Veeeery interesting...thanks for the links guys. It appears there is more here than meets the eye.
It is indeed very curious that Michelin only sent 2 drivers to test their tires for the conditions at Indy beforehand (I'm assuming they did these tests at Indy) So what conclusions did they come to from the tests? Did they know they weren't going to have the right compound for Indy? What I don't understand is why did teams participate in 4 full Practice sessions and a full Qualifying before deciding the tires were faulty. And what if Schumacher or Zonta were killed in their crashes because they had tires Michelin knew were faulty, based on prior testing? It's not entirely clear when Michelin knew the tires were bad - during testing before the race, after Practice, or after the crashes.
Peter Windsor makes some good points. But I disagree with his wet weather analogy. The rain is the rain, its an uncontrollable variable and you have the option to switch to perfectly functional wets. Drivers shouldn't be forced to race with faulty equipment.
As far as the Manufacturers vs. Eccelstone infighting, well, I think there is only one inevitable conclusion. The Manufacturers will end up running the show, as opposed to the smaller, less powerful, lower profile, one-off engineering companies such as Williams and McLaren who only manufacture Formula One chassis. It is after all car racing, so it seems logical that car makers should be in control. Yet, it took the creativity, showmanship and vision of Eccelstone to transform the series into what it is today, so he's not going to let go easily and maybe the manufacturers owe him something for providing them with such a huge international showcase for their brands.
As an aside, I ran into
this:
Quote:
In an effort to boost attendance, and give IRL founder Tony George a little jab, Champ Car announced late Sunday afternoon it would honor all U.S. Grand Prix tickets to this Sunday's Grand Prix of Cleveland
|