San Marino

[AndyO]

It's time to get a first place or the season is over.
Cannot afford to let Ferrari get any further ahead.
3 weeks since last race, back on the European continent.
Let's finish1,2!!!!!

[diggin02s]

Steven
1990 M5
2000 Land Rover DII

[DLS]

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

[AC]

[Jim Derrig 93 750]

The season is over.

The superiority Ferrari established last year on low and medium downforce tracks has carried forward this year with a vengence. While Michelin was able to establish a temporary edge in mechanical grip last year and that edge carried Williams and Renault to wins on high downforce tracks, the FIA rules "clarification" after Hungry put Ferraristone back in the drivers seat, and 2 of the 3 remaining races were on low-to-mid downforce tracks anyway.

This year, the first 5 (!!!) races are on tracks favoring the Ferraristone edge. We won't know until Monaco whether Michelin still has an edge at the narrow, high downforce tracks in Europe. However, with Bahrain added and Spa back, the faster tracks now are predominant on the schedule. Therefore, absent some sort of incredible leap by Michelin this season is already over.

I am tired of tyers. I'm tired of boardroom deals struck by guys in suits dictating race results. Let's get rid of the Ferraristone marriage and identify a single tire supplier for the season. All teams to receive identical tires and tire data--no playing favorites. Then maybe we'll see some racing.

[Hans Stuck]

[DLS]

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

[AC]

sounds sporting.<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

[Hans Stuck]

like AC said, changing the rules is not the key. Maybe cut back on testing or something to try and stem Ferrari's massive budget.

[DLS]

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

[Jim Derrig 93 750]

. . . and are changed all the time, so I see nothing "unsporting" about changing one which Ferrari has manipulated into giving it an exclusive advantage which cannot be matched by its competitors.

Hypothetical: Bridgestone patents a new, clearly superior tire design, and will only supply the new design to Ferrari. Because of the patent, Michelin cannot copy the design. How would allowing Bridgestone to exercise such monopoly power in F1 be "sporting"? Would we really need to have Bridgestone prove the design's superiority 17 times a year, every year, or should we just change the rule?

The present situation is not so extreme, but the Ferraristone marriage certainly gives that team a definite advantage. This advantage is chiefly an economic one, dictated by boardroom deals, not engineering excellence. Short of Michelin dogging all of its teams but one, there is no way to compete with it. Rules which allow this sort of economic manipulation are not "sporting" but defective and should be changed.

[Jim Derrig 93 750]

are you talking about that would be lost? I wasn't aware that Bridgestone or Michelin was kicking any $ into the F1 kitty, or to any team, short of supplying tires and spending millions on "free" R&D.

Even if they are, the amount of TV and ticket $$ which will be lost if the season is over after 9 races will overwhelm anything the tire mfg's might be paying to anyone.

Will it be economically viable for Bernie E to buy out the time remaining on either Bridgestone's or Michelin's contract and then to amend the rules to make sure the remaining supplier plays no favorites. I wouldn't be surprised.

[AC]

in the case you mention Michelin having a tire that does not conform to the dimetions clearly stated in the rules, is.

Sure rules can be changed but they should never be changed to make teams that are lagging, artificially competitive.<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

[Jim Derrig 93 750]

the "artificial" aspect is FERRARISTONE, not the poor suckers who are foreclosed from ever having such a relationship with a tire manufacturer. Ferrari has an artificial advantage created by the boardroom deal they struck with Bridgestone.

I'll try the airplane analogy: suppose a bunch of fuselage manufacturers are competing to build the the best plane. One manufacturer gets to "marry" a wing supplier, and develops its fuselage jointly with that supplier. NO OTHER TEAM IS ALLOWED THIS ADVANTAGE. All the others develop a fuselage and, a few weeks before the race season, they get handed a wing and have to make do the best they can at mating it to their fuselage.

[Yes, I know that Michelin works with the other teams but it has to work with them ALL and thus can't tailor the tire like Ferraristone can]

Now could you explain to me why the latter teams are "lagging"? My point always has been that no team can be expected to compete, on a consistent basis, with another team that has its own, personal tire manufacturer, and who can thereby develop tires tuned specifically to their car.

I find nothing interesting about such an advantage. It is dictated by lawyers and economics and it is no more "sport" than watching Mircosoft's antitrust manuevers. If you're a Ferrari fan or have an axe to grind with BMW, Mercedes, etc, it might be emotionally satisfying. Sort of like watching Shaquille O'Neal join you're alma mater high school's team for the sole purpose of pounding a cross town rival by 100 points. For someone actually interested in good, competitive basketball, however, that would be a crashing bore. Ditto for the current F1 situation.

Having said all this, I'll admit that Michelin could copy Ferraristone and create, say, "Michewilliams" or "Michenault", thus turning F1 forever into a two-team series. Still a yawn, still not "sporting" and still not "fair."

[Mr. Snake]

[AC]

Ferrari went with Bridgestone as did Sauber Jordan and Minardi. You really expect a company like Bridgestone to optimize their tires for Minardi?

How is Michelin making Williams specific tires any different? In fact, how is this concept a problem at all, for goddsake, only Mclaren have Mercedes engines, only Williams have BMW engines, you are not complaining about that!

Sure Ferrari's close relationship with Bridgestone is an advantage as is having the best drivers, manufacture, engineers, team manager etc.etc. That's what makes an F1 team.

I don't see a problem here (for the top teams)<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

[Jim Derrig 93 750]

You apparently concede, finally, that Ferraristone has an advantage. You say it is "part of F1" which is perfectly circular. The discussion is over whether is SHOULD be part of F1. Simply stating your conclusion is not reasoned argument.

Tires are different than the other components you speak of because there are only two tire manufacturers. There are many engine mfgs, drivers, chassis designers, pit bosses, etc. But for tires, only two choices. And one "choice" is not a choice because if a team other than Ferrari choses Bridgestone, it will be snubbed/ignored.

You put the cart before the horse. It isn't a situation where Bridgestone had only 4 teams to chose from like they do this year, with Ferrari being the only sensible one to concentrate on. Bridgestone had McLaren and told them to kiss off because they were going to concentrate on Ferrari. They've also chased off BAR. There is no worthwhile team other than Ferrari on the Bridgestone side because that is the way Ferraristone WANTS it. They WANT it that way because it gives them a defacto edge--Michelin has finite resources and cannot possible devote the same attention to 3 or 4 teams which Bridgestone need only give to a single team.

If there were only two engine manufacturers in F1, then I WOULD be complaining if one mfg supplied only a single team and thus had the advantage of being able to design specifically for one car. It would result in a de facto economic edge for that one team which the others would not be able to consistently overcome. Nor could the second engine manufacturer be expected to devote the incredible resources which would be necessary to design a special engine for each of the remaining teams.

If Michelin decided to form Michelaren or Michenault to combat Ferraristone then I would be bitching just as loud. A two-team series based on defacto economic and supply constraints would be just as stupid as the single team series we have now.

Well, at least the race for second place in the WMC will be tight. Funny how close it gets when you put all the teams on the same tires . . .

[Mr. Snake]

[DLS]

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

[DLS]

season? Where Michelin & Williams & McLaren seemingly had the tire thing down stone-cold? And yet Ferrari squeaked by, on talent & reliability & persistence?

Your argument is flaccid & facile at best--sorry. The advantage is a morphous, changing thing. Don't penalize success, else, when the team YOU like is successful, your words come back to haunt you.

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">