Mosley Warns GPDA

[tintop]

FIA president Max Mosley has warned the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) against any further attempts to get involved in circuit safety..."Safety has become far too technical for anyone but the specialists," wrote Mosley.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56071

Driver input issst no longer needed.

What an ass. How can such a pompous dinosaur still maintain such a position of prominence.


Typo - "warns" GPDA

[harsha]

who the hell are driving the cars :?: ,don't the persons driving the cars have a more interest in safety :?:

[TOgoFASTER]

Bernie and Max are still the Mafia.
Only Tilke knows safety. :rolleyes:

[tintop]

who the hell are driving the cars :?: ,don't the persons driving the cars have a more interest in safety :?:


I've always suspected that Max has been influenced by his own failures as a silver spoon driver. Driver input has been an element in the majority of safety regulations throughout motor racing history, his assertion that safety is too technical for "them", probably says more about his inadequacies as a analytic racer than anything else.

Probably gets it from his dad.

[555-04Q2]

Max is an idiot. What about rally drivers hurtling down a forest road at 200 km/h with trees flying past them :?: Is that safe :?:

Max is a $#%^&*@ idiot :down:

[ozrevhead]

agreed

it the drivers he needs to listen to - they put their life on the line to keep his F1 empire as successful as it is now

[millencolin]

mosley = assface

the drivers are the ones going over 300km/h, i think they should be very much involved in safety, if not the most important voice in track safety improvement

[Erki]

If it were up to the drivers, they would race on huge car park with acres of paved runoff.

[ArrowsFA1]

Max is an idiot. What about rally drivers hurtling down a forest road at 200 km/h with trees flying past them :?: Is that safe :?:

Max is a $#%^&*@ idiot :down:
To be fair, MM was racing in the same race as Jim Clark on the day the Scot was killed at Hockenheim, so he does speak with some authority as a driver.

[555-04Q2]

To be fair, MM was racing in the same race as Jim Clark on the day the Scot was killed at Hockenheim, so he does speak with some authority as a driver.

Maybe so, but he is still a you know who ;)

[555-04Q2]

P.S. If people want to be super safe, become a doctor and not a racecar driver ;)

[Dazz9908]

This from the same man, who gave us Groved tyres, narrow track cars.
Mutli- pitstops (Dangerous for pit crews).

He should look at himself before criticising overs!!!!!!!!!!!!
Better still he should just shut and Leave all together!!!!!

[Dave B]

Max is correct in so far as to say the drivers don't necessarily know all the technical aspects of circuit design and safety equipment.

But to imply that they should effectively mind their own business and not consider the safety of their competitors, the marshals, spectators and not least themselves - well that beggars belief.

[courageous]

If it were up to the drivers, they would race on huge car park with acres of paved runoff.


Not at all, it is quite common to hear them complain when a challenging (ie dangerous) corner is changed.
Its not like F1 drivers NEED to do it to earn a living, if they wanted to drive in absolute safety they wouldn't be in motor racing.

Danger=Challenge=Adreneline, they just don't want to actually die.

In any industry Health & Safety (should) takes on board the opinions of those at risk.

[TOgoFASTER]

To be fair, MM was racing in the same race as Jim Clark on the day the Scot was killed at Hockenheim, so he does speak with some authority as a driver.

What, in the same way he understands what it means to be a team owner in modern F1 from his failed term as a team principle? :)
Just being there couldn't mean less.
I don't remember him leading the charge for safety during those horrible years as a driver nor owner. That was left for those with balls that risked their very driving careers to do just that off track while their friends kept dying on track. Buck the powers that did little at all if anything to even remotely look at safety and made them change. That is where, when and why the GPDA was born.
Max's years in power shadow those stagnate negligent b-----ds to be as fair as it gets. His condescending attitude to those that do have an inside understanding and value that isn't the same as his remains a sign of an unintelligent man in one way or another with a misplaced superiority complex at best.

[ArrowsFA1]

March were hardly a failure. Their success in almost every series they attempted to compete in does not make MM a failure as he was there from the start.

However, I'm not here to defend his record, but just to provide a little perspective.

It can be very easy to criticise someone in his position. His predecessor, Jean-Marie Balestre was perhaps even more controversial :eek: :p

[trumperZ06]

March were hardly a failure. Their success in almost every series they attempted to compete in does not make MM a failure as he was there from the start.

However, I'm not here to defend his record, but just to provide a little perspective.

It can be very easy to criticise someone in his position. His predecessor, Jean-Marie Balestre was perhaps even more controversial :eek: :p

;) Mad Max is trying to make Balastre look good !

:dozey: After last year's FIAsico at Indy... Mad Max...

DAMN NEAR suceeded too !

:s mokin:

[jso1985]

He's right in the point that drivers surely doesn't know the technical part of safety, but they the ones who drive tha cars anyway so I don't see why they shouldn't have a say when it comes to safety, I usually defend Mosley with some "controversial" stuff he does but now he's behaving like an ass :s

[TOgoFASTER]

I just added balance to your perspective. And March did far better without him.

[Mikeall]

If the drivers do genuinely have their figures wrong then they need to be told. I don't want to insult any of you but some of you seem to have read the headline created a story in your head and posted a comment. To be honest I recokon all thats happened so far is there's been some emails, some meetings within the sides of the debate, not between, and most of all some interviews with the press. It's not even worth worrying about...

[tintop]

Good drivers can subsume all of the collective changes in car/tire/track design and tell when a particular corner becomes more lethal than challenging, no amount of telemetry and modeling in the world can give you that. Max never earned a ride and never drove 10/10ths so his input as a driver has always been worthless. I assume that that is the origin of his scorn. Not to detract from his obvious success as a manager and series administrator, but his in-car credentials are nil, and his angry old man act is tiresome.

[janneppi]

Max is absolutely right saying that there needs to be only one authority, GPDA can suggest things, but not decide. If the drivers can't handle a corner, perhaps they should ease off the throttle.

[555-04Q2]

After last year's FIAsico at Indy... Mad Max...


As much as I dislike Mad Max, Michellin were the only ones to blame for the Indy Fiasco. All the other cr@p that followed was only a consequence of their failings as a supplier :down:

[ArrowsFA1]

Does anyone know if the GPDA has a presence within the FIA? They should at least have a seat on one of the various commissions that discuss F1.

[555-04Q2]

Dont know ArrowsFA1, but I doubt it very much. Would be interesting to know, wouldnt it :?: Wonder how to condust a search for something like that on Google :(

[tintop]

Max is absolutely right saying that there needs to be only one authority, GPDA can suggest things, but not decide. If the drivers can't handle a corner, perhaps they should ease off the throttle.

There is more to safety than cornering speeds. To exclude driver input from the safety process is unwise and pretentious IMO.

[janneppi]

There is more to safety than cornering speeds. To exclude driver input from the safety process is unwise and pretentious IMO.
But Mosley isn't exluding drivers from the safety process, he doesn't want them to blackmail race organizers to to cater for all their little demands, he already has that covered. ;)

As he is quoted saying in that article: "We will always listen to drivers, but the decisions must be ours."

[tintop]

Mosley: "We will always listen to drivers, but the decisions must be ours."


Kind of like he'll "take it under advisement" He clearly indicated that their input was no longer useful given the advanced technical nature of Autocross. Given this admitted prejudice, I doubt he "listens" very well. Clearly there should be a balance between the FIA and the drivers, perhaps there is a mechanism for that (as someone questioned earlier) but it seems unlikely given the article in question.

[janneppi]

Do you then suggest that GPDA should have veto on all safety related issues?

[trumperZ06]

As much as I dislike Mad Max, Michellin were the only ones to blame for the Indy Fiasco. All the other cr@p that followed was only a consequence of their failings as a supplier :down:

:rolleyes: Hhmmm... I guess you were not here to witness the absolute stupidity that Mad Max orchestrated, to the chagrim of over 100,000 plus fans who paid for & expected to see a RACE !!!

:dozey: Options were available to... "put on a SHOW", but Mad Max refused to even contemplate any of the alternatives offered.

To most of the American public who attended the FIAsco... that will be Mosey's legacy !

:s mokin:

[tintop]

Do you then suggest that GPDA should have veto on all safety related issues?

Don't know. I do suggest that they have some meaningful representation in the safety process. I also think that technological advances don't render driver input useless, like Max implies. His real fight is about maintaining absolute power, not the efficacy of driver input (see family history).

As an amateur racer, an amateur race series administrator and a professional crew chief, I have always valued racers' opinions as they pertain to safety. They, after all, are the whiners ot there risking their lives.

[sonic_roadhog]

Max is a fool. The modern GPDA came into being during the terrible weekend at Imola 1994. In the following races GPDA suggestions were implemented at seveal tracks installing temporary tyre chicanes etc. I'm not suggesting drivers suggestions are always the best, sometimes downright stupid but to ignore the thoughts of the guys out there doing it starts us down the slippery path that led to the deaths of '94.

Sonic

[wedge]

The GPDA has arguably done more harm than good.

Not that I dislike the GPDA entirely, there are some aspects and agendas that I completely disagree on.

The GPDA demands that a circuit should be free of bumps, kerbs should be flattened and widened.

There was the Hungarian GP a couple of years ago with an incident with a high kerb. Its there to slow a the cars down a provide a unique challenge to that corner. But what do the drivers do? They complain and moan, drive the car completely over the limit, damage their cars on purpose just to prove their point and threaten not to race if that kerb was not flattened!

I share Martin Brundle's opinions that high kerbs and bumps are there to serve a purpose, to pose a challenge to the driver, the same way in street/oval racing you pay the price for making a mistake.

Regards, to Monza, I again completely agree with Brundles' opinion. Afterall he was the first of the GPDA directors when it was revived in '94, and goes round the circuits with a casual inspection and found nothing wrong with Monza.

Also, lets not forget that Monza is on a tightrope. It cannot afford to enlarge the run-off areas because that means chopping down trees. The circuit officials are not allowed to do this because of the environmentalists.

[ShiftingGears]

The GPDA has arguably done more harm than good.

Not that I dislike the GPDA entirely, there are some aspects and agendas that I completely disagree on.

The GPDA demands that a circuit should be free of bumps, kerbs should be flattened and widened.

There was the Hungarian GP a couple of years ago with an incident with a high kerb. Its there to slow a the cars down a provide a unique challenge to that corner. But what do the drivers do? They complain and moan, drive the car completely over the limit, damage their cars on purpose just to prove their point and threaten not to race if that kerb was not flattened!

I share Martin Brundle's opinions that high kerbs and bumps are there to serve a purpose, to pose a challenge to the driver, the same way in street/oval racing you pay the price for making a mistake.

Regards, to Monza, I again completely agree with Brundles' opinion. Afterall he was the first of the GPDA directors when it was revived in '94, and goes round the circuits with a casual inspection and found nothing wrong with Monza.

Also, lets not forget that Monza is on a tightrope. It cannot afford to enlarge the run-off areas because that means chopping down trees. The circuit officials are not allowed to do this because of the environmentalists.

Agreed.

[555-04Q2]

:rolleyes: Hhmmm... I guess you were not here to witness the absolute stupidity that Mad Max orchestrated, to the chagrim of over 100,000 plus fans who paid for & expected to see a RACE !!!

:dozey: Options were available to... "put on a SHOW", but Mad Max refused to even contemplate any of the alternatives offered.

To most of the American public who attended the FIAsco... that will be Mosey's legacy !

:s mokin:

Michellin were at fault, period, not Mad Max ( who I dislike immensly as you know ).

Thats like blaming the referee at a soccer match for the playing teams not arriving with their soccer kit.

C'mon, Michellin c@cked up and the live American fans and TV fans worldwide were robbed thanks to an over ambitious Michellin tyre compound for turn 13.

There were alternatives, yes, but they had not been simulated and hence safety was compromised. In a country like America where you sue each other for the fun of it, imagine a spectator getting killed after an accident after the track was altered and compromised safety standards. The family of the deceased would have had a field day.

[Mikeall]

Or if a marshall was injured moving a car that was at a chicane that shouldn't be there.

[jso1985]

wedge has a valid point, the GPDA hasn't really done much good for the sport.
The FIA surely makes stupid mistakes but when it comes to safety, people who knows about it should have the final say, drivers and other involved should only have an opinion

[trumperZ06]

;) Agree that the driver's association hasn't done much...

but they should still have some imput regarding safety issues.

Mad Max has played the "Safety Card"...

more than once to push changes that only served either his or Bernie's selfess interests.

:dozey: With Max, one always has to be on GUARD !!!

:s mokin:

[winer]

Mosley is again being supremely arrogant. It is this arrogance, and his history of making arrogant remarks, that get people's back up. He should be SOLICITING input from the GPDA instead of grudgingly accepting their comments.

[Gannex]

Safety in Formula 1 is at an all-time high. Never has an F1 driver been safer than he is today, and levels of safety have improved fastest during Max Mosley's presidency.

Mosley did not say that the FIA should not, or would not listen carefully to drivers' views on safety-related issues. As janneppi pointed out, the FIA does indeed listen to drivers. What it refuses to do is be dictated to by drivers, because fashioning safety rules is not the drivers' job; they don't have the time for it, nor the expertise. Safety rules are the government's job, and this is something that even the most timid, fear-stricken driver must, surely, accept.

[harsha]

how can you be so sure Max Mosely is directly responsible for the increase in safety,The increase in safety was a knee-jerk reaction to what happened at Imola-94

[agwiii]

Safety in F1 -- and in other forms of racing -- has always been reactive. It takes a terrible accident to bring about change. A pity the GPDA is not proactive.

[BobbyC]

The GPDA has arguably done more harm than good.

Not that I dislike the GPDA entirely, there are some aspects and agendas that I completely disagree on.

The GPDA demands that a circuit should be free of bumps, kerbs should be flattened and widened.

There was the Hungarian GP a couple of years ago with an incident with a high kerb. Its there to slow a the cars down a provide a unique challenge to that corner. But what do the drivers do? They complain and moan, drive the car completely over the limit, damage their cars on purpose just to prove their point and threaten not to race if that kerb was not flattened!

I share Martin Brundle's opinions that high kerbs and bumps are there to serve a purpose, to pose a challenge to the driver, the same way in street/oval racing you pay the price for making a mistake.

Regards, to Monza, I again completely agree with Brundles' opinion. Afterall he was the first of the GPDA directors when it was revived in '94, and goes round the circuits with a casual inspection and found nothing wrong with Monza.

Also, lets not forget that Monza is on a tightrope. It cannot afford to enlarge the run-off areas because that means chopping down trees. The circuit officials are not allowed to do this because of the environmentalists.

The GPDA requests for kerbing can be outrageous.

Good point on the kerbing. Those of you remember prior to the 2005 revisions for the IRL using FIA-spec kerbing as recommended by the GPDA will remember how Watkins Glen, prior to the IRL race, featured high kerbing in the 1992-specification chicane. Cars would jump the kerbing to show how off they were. With lower kerbing, it makes it harder to be disciplined racers and instead tolerates cars making mistakes to "short-cut" the line.

[agwiii]

To be fair, MM was racing in the same race as Jim Clark on the day the Scot was killed at Hockenheim, so he does speak with some authority as a driver.

That's true Arrows, but that was also forty years ago. I don't think Max has any meaningful experience as driver that would even remotely justify his imperious position.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's true Arrows, but that was also forty years ago. I don't think Max has any meaningful experience as driver that would even remotely justify his imperious position.
Agreed, times were very different in 1968. Motorsport was far more dangerous than it is now, something I suspect MM remains acutely aware of.

I only wished to make the point that MM has been a part of motorsport as a driver, team owner, and rulemaker. That gives him a perspective that is shared by very few.

Of course it doesn't always make him right ;)

[agwiii]

Agreed, times were very different in 1968. Motorsport was far more dangerous than it is now, something I suspect MM remains acutely aware of.

I only wished to make the point that MM has been a part of motorsport as a driver, team owner, and rulemaker. That gives him a perspective that is shared by very few.

Of course it doesn't always make him right ;)

Agreed, as Phil Hill has pointed out, there were times then when we lost drivers on all too regular basis. Don't forget that Mad Max is now a lawyer, and that changes everything, including how he views the world, its problems, and potential solutions.

[Knock-on]

Michellin were at fault, period, not Mad Max ( who I dislike immensly as you know ).

Thats like blaming the referee at a soccer match for the playing teams not arriving with their soccer kit.

C'mon, Michellin c@cked up and the live American fans and TV fans worldwide were robbed thanks to an over ambitious Michellin tyre compound for turn 13.



Not really 555.

The surface had been changed to a diamond cut giving much higher grip levels in the corners.

Michelin did not know the increased attrition this would have on the tyres but Bridgestone had complete knowledge of the effect the new surface had on tyre wear from Firestone.

You can't say they were being overagressive as there was nothing to base it on.

However, the situation arose that needed to be addressed and the FIA ignored every opportunity to have a Race and showed extreme arrogance. If I remember correctly, MM didn't even go out to America when it blew up.

Sums it up.

However, the situation arose that needed to be addressed and the FIA ignored every opportunity to have a Race and showed extreme arrogance. If I remember correctly, MM didn't even go out to America when it blew up.

Sums it up.

Actually that doesn't sum it up at all.

Mosley & the FIA should have done nothing regarding Indy 05. It wasn't their fault that Michelin turned up with a tyre totally unsuitable for the job. They had a duty of care to have checked that the tyre was suitable for the new surface, it wasn't. They, not the FIA, ****ed up.

It wouldn't be FIFA's fault if the England team turned up in flip-flops (although they couldn't play any worse, but I digress).

Michelin, don't forget, paid out big for their mistake. As a major international company, they wouldn't pay out unless they were bang-to-rights wrong.

[Knock-on]

Actually that doesn't sum it up at all.

Mosley & the FIA should have done nothing regarding Indy 05. It wasn't their fault that Michelin turned up with a tyre totally unsuitable for the job. They had a duty of care to have checked that the tyre was suitable for the new surface, it wasn't. They, not the FIA, ****ed up.

It wouldn't be FIFA's fault if the England team turned up in flip-flops (although they couldn't play any worse, but I digress).

Michelin, don't forget, paid out big for their mistake. As a major international company, they wouldn't pay out unless they were bang-to-rights wrong.

How the hell could they know?

It's not a recognised test track and they couldn't test on it. They could only use the data they had from previous years.

Firestone on the other hand have thousands of miles of test data on the new surface and could pass that on to Bridgestone.

If a track is significantly altered or the surface changed, the FIA should INSIST that the tyre manufacturers carry out testing on it prior to racing there.

The FIA was a joke on this. They have all the blame IMHO.

[icsunonove]

Actually that doesn't sum it up at all.

Mosley & the FIA should have done nothing regarding Indy 05. It wasn't their fault that Michelin turned up with a tyre totally unsuitable for the job. They had a duty of care to have checked that the tyre was suitable for the new surface, it wasn't. They, not the FIA, ****ed up.

It wouldn't be FIFA's fault if the England team turned up in flip-flops (although they couldn't play any worse, but I digress).

Michelin, don't forget, paid out big for their mistake. As a major international company, they wouldn't pay out unless they were bang-to-rights wrong.

IIRC, Michelin would not have been permitted to test their tyres on the new surface at Indy prior to the event under FIA regulations (created in part by MM), so it isn't fair to accuse them of not checking.

Michelin brought a tyre that proved to be unsafe on the new surface, given that fact they could not condone the use of their tyres in the race as it stood. If a serious accident occured, they would certainly have been held responsible and I don't think anyone would seriously have expected them to act differently (please correct me if you think they should have).

So, a lot of people had paid to see a race and were facing the prospect of being very disappointed. If there was to be a race the FIA would have to intervene to create an environment in which it was possible to have one under the prevailing circumstances. They _could_ have done that and sorted out the details of the points awarded to drivers/teams afterwards but they chose not to. In my view, by refusing to intervene sensibly the FIA were at least partly responsible for there not being a race that day.

As I understand it, Michelin decided to refund people the cost of their tickets, it was reported that it was better for them to do this than have more negative publicity over the incident. I don't think it was evidence of them being "banged-to-rights wrong".

How the hell could they know?

It's not a recognised test track and they couldn't test on it. They could only use the data they had from previous years.



They could have done their homework. No, make that should have done their homework. The new surface wasn't a secret.

A new surface meant the previous years data is worthless and inaccurate, so relying on that is no excuse and is, quite simply, pathetic.

Therefore, it was solely Michelin's **** up.

[Crank]

They could have done their homework. No, make that should have done their homework. The new surface wasn't a secret.

A new surface meant the previous years data is worthless and inaccurate, so relying on that is no excuse and is, quite simply, pathetic.

Therefore, it was solely Michelin's **** up.

Well, here we go at this subject again. As you may know, the new surface in combination with the high banking can not be reliated anywhere in the world, therefore it is presumptuous to 100% simulate that environment. Now, even the people at Firestone designed a new tyre, wich they tested with the IRL and found that it was not up to standards (meaning it was unsafe), thus a new test with a new batch for IRL was designed and re-tested. It is pretty sure that Bridgestone was fed with this information into the design of the new tyre.

However, this in no way fully excuses Michelin, they could have put something extremely conservative, but a tyre war was waged and in war you try always to make the best compromise, in this case, they and of course us as expectators, lost.

[icsunonove]

They could have done their homework. No, make that should have done their homework. The new surface wasn't a secret.

A new surface meant the previous years data is worthless and inaccurate, so relying on that is no excuse and is, quite simply, pathetic.

Therefore, it was solely Michelin's **** up.

So do you have insider knowledge that Michelin did in fact rely only on the previous years data?. Clearly if they did, it would have been pretty stupid. Would they not have designed a new tyre for 2005 anyway? and most likely they would have known about the new surface. So unless you have uncovered a conspiracy here, it comes down to the question of how they were supposed to design a suitable tyre with no data and no opportunity to test.

I recall that at the start of that season Bridgestone had difficulty producing a tyre that would last a full race distance and had some failures of their own. To me it simply indicates that tyre design is a difficult problem in which mistakes can be made.

The thing is though, all of this would have been largely irrelevent had the FIA not deemed Indy a safe place to race at despite not having any runoff area whatsoever on the outside of turn 1. At other circuits they have required changes to the layout either to increase runoff areas or to add new chicanes before fast corners which cannot be altered, but curiously not at Indy. I've never understood why Indy is considered safe by the FIA for F1 cars. My guess is that Max and his friends are prepared to compromise their stance on safety for the convenience of staging a race at the most famous circuit in the USA. Would Max put money ahead safety? - surely not...

[Roamy]

To be fair, MM was racing in the same race as Jim Clark on the day the Scot was killed at Hockenheim, so he does speak with some authority as a driver.

what position was he in ??

[agwiii]

what position was he in ??

LOL. He was very forgettable as a driver.

[Roamy]

Mosley is again being supremely arrogant. It is this arrogance, and his history of making arrogant remarks, that get people's back up. He should be SOLICITING input from the GPDA instead of grudgingly accepting their comments.

this post sums it up quite nicely

So do you have insider knowledge that Michelin did in fact rely only on the previous years data?.

I was replying to the post by Knock-on, who stated that Michelin relied on the previous years data.

If you want to make an issue of it, do it with him. Somehow I doubt you will.

[ArrowsFA1]

what position was he in ??
"DNA" according to http://www.formula2.net/F268_15.htm :dozey:


They could have done their homework. No, make that should have done their homework.
How :confused: With no testing being possible at the track, and no historical data to rely on, how could Michelin accurately recreate the new Indy surface and its' particular demands in order to produce a tyre to suit?

IMHO everyone involved (including the FIA) could and should have done more to try and see a race go ahead. Instead MM's flat "no" to the solutions offered appears similar to his rejection of opinions from the GPDA.

"DNA" according to http://www.formula2.net/F268_15.htm :dozey:


How :confused: With no testing being possible at the track, and no historical data to rely on, how could Michelin accurately recreate the new Indy surface and its' particular demands in order to produce a tyre to suit?

How? Quite simply....the same way they made a tyre for the 2006 US GP. If you are not sure, play safe. If you don't play safe, don't cry about it when it goes tits up. Obvious really.

In 2006 they were forced to go conservative with the construction & performance. Which is just what they should have done in 2005.

I find it ridiculous that people try to blame the FIA for Indy 05. The FIA don't make tyres.

[Knock-on]

I was replying to the post by Knock-on, who stated that Michelin relied on the previous years data.

If you want to make an issue of it, do it with him. Somehow I doubt you will.

The only data they had to rely on was historical data. How could they have any other.

There is only one way to get data about the characteristics of that track and that is to get test data. Bridgestone had it and Michelin didn't. Firestone had to change their race tyre because of this and Bridgestone knew this. Michelin didn't.

Come on mate, be fair.

The only data they had to rely on was historical data. How could they have any other.

There is only one way to get data about the characteristics of that track and that is to get test data. Bridgestone had it and Michelin didn't. Firestone had to change their race tyre because of this and Bridgestone knew this. Michelin didn't.

Come on mate, be fair.

Be fair? How about accepting that Michelin, just like everyone else, should be responsible for their own actions. They didn't know what the charaxteristics of the new track woiuld be, although they must have known it had been resurfaced (If they didn't, that was nobodies fault but theirs). They decided to take a risk. That, plain and simple, is wrong.

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Knock-on]

Be fair? How about accepting that Michelin, just like everyone else, should be responsible for their own actions. They didn't know what the charaxteristics of the new track woiuld be, although they must have known it had been resurfaced (If they didn't, that was nobodies fault but theirs). They decided to take a risk. That, plain and simple, is wrong.

Sounds fair enough to me.

As I understand it, they didn't just re-surface it, they did something different called Diamond Cutting it which offered significantly better levels of grip.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because what's done, is done. You believe they should have looked into a crystal ball and I believe the FIA should insist that tyre companies test on any tracks that have been significantly altered since the last GP on grounds of safety.

We can differ.

[ArrowsFA1]

The issue of why and how Michelin got it wrong, is a rather different issue to what could/should have been done once their error had been identifield.

Surely the interests of the spectators, teams, drivers, FOA and the FIA would have been to have a race somehow?

MM's subsequent actions could be seen in the context of his wish to see a single tyre supplier, rather than in the interests of saving that race.

[ArrowsFA1]

Dont know ArrowsFA1, but I doubt it very much. Would be interesting to know, wouldnt it :?: Wonder how to condust a search for something like that on Google :(
Nigel Roebuck has answered my question about the GPDA on www.autosport.com (http://www.autosport.com) this week and says that "the GPDA has no representation - as an organisation - within the FIA".

[agwiii]

Be fair? How about accepting that Michelin, just like everyone else, should be responsible for their own actions. They didn't know what the charaxteristics of the new track woiuld be, although they must have known it had been resurfaced (If they didn't, that was nobodies fault but theirs). They decided to take a risk. That, plain and simple, is wrong. Sounds fair enough to me.

In addition to being resurfaced, it was leveled to eliminate minor ripples and bumps You're right - they were asleep at the wheel and Michelin were responsible. It's called negligence, something they either "knew or should have known."

[ArrowsFA1]

So having accepted Michelin made a cock-up (is there anyone here who thinks otherwise?) should the powers that be have continued to play the blame game, or attempted to find some sort of solution? Either way MM could have achieved wish for a single tyre supplier for F1.

[Gannex]

Formula One is both a sport and an entertainment business, and I often hear on this board criticism of the government and management of F1 for over-emphasising its business aspects to the detriment of its sporting aspects. Yet when the powers that be decide that the US Grand Prix should be run strictly according to the sporting regulations, disregarding how it affects the entertainment, or the Indianapolis gate receipts in future years, without regard to the business effects, in other words, the government and management are criticised again. It seems that Mosley can't win.

I think it was very significant, in the Indy '05 debacle, that Bernie Ecclestone was keen to make sure that a decent show was staged, somehow, by changing the rules, allowing a chicane, having teams run through the pits, something, anything. Like the commercially-minded man that he is, Bernie was less concerned with the sporting rationale, and much more concerned with the entertainment. Had Bernie Ecclestone had his way, he would have found a "solution" to the show-business "problem".

But Mosley, unconcerned with anything but the sporting aspects of F1, was having none of it. He said, absolutely rightly, that when a sporting participant screws up and thereby dimishes the entertainment value of a sporting event, you don't change the rules to spice up the show. This, then, was a case where the powers that be, especially Mosley, prevented a fiasco, rather than contributing to it. It had nothing to do with blame, and everything to do with safety and preserving the integrity of the F1 Championship points system. The Michelin teams failed to equip themselves adequately for the occasion, and rightly paid the price, in points, for their mistake.

Formula One is both a sport and an entertainment business, and I often hear on this board criticism of the government and management of F1 for over-emphasising its business aspects to the detriment of its sporting aspects. Yet when the powers that be decide that the US Grand Prix should be run strictly according to the sporting regulations, disregarding how it affects the entertainment, or the Indianapolis gate receipts in future years, without regard to the business effects, in other words, the government and management are criticised again. It seems that Mosley can't win.

I think it was very significant, in the Indy '05 debacle, that Bernie Ecclestone was keen to make sure that a decent show was staged, somehow, by changing the rules, allowing a chicane, having teams run through the pits, something, anything. Like the commercially-minded man that he is, Bernie was less concerned with the sporting rationale, and much more concerned with the entertainment. Had Bernie Ecclestone had his way, he would have found a "solution" to the show-business "problem".

But Mosley, unconcerned with anything but the sporting aspects of F1, was having none of it. He said, absolutely rightly, that when a sporting participant screws up and thereby dimishes the entertainment value of a sporting event, you don't change the rules to spice up the show. This, then, was a case where the powers that be, especially Mosley, prevented a fiasco, rather than contributing to it. It had nothing to do with blame, and everything to do with safety and preserving the integrity of the F1 Championship points system. The Michelin teams failed to equip themselves adequately for the occasion, and rightly paid the price, in points, for their mistake.

Thanks Gannex, that's spot on.

[Bagwan]

I found it interesting that Michelin and it's teams dismissed out of hand the idea of limitting the speed around 13 , yet effectively did just that , by suggesting a chicane to slow all .
They couldn't slow down to make sure of safety unless everyone else was forced to as well , and likely only because of the embarassment of appearing pokey-slow in comparison with the Bridgestone rivals .
They could have raced , but running so slowly down that gaunlet between those stands of thousands was too much to ask . Drivers have to manage the tire wear every race .

And that cynical parade lap , just to show they showed up on the appearance tally sheet , was a bit much .
I wonder if Toyota cherishes that pole .


Max gets the stick for a lot of issues , but this one shouldn't count against him .

Blame Michelin , for not providing the equipment , and the Teams , for not "runnin' what they brung" .
Blame both for leaving us hanging before the start .

[icsunonove]

Formula One is both a sport and an entertainment business, and I often hear on this board criticism of the government and management of F1 for over-emphasising its business aspects to the detriment of its sporting aspects. Yet when the powers that be decide that the US Grand Prix should be run strictly according to the sporting regulations, disregarding how it affects the entertainment, or the Indianapolis gate receipts in future years, without regard to the business effects, in other words, the government and management are criticised again. It seems that Mosley can't win.

I think it was very significant, in the Indy '05 debacle, that Bernie Ecclestone was keen to make sure that a decent show was staged, somehow, by changing the rules, allowing a chicane, having teams run through the pits, something, anything. Like the commercially-minded man that he is, Bernie was less concerned with the sporting rationale, and much more concerned with the entertainment. Had Bernie Ecclestone had his way, he would have found a "solution" to the show-business "problem".

But Mosley, unconcerned with anything but the sporting aspects of F1, was having none of it. He said, absolutely rightly, that when a sporting participant screws up and thereby dimishes the entertainment value of a sporting event, you don't change the rules to spice up the show. This, then, was a case where the powers that be, especially Mosley, prevented a fiasco, rather than contributing to it. It had nothing to do with blame, and everything to do with safety and preserving the integrity of the F1 Championship points system. The Michelin teams failed to equip themselves adequately for the occasion, and rightly paid the price, in points, for their mistake.

I think we are in partial agreement here, a race involving the Michelin teams could not take place unless Mosley intervened, but he chose not to. I disagree that his decision was motivated by safety, because if he was really concerned about safety then F1 cars would not be permitted to race at Indy with no runoff area on turn 13. If you recall, Ralf had a _big_ crash there the previous year and all they did was put in a few more barriers - exactly how is that consistent with a proper regard to safety?

Maybe it was to uphold the sanctity of the points system - hmm... I wonder if many of the people who went that day were saying "yeah, we didn't see a a proper race but I'm really pleased that the integrity of the F1 points system was maintained".

Maybe it was because Mosley was hung over after a night out on the beer with a few of his FIA mates and he couldn't be bothered, who knows?

Just to be clear, it doesn't bother me at all that the Michelin teams didn't race - I was watching on TV so I wasn't out of pocket. In fact I thought it was pretty funny observing Bernie's reaction as it slowly dawned on him that his precious US GP was not going to happen. It does astonish me that people seem to think Michelin had somehow conspired to create a crisis when the obvious explanation is that they made a simple mistake, because they didn't have the same data as Bridgestone.

Whatever, if you want to continue to blame Michelin, I'm happy to continue defending them.

[Mikeall]

Michelin must have known about the surface change, even I'd heard about it. The engineers know their jobs and what factors they need to consider when designing the tyre and maybe someone made a mistake or estimated wrongly.

[Gannex]

Michelin must have known about the surface change, even I'd heard about it. The engineers know their jobs and what factors they need to consider when designing the tyre and maybe someone made a mistake or estimated wrongly.

I agree, Mikeall. And don't forget that the tyre companies are required to bring two specifications of dry tyre to each race, one of which is supposed to be a more conservative compound and construction. This second "safety tyre" should have been more than equal to the task, even if the prime tyre was not.

[ArrowsFA1]

Good points very well made Gannex :up: I can't disagree with much of what you say, other than this:

But Mosley, unconcerned with anything but the sporting aspects of F1...
IMHO, MM saw the situation as an opportunity to ensure his wish for a single tyre supplier in F1 went ahead. Had he and the FIA stepped in (as they could have done) to ensure that the USGP went ahead with all teams involved, his wish may have proved rather more difficult to push through.

As it was Michelin screwed up, the FIA enfored the rulebook, the USGP was a fiasco, and Michelin are now out of F1.

Fortunately for the GPDA, Max can't run F1 without drivers, but he can dismiss their views.

[Gannex]

Good points very well made Gannex :up:

Thanks for that, Arrows.

I see your point about the single tyre supply. It's certainly something that Mosley wanted to see happen; he's made no secret of that. But I'm having trouble believing that he deliberately magnified the humiliation of Michelin in order to achieve that goal. Just doesn't seem likely to me. But then, the late Edouard Michelin shared your view, and he was closer to the situation than either of us, so maybe it's not as fanciful as it sounds. I think the truth is that, as a strong supporter of Max Mosley, I just don't want to believe it.

IMHO, MM saw the situation as an opportunity to ensure his wish for a single tyre supplier in F1 went ahead. Had he and the FIA stepped in (as they could have done) to ensure that the USGP went ahead with all teams involved, his wish may have proved rather more difficult to push through.

Except that the FIA had planned all along for F1 to go to a single-tyre supplier in 2008 following the end of the current Concord agreement at the end of 2007. There would be nothing the teams could do about that, it would be beyond their influence anyway. They could either sign-up, as they all have, or sit on their arses, not be able to race and go bankrupt or be shut-down.....Not the greatest of positions to begin negiotiating with.

Michelin's **** up and subsequent teddy-throwing walk-away from F1 a year early is a bonus to Max, but nothing more than that. A single-tyre F1 was going to happen in 2008, with or without Indy 05.

What I find interesting is that you seem to believe that the FIA shouldn't have enforced the rule-book. So, what's the point in having a rule-book?

You therefore wouldn't mind if Ferrari turn up for next year with Launch Control, Active Suspension, Flexible Wings, Ground Effect and a Turbo engine.....after all, you've already said that the FIA could have done something to let the Michelin teams race at Indy despite the fact that they didn't have the correct equipment.

Except somehow I think you would mind, and would be the first to complain about the FIA not enforcing the rule-book..

[ArrowsFA1]

What I find interesting is that you seem to believe that the FIA shouldn't have enforced the rule-book. So, what's the point in having a rule-book?
I just think that given these particular circumstances something should have been done to ensure a race went ahead with the participation of all the teams, and it was within the power of the FIA to ensure that could happen.

There are times when a bit of flexibility is warranted and, as icsunonove pointed out, the spectators weren't interested in the points system (or the rulebook). They had paid to see a race. What they saw was a farce that damaged the whole of F1, not just Michelin.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just think that given these particular circumstances something should have been done to ensure a race went ahead with the participation of all the teams, and it was within the power of the FIA to ensure that could happen.

There are times when a bit of flexibility is warranted and, as icsunonove pointed out, the spectators weren't interested in the points system (or the rulebook). They had paid to see a race. What they saw was a farce that damaged the whole of F1, not just Michelin.


Arrows as usual, you are being the voice of reason. That I guess is why you are the Moderator.

IT is really simple. You can uphold the rules to the point of what happened at Indy in 2005, and turn off millions with your actions. MM was "protecting the integrity" of the points system, but what he also did was show how stupid f1 can be. Turning off that many fans and putting the sport up for ridicule in front of the one market that doesn't embrace f1 (and the one market they wish would embrace them) is just foolish. Michelin is at fault to be sure, but the teams could have raced Michelin's more conservative compound, and if they were not competitive, then fine, but at least run the damned race.

As for the GPDA ( the reason this thread started ), they should always be listened to. I didn't say they should be in charge, but at least, the door has to be open. Drivers often do not know how their actions look to the rest of us, but it is their rear ends that are in jeopardy when the car leaves the track. Max Mosley's attitude doesn't surprise me. His dad was a fascist at heart and Max isn't exactly a diplomat. No, Max's attitude is the reason why F1 gains so little respect with a lot of people over in North America. Even Tony George, one of the most un-diplomatic leaders of any race series wouldn't say something to the effect that Max did.

Max, your time as head of the FIA has proved once again that pompous bureaucrats should not be allowed to do anything more than collect their pensions.

I just think that given these particular circumstances something should have been done to ensure a race went ahead with the participation of all the teams, and it was within the power of the FIA to ensure that could happen.

There are times when a bit of flexibility is warranted and, as icsunonove pointed out, the spectators weren't interested in the points system (or the rulebook). They had paid to see a race. What they saw was a farce that damaged the whole of F1, not just Michelin.

No, they hadn't paid to see a race...they had paid to see a FIA Formula One Grand Prix. That's what the ticket said, it didn't say 'a race'.

The FIA had done everything required to stage a FIA Formula One Grand Prix and fulfilled their end of the deal.

Unfortunately, due to the negligence of a tyre supplier, some of the teams intending to race in the FIA Formula One Grand Prix were unable to take part. However the FIA Formula One Grand Prix, which the ticket specifically related to, was able to run.

It was bad luck for those who had bought tickets in the mistaken belief that the FIA had a duty to field 20 cars, but those spectators who mistakenly believed that the FIA had a right to provide them with 20 cars come hell or high water should really have made more effort to acquaint themselves beforehand with the facts relating to the staging of a Grand Prix, namely that the FIA Formula One Grand Prix of the United States of America does not have a clause on its ticket stating that the minimum number of cars needed is 20 nor that the FIA will throw it's own rule-book out of the window in order to provide 20 cars for a race.

In absolutely no way were the FIA at fault. I, like most of us, cannot stand Max Mosley....but I don't believe in blaming somebody I don't like on the occasions when he has done nothing wrong.

[agwiii]

FIA president Max Mosley has warned the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) against any further attempts to get involved in circuit safety..."Safety has become far too technical for anyone but the specialists," wrote Mosley.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56071



Sorry to bring this back on topic, but the GPDA must always have a voice in such issues, for it is their lives on the line, not Mad Max. They have a very simply recourse to get Max's attention: strike.

[ShiftingGears]

A very interesting opinion on this matter, I thought.

http://www.planet-f1.com/News/Story_Page/0,15909,3210_3261_1814587,00.html

Mad Max Looking For A Fight
Wednesday January 03 2007

Opinion
In the wake of the FIA's agreement with the big motor manufacturers over the technical future of F1, Max Mosley has been casting around for someone to have an argument with.

In the past Max has had run-ins with the EU over tobacco advertising, with Michelin over their tyres, and the big motor manufacturers (such as Ford) and their "here today gone tomorrow" attitude to F1.

But the EU problems have gone away as tobacco sponsors have fallen into line, Michelin have quit the sport and there has been a love-in between Max and the GPMA's Burkhart Goessel over making F1 cars more road car relevant.

So, who to have a go at...?

With the retirement of Michael Schumacher from the Grand Prix Drivers' Association Max has felt it safe to have a pop at the drivers and their wish to improve safety at some of the tracks they test at. How dare they! Safety is the FIA's brief, nothing to do with the drivers.

So Max has flared up like some cheap east end gangster who's found another dodgy geezer selling knock-off Rolex watches on his manor. ("He's takin' a liberty!")

Angered by the drivers' complaints about Monza earlier this year, the FIA President wrote the GPDA a letter warning its Directors to leave the issue of safety to the "experts". Now, in his F1 Racing magazine column, he has gone one step further.

"If we have to lose a race or two or a few licences to make a point, we will. It will be better for the sport in the long run."

Anyone spot the threat in that sentence?

"We will always listen to drivers, but the decisions must be ours," Mosley wrote. "We obviously cannot have two bodies telling circuits what is required."

Mosley has always used 'safety' as the great club by which he could batter the teams into accepting new rules or arbitrary decisions. In the past he needed unanimous agreement from the teams which was difficult to get, so he would introduce rule changes on the grounds of safety knowing that the teams could not stop him. Clearlyhe doesn't like it when someone else plays the safety card.

It is this writer's opinion that Max's love of safety is veneer thin compared to his great love of manipulation. Since the late 90's his stated intent has been trying to slow F1 cars down for safety reasons. Whatever rule changes they brought in the teams would make the cars go quicker.

Finally, in the face of a Michelin vs Bridgestone tyre war that was dramatically forcing up speeds, the FIA hit upon an idea that really worked: banning tyre changes. Drivers would have to acquire the long lost skills of nursing a set of tyres through an entire race. It produced some memorable races in 2005, such as the Monaco GP, where towards the end of the race there was more overtaking than we'd seen in the previous ten years at Monte Carlo.

It slowed cars down and met the key safety objective. The FIA's further attempt to curtail speed was the introduction in 2006 of 2.4 litre V8 engines (reduced from their previous 3.lire V10 form). Bizarrely, at the same time the FIA re-introduced tyre changes.

Nobody could quite believe it. The one measure that would guarantee reduced lap times was brought back. As a result, the cars hardly lost any time at all over a lap in 2006 despite the reduced power - what's more, the cars were quicker round the bends, the most dangerous place to be quick.

Asked why, Max said that not having them destroyed the spectacle of F1 and that tyre changes were "part of the show" - however F1 still had pit-stops for fuel and anyone who's seen an F1 pitstop knows that tyres are not the time-limiting factor.

Here we had the champion of F1 safety hurriedly scrapping a rule that had worked well, to make the cars quicker and more dangerous in the one place they could ill-afford to be more dangerous. F1 pundits soon drew conclusions.

Bridgestone had not been able to keep pace with Michelin in 2005 and Bridgestone runners, particularly Ferrari had suffered. Whether it was Mosley's support of the Japanese tyre giant, his anger at Michelin for failing to prepare for the USGP properly, or his support of Ferrari it was hard to know, but the decision was lame-brained and contrary to all his (very laudable) safety moves.

So he's got a bit of a nerve, dragging out his safety soapbox to stand on.

What the drivers have been asking for recently has come out of regular testing at Barcelona and Jerez, two circuits that the drivers know better than any FIA track inspector. Jerez might be used for other forms of motorsport but it's not a GP track. For once Mosley ought to button his dictatorial lip and accept that the drivers have a valid point.

Or maybe he could give a full and proper explanation as to why tyre changes were re-introduced in 2006...
Andrew Davies

[Tazio]

I've always suspected that Max has been influenced by his own failures as a silver spoon driver. Driver input has been an element in the majority of safety regulations throughout motor racing history, his assertion that safety is too technical for "them", probably says more about his inadequacies as a analytic racer than anything else.

Probably gets it from his dad.

Interesting angle Tin! I like it! Thanks!

The other reason might be that he's a pampas @ss

[Mark in Oshawa]

I stand by what most have thought. Mosley is an idiot, and even when he is technically right, (Michelin screwed up at the USGP) but to defend a 6 car charade and call it a FIA F1 event is a farce. Max should do everyone a favour, and just go away.

Max cares for nothing but his dictates. Telling the GPDA they have no right in the safety business is like telling a fireman he has no right to dictate fire safety to kids.

Why does motorsport seem to be run by such pompous fools?

[Gannex]

All Mosley has said about safety is that it must be the FIA which makes the safety rules, not the GPDA or anyone else. This is absolutely sound sense. The GPDA are drivers, and of course they have useful input. Mosley is not saying that the input from drivers is unwelcome. The FIA is more than happy to listen to drivers, consider their opinions, use their input to help the FIA draw up safety regulations. But safety is a highly complex matter, and making effective safety rules requires the co-ordinated efforts of specialists in track surfaces, driving, tyre engineering, car design, and so on. These specialists' efforts must be coordinated by a single body. You can't have the track surface specialists saying "we know the most about this; so we should have the final say on safety" any more than you can have the drivers saying that. This is not complicated. All Max is saying is that everyone with an interest or with specialised knowledge should submit his or her opinion to the FIA, who will collate all those opinions, and, with the help of completely independent experts, synthesise those opinions into a sensible set of safety regulations. The drivers, unfortunately, seem unable to accept this. They think, because their arses are on the line, that they should be able to override everyone else's view and have their view accepted. Well the real world isn't like that. Nor should it be. The FIA, if it allowed its safety regs to be dictated by David Coulthard on a bad day, would be severely negligent in its duty to provide a safe environment for everyone at races.

Now everyone is up in arms about Mosley's blunt way of doing things. I agree that he is not, probably, very diplomatic about the way he puts things. Frankly, I prefer that, to some guy pussy-footing around, pretending to be a big listener, when in fact, behind closed doors, he's just going to do what he thinks is right anyway. With Max, what you see is what you get. And what you see is invariably sound sense.

[Gannex]

By the way. On a personal note. Many years ago, I was a flight instructor giving basic flight training to midshipmen at the US Naval Academy. We operated out of Fort Meade, Maryland, using Czech-made aircraft of dubious construction. There had been failures on these aircraft of certain components, and when the components in question failed, you lost elevator control -- a serious problem. Landing an aircraft using power adjustments and elevator trim only to control your rate of descent is not a relaxing task!

We, the instructors, were obviously very concerned about our and our students' safety. We were, if you like, in the position of the GPDA, the ones with our arses on the line. But we didn't insist to the Navy that we knew better than the metallurgists and the engineers how the problem should be solved. We gave our views, listened to theirs, but in the end accepted that it had to be a joint effort by specialists to ensure that those aircraft were safe.

I sweated quite a bit after the fix was supposedly done. We had to put a special paint on the suspect component before each flight, and then, after landing, inspect the part for hairline cracks, to detect any sign of metal fatigue early. Hardly confidence-inspiring. But we did it, because we felt that on balance, we trusted the powers that be to look after us, and the whole thing worked. No one was ever injured again, as far as I know.

This is how safety SHOULD work. Everyone working together, listening to each other, jointly reaching conclusions. Not, as the GPDA would have it, by saying we are the ones at risk; you have to do it our way.

[ArrowsFA1]

This is how safety SHOULD work. Everyone working together, listening to each other, jointly reaching conclusions.
Absolutely, which is why the GPDA should have official representation within the FIA. Max has just announced the creation of a new FIA commission for the manufacturers, and he should do the same for the drivers.

[agwiii]

We gave our views, listened to theirs, but in the end accepted that it had to be a joint effort by specialists to ensure that those aircraft were safe. ... This is how safety SHOULD work. Everyone working together, listening to each other, jointly reaching conclusions.

Let us all pray that the PTB have the common sense to create such a joint effort for safety.

[fly_ac]

This is how safety SHOULD work. Everyone working together, listening to each other, jointly reaching conclusions. Not, as the GPDA would have it, by saying we are the ones at risk; you have to do it our way.

Some years ago when I use to work for a Rally Team for a well known manufacturer in South-Africa we had a problem with some stages that were rather dangerous for Rallying. Some Teams, including us complained to the organizers and marshals. The reaction we got from them was that they are the experts and know what they are doing.

So what we did was to invite them to our test day, on farm roads. We allowed them, not all at the same time though :D , to sit in the navigator seat while testing at about 90% race pace.

There after stages were selected with greater care on their behalf due to the fact that they were not aware of the speeds some of these vehicles reach on gravel. :up:


And the GPDA are right that they are the ones taking the risk but, that are there choice and each and every driver must be aware of this otherwise it would have been called F1 Bumper Cars. :eek:

And even the EXPERTS are not experts in all areas; they have their limitations as well. It would be foolish of them to think they do not need the drivers input. :rolleyes:

Therefore I agree that everyone should work together and listen to each other and reach joint conclusions. :up:

I don't agree with it, but should the safety issue really include the drivers?

I only ask because, if I remember correctly, the current head of the GPDA was on the radio on the warm up lap at Indy 05 saying that he wanted to race....which, considering that Michelin had strongly advised the team not to race because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the tyres, surely was a reckless attitude?

With an inconsistent approach to safety such as that, is it any wonder that the FIA believe that the drivers are not experts in safety issues?

[agwiii]

I only ask because, if I remember correctly, the current head of the GPDA was on the radio on the warm up lap at Indy 05 saying that he wanted to race....which, considering that Michelin had strongly advised the team not to race because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the tyres, surely was a reckless attitude?

Was it reckless, or simply a display of his having some guts?

[Gannex]

I don't agree with it, but should the safety issue really include the drivers?

I only ask because, if I remember correctly, the current head of the GPDA was on the radio on the warm up lap at Indy 05 saying that he wanted to race....which, considering that Michelin had strongly advised the team not to race because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the tyres, surely was a reckless attitude?

With an inconsistent approach to safety such as that, is it any wonder that the FIA believe that the drivers are not experts in safety issues?
Good point, tamburello. And remember Jacques Villeneuve's attitude on every safety issue? He was always contemptuous of drivers who wanted to reduce the risks of motor racing. He thought they were all wet. There's no guarantee that future GPDA's will not have those anti-safety tendencies. If my son were just about to enter F1, I know this much: I'd rather his safety were in the hands of the FIA, than in the hands of a bunch of young men in their twenties who have proved by their choice of profession that they are not exactly risk-averse.

[fly_ac]

If my son were just about to enter F1, I know this much: I'd rather his safety were in the hands of the FIA, than in the hands of a bunch of young men in their twenties who have proved by their choice of profession that they are not exactly risk-averse.

I agree.
The FIA, I think will have competent people to see to track safety and drivers are not the experts when it comes to track safety.

However If a team or driver feel that something or some part of a track/car is unsafe the FIA should at the least look into it, and I believe that they will. If they, the FIA don't then they are Idiots. ;)

[Bagwan]

Good point, tamburello. And remember Jacques Villeneuve's attitude on every safety issue? He was always contemptuous of drivers who wanted to reduce the risks of motor racing. He thought they were all wet. There's no guarantee that future GPDA's will not have those anti-safety tendencies. If my son were just about to enter F1, I know this much: I'd rather his safety were in the hands of the FIA, than in the hands of a bunch of young men in their twenties who have proved by their choice of profession that they are not exactly risk-averse.

The GPDA is a lobby group . That's what they should be .

For the driver , it's like hiking to a cliff edge , that gets more slippery as you approach .
Having either good hiking boots , or agile , confident feet can get you closer , but designing the cliff is the most direct route to that edge .

Being players in the the game , the drivers can't ever come from an unbiassed position .
They want to be seen as best , and that means closest to the edge .

Jacques and his "anti-safety tendencies" was telling the truth . It is what all the drivers want when they are behind the wheel . He wanted a track , and to be fastest on it .

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't agree with it, but should the safety issue really include the drivers?

I only ask because, if I remember correctly, the current head of the GPDA was on the radio on the warm up lap at Indy 05 saying that he wanted to race....which, considering that Michelin had strongly advised the team not to race because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the tyres, surely was a reckless attitude?

With an inconsistent approach to safety such as that, is it any wonder that the FIA believe that the drivers are not experts in safety issues?

Good point Tam, another example of a race driver mentality is with the late great Dale Earnhardt. His attitude towards some of the safety advocates in NASCAR was to tell them "If they don't think racing is safe, let them sit on an anthill so the ants can eat out their candy ass!" Of course, as we saw, he was dead partially because he made alterations to his seat and seatbelt to add to his comfort in the car, and he wasn't wearing the HANS device.

Drivers tend to be illiogical to be sure but I think the point has been made more than once that Max doesn't exactly do that consensus building thing, and the arrogance of the FIA going back before Max is almost legendary. A little more tact would be a start wouldn't it?