Why has he, Bernie and the FIA made so many changes to a system that wasn't broken to start with? They have made hundreds of changes to F1 in the last decade or so and I honestly can't think of one that has been an improvement. Most of them were clearly doomed to fail right from the start, yet somehow the people in charge couldn't see what every long-term F1 fan could. If they had any intelligence you'd expect they would have figured that out by now.
In terms of the tyre issue we're discussing here in particular. There are clear reasons why the backflip has happened. To punish Michelin for Indy 2005 and stop the biggest money spinning team being at a disadvantage. Vindictive, unfair and entirely unprofessional. Bernie and Max have ruined every form of Motorsport pie they have stuck their greedy fingers in. WRC is a joke compared to what it once was, F1 now simply a cash cow. The worst part is some people out there actually believe that Bernie Ecclestone "created" F1. Bullshit. It existed long before he bought the once great Brabham name and turned it into a team of cheats. When that ran its course he simply expanded the marketing of an existing concept, turned it into an easily digestible "product" and bled it dry. It is so wrong that he should profit so massively by destroying something that was once so great. That's the way of the modern commercial world...
Well it ain't anymore. That is the difference, if Ferrari can't do what you described they don't need to up their game. They have the FIA in their pocket and only need to wait for the playing field to be altered back to their favour. They have it made on so many levels, lucky sods!
This is just another in a long line of backflips by Max Mosely (the fact they usually seem to be in the best interests of one team in particular is just an added mystery). The man is a synonym for inconsistency, hypocrisy and self serving, power hungry, pig headedness. Why has he, Bernie and the FIA made so many changes to a system that wasn't broken to start with? They have made hundreds of changes to F1 in the last decade or so and I honestly can't think of one that has been an improvement. Most of them were clearly doomed to fail right from the start, yet somehow the people in charge couldn't see what every long-term F1 fan could. If they had any intelligence you'd expect they would have figured that out by now.
In terms of the tyre issue we're discussing here in particular. There are clear reasons why the backflip has happened. To punish Michelin for Indy 2005 and stop the biggest money spinning team being at a disadvantage. Vindictive, unfair and entirely unprofessional. Bernie and Max have ruined every form of Motorsport pie they have stuck their greedy fingers in. WRC is a joke compared to what it once was, F1 now simply a cash cow. The worst part is some people out there actually believe that Bernie Ecclestone "created" F1. Bullshit. It existed long before he bought the once great Brabham name and turned it into a team of cheats. When that ran its course he simply expanded the marketing of an existing concept, turned it into an easily digestible "product" and bled it dry. It is so wrong that he should profit so massively by destroying something that was once so great. That's the way of the modern commercial world...
freakray
10-31-2005, 08:24 PM
If Michellin and the Michellin clad teams can not make as good of a short distance tyre and car as Bridgestone and Ferrari (respectively) then how is that Ferraris problem? The one tyre rule was a load of crap from the onset and I'm gald to see it gone.
In retrospect, why should it be the Michelin clad teams problem if Ferrari and Bridgestone can't make a long distance package that can be competitive?
In your own post Jim, you admit who the greatest benefactors are of the rule change.
I am not so concerned as to whom the benefactors are as to why the heck do they keep playing with the rules as if it's a case of flicking a light switch on and off?
If you look back in the forum, we all disliked the one tire rule, but to bring it in for one season is ridiculous, it's cost the teams more in development than it saved by only having it for one season. There is no way there was any cost rewards in one year as that one year is when all the development took place, teams would only have started saving money due to the rule some time next season.
Instead, they have to go back a step and develop the cars back to what they were designed to run regarding tires a year ago.
In retrospect, why should it be the Michelin clad teams problem if Ferrari and Bridgestone can't make a long distance package that can be competitive?
In your own post Jim, you admit who the greatest benefactors are of the rule change.
I am not so concerned as to whom the benefactors are as to why the heck do they keep playing with the rules as if it's a case of flicking a light switch on and off?
If you look back in the forum, we all disliked the one tire rule, but to bring it in for one season is ridiculous, it's cost the teams more in development than it saved by only having it for one season. There is no way there was any cost rewards in one year as that one year is when all the development took place, teams would only have started saving money due to the rule some time next season.
Instead, they have to go back a step and develop the cars back to what they were designed to run regarding tires a year ago.
Lamboholic
01-04-2006, 11:04 AM
"The man is a synonym for inconsistency, hypocrisy and self serving, power hungry, pig headedness."
Best quote I've ever made sofar :grinyes: :smokin:
Best quote I've ever made sofar :grinyes: :smokin:
drdisque
01-06-2006, 05:52 PM
the rule clearly didn't work, keeping it would've been viewed as just as "pig-headed"
I think its best to get rid of rules that didn't work and just move on.
C'mon people, was the racing that bad in the 80's and early 90's with just one tire provider? No, it was the second golden age of F1.
I think its best to get rid of rules that didn't work and just move on.
C'mon people, was the racing that bad in the 80's and early 90's with just one tire provider? No, it was the second golden age of F1.
RallyRaider
01-06-2006, 10:03 PM
the rule clearly didn't work, keeping it would've been viewed as just as "pig-headed"
How can you say it didn't work? What was it for? I understand it was to save money by reducing the number of tyres shipped out each weekend and to slow the cars by requiring harder, less grippy rubber. Worked on both counts as far as I can see. Was still a stupid rule, as we all said this time last year. Only thing stupider is to abandon it now, wasting all the time and money spent on research and raising those lateral acceleration speeds at the same time. We all know why the change back to tyre stops happened, don't kid yourselves.
I think its best to get rid of rules that didn't work and just move on.
Like the qualifying mess, grooved tyres, stupid looking narrow track, bizzarro aerodynamic restrictions based more on advertising space than anything else, over restrictive engine regs, unenforceable software limits, those dumb little cameras on the roll over hoops, blah, blah, blah. Why not do away with that lot?
C'mon people, was the racing that bad in the 80's and early 90's with just one tire provider? No, it was the second golden age of F1.
If you thing the eighties and early nineties only had one tyre supplier then you were not paying attention. :) The difference is the timing of the changes and the turnaround of several interested (fair enough) and supposedly impartial (aka Max) parties. In isolation it is no big deal; as a part of the big picture it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
How can you say it didn't work? What was it for? I understand it was to save money by reducing the number of tyres shipped out each weekend and to slow the cars by requiring harder, less grippy rubber. Worked on both counts as far as I can see. Was still a stupid rule, as we all said this time last year. Only thing stupider is to abandon it now, wasting all the time and money spent on research and raising those lateral acceleration speeds at the same time. We all know why the change back to tyre stops happened, don't kid yourselves.
I think its best to get rid of rules that didn't work and just move on.
Like the qualifying mess, grooved tyres, stupid looking narrow track, bizzarro aerodynamic restrictions based more on advertising space than anything else, over restrictive engine regs, unenforceable software limits, those dumb little cameras on the roll over hoops, blah, blah, blah. Why not do away with that lot?
C'mon people, was the racing that bad in the 80's and early 90's with just one tire provider? No, it was the second golden age of F1.
If you thing the eighties and early nineties only had one tyre supplier then you were not paying attention. :) The difference is the timing of the changes and the turnaround of several interested (fair enough) and supposedly impartial (aka Max) parties. In isolation it is no big deal; as a part of the big picture it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025