Toyota F1 first pole position in US grand prix

so i guess we should agree to disagree...(so cliche...)

btw...thanks for a great conversation...love talking F1 with knowledgable individuals...

i don't understand, why should ferrari compromise instead of the michelin teams?

It wasn't a safety issue... it was a safety issue at one particular corner at particular speeds... just knowing that allows michelin teams to race and be cautious... michelin didn't want to compromise unless they had their mistake (bringing bad equipment) absolved... which isn't fair

they shouldnt....

it was a safety issue...even it is just one corner...a high speed one at that.

I think they should've cancelled the race and raced another day when everything was even u know but for only like 5 cars to start and the rest not getting a chance of scoring points now that was stupid....

i agree that its a fan based sport...therefore, FIA or the governing body should have made the decision, not based on one teams holdout. If FIA wanted to make it a race, they should've made a decision based on whats best for the fans. If one team disagrees, let them hold out...
i just think there was a better solution somewhere...
like i said before, putting in a chicane was the best solution, i know it wasnt safe like you said, e...but how bout adding an extra hour of practice session to get accommadated with the new chicane...i bet the fans would be more than happy to see the cars fly by an extra hour....

good point...never crossed my mind...
now, i'm just clueless.......

but the fia never compromised for ferrari's previous tire problems... and don't say this isn't an issue as it is in the past... it is the exact same thing except bridgestone runners aren't the majority... and the only team fighting for a championship using bridgestones is ferrari.

and the fia did in fact give a solution... we will let you run the corner at slower speeds and penalize any michelin runner who went over... michelin didn't accept this because they wanted ferrari not to have the rightful advantage they deserved since michelin made a mistake.


hell, they could have even run 70 laps through the pit lane.

michelin's "compromise" was a joke....

haha man I love these convos they're sweet and 0% violence keep it up guys

i'm not sure whiich problem he is talking about, but i'd venture a guess it might be about tire testing at the beginning of the season? Since Michelin had many teams to test their tires and Bridgestone virtually only one (ie Ferrari), they requested more testing time. I think they blame lack of testing for their lack of performance (with new tire rules) at the beginning of the season.
i dunno, just my guess....but i think thats a totally different situation if thats what you meant, burbod01...

then come...join in, D.....

what is true though is that Bridgestone did not have as much data to run as michelin did thus making if a lot harder to gain reliability on tires, IF Ferrari would've had tires like Michelin and stuff at the beginning of the season they would be kicking major ass by now BUT the introduction of the new model and the tires were still testing then that didn't help too much. Michelin defenetly has the advantage in the F1 right now, I'm surprised that Ferrari doesn't have more DNF's caused by tires....

breaking news guys...the 7 teams that pulled out will face FIA charges....
http://www.formula1.com/race/news/3212/740.html

as for DNF's due to tires..yeah its possible cos Bridgestone were not ready for the new rule changes. Their tires would not last. The softer compound tires were fast but wore out quicker. Bridgestone teams had to maximize pit strategy (such as fuel strategy) to offset the lack of speed of the harder compounds.
Michelin had more testing because more teams were using Michelin (7 of 10). Each team has an equal amount testing time. So, for example, if it was allotted 100 hrs testing per team, Bridgestone would only have 300 hrs + their own testing whereas Michelin would have 700 hrs + their testing times.
Ferrari stuck with Bridgestone because of contract i guess. but look what bridgestone did for Ferrari the last 5+ years. They were just not ready for rule changes...a shame.

True that Ferraris woes this year is not all tires. Iirc, only twice did Ferrari DNF due to tires. One in Spain (MSC puncture) and Malaysia (Rubinho handling). The F2005 is not yet a proven reliable car as is the F2004 (which was flawless btw). The F2005 had its share of electrical and hydraulic failures. But i do blame their lack of speed due to the faulty bridgestone. if you look at the tires at the end of races, you can see uneven wear and almost slick-barely legal-tire threads....

and finally, yes, schumacher has competition. Great job by the drivers from the class of 2001....bravo... :beerchug:

ferrari did retire in a few of the early races because they felt they were going to be able to finish the way their tires were losing tread (i.e. they were unsafe and therefore they parked their car, much like what happened at USGP). However, the real Bridgestone problem is, yes, they didn't have enough testing for the new rule change and were unable to qualify because of their tires taking too long to get up to heat.

As I don't consider the Michelin problem a true safety issue (specific corner, specific situation... just knowing where the tire had problems allowed them to work around it... plus they never were able to replicate the problem), I see it very much the same as Bridgestones early problems, but instead of biting the bullet and retiring when the tire started to wear funny like Ferrari did, they pulled out at the beginning, trying to use their majority to strong-arm the FIA into taking away Ferrari's advantage. Michelin didn't do their homework and should have had to take responsibility, but instead they turned it around and wrongly put it on Ferrari and the FIA for what? NOT CHANGING THE RULES.

How sad that Michelin was successful in changing the public's view of the sitation, as Ferrari actually did the right thing this time. In the future, had they compromised... every time they get an advantage it would have happened again.... and they would have never been able to make up points.

I was confused about that... they claimed both (and the Speed incident with Red Bull) were caused by turn 13, but they couldn't replicate it.

so lets say you are ferrari, trying to win another championship, and you see michelin has messed up (made a mistake)... would you let the advantage be taken away?

i think its not Michelins fault...its Ralfs fault...same crash same corner two years in a row...its gotta be Ralf....lol....j/k....

you are right, Michelin could not prove that the tire failures were due to the speeds at turn 13...

and even if they could, that isn't bridgestone's fault

i'm excited, isn't nascar running a road course this weekend?

yes they are...infineon raceway...i used to be a nascar fan...not so much anymore...too many hot headed young drivers...
anyway...this is OT...hehehe

btw, can a mod make this thread the official F1 thread. Thanks.

it would just be the three of us talking about it

hahaha...you might be right....