The Indianapolis Grand Farce 20/06/2005 It is not in the nature of this blog that I write of topical matters, at least until they have been consigned to the collective memory we call history. But over the weekend an event occurred that affects one of my minor passions. I speak of the farce that was the Formula 1 Indianapolis Grand Prix.To recap quickly, one of the tire suppliers, Michelin, had problems with the tires they had brought for the race. There were a couple of accidents in practice resulting from major tire failure in a very high speed, banked corner. Michelin advised that they could not guarantee the safety of their tires for the race and proposed several solutions to the problem, none of which was accepted by the governing body of the sport, the FIA. The net result was that all the cars on Michelin tires withdrew after the warm up lap, leaving just six cars on Bridgestone tires to participate in a meaningless race.Not surprisingly, this has sparked an enormous amount of controversy, with race fans understandably indignant at the ruination of a long-anticipated event, talking head experts discussing at great length the pros and cons of each participant's actions and general confusion that such a thing should happen at all. My first reaction was shame that this happened in the States and that the Americans should be witnesses to the worst behavior of which F1 is capable. Before the institution of the Indy race, there was no American Grand Prix for many years, an omission that the FIA struggled to rectify, only too aware of the huge market they were missing out on. There is some irony in the fact that, having managed to arrange the Indy GP and see it grow in popularity over the last few years, the FIA has now shot itself in the foot in such a spectacular manner. I would not blame the Americans one bit if they ignored F1 from this moment, just as they have done in previous years.But it seems I may be overly pessimistic in this. Last night I watched a two-hour television program reflecting on the events of the day and with the usual experts pronouncing wisely on what effects might result. Several American fans phoned in to give their opinions and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the knowledge of the fans impressed me - it was obvious that they understood and were enthusiastic about F1. And, secondly, it appeared that, although angry that their race had been ruined, they were not put off and hoped that the event would remain on the calendar for next year.Nobody seems to remember that this is not the first time that politics and money have interfered with a F1 race, however. In the early eighties, as the turbo-charged era dawned with full force, there was a San Marino Grand Prix that became a similar disaster. I forget now what the dispute was about but the majority of constructors withdrew from that race, too, leaving Ferrari, Renault and (if memory serves me correctly) one of the smaller teams to circulate in a pointless display of Ferrari's ability to win if the competition is disposed of.So why do such things happen in the richest and most popular sport of all (with the possible exception of soccer)? I think the answer must lie in that wealth and popularity.I first started following F1 in the early sixties. It was a time when tiny British companies based in backyard garages were beginning to overcome the might of motor racing giants like Ferrari and Maserati. At the time the amount of money required to run a team seemed a lot but it would not have bought you a racing tire today. Even so, the costs continued to mount throughout the decade and eventually the constructors had to turn to advertising to be able to keep on racing.We said goodbye to national racing colors (although British Racing Green will always be known as just that) and became accustomed to watching races involving multi-colored cars plastered in advertisers' names. Throughout the seventies the teams that managed to snare the richest sponsorship deals gravitated towards the front as the money spurred multiple technical advances.In the eighties the car manufacturers began to enter the game as they realized the marketing potential available. Once again, costs spiraled upwards as the giants struggled to have their cars at the front of the grid. Even the drivers had to be a new breed specifically designed to handle the pressure of driving these new marvels of technology. It was only just over twenty years ago that Nelson Piquet had to be lifted out of his car after winning a particularly hot Argentine Grand Prix. These days super-fit machines like Michael Schumacher do not even raise a sweat during the race.The net result is that the sport is now an arena for huge corporations pouring fortunes into winning at any cost. Add the complexities of the FIA's interests and you have a recipe for disaster.The FIA is a mass of conflicting intentions. One of their prime considerations is supposed to be safety and so they are always trying to slow the cars down (while the engineers do their best to circumvent their every attempt). So they get rid of supposedly dangerous old circuits and bring in chicanes everywhere to force the cars to slow down. The fact that this makes it impossible for cars to pass each other on modern circuits means that the races become boring processions, another factor that concerns the FIA - the public must be entertained because that's where the FIA gets its money. Their solution is to have the cars making pit stops to refuel, thereby introducing the possibility that cars can pass each other while in the pits. The fact that this adds to the dangers inherent in racing no longer seems to matter.The FIA also maintain that they are concerned about the rising costs of F1 racing. This is the alleged reason for limiting the teams to one set of tires per race and one engine for two races. The fact that they change the rules every year, thereby forcing the teams to undertake extensive re-designs and yet more costs as a result, achieves the exact opposite of their stated intention. The confusion caused the poor race fan by all these constant rule changes is yet another factor quietly ignored.Formula 1 has become a battleground for enormous and conflicting interests; that is the real reason for the farcical race at Indianapolis. It is probably impossible that everything can be sorted out to everyone's satisfaction and the likelihood is that costs will continue to spiral upwards until the whole thing becomes just too expensive for anyone to take part. At that point, we might even have an instance of history repeating itself.In the late 1950s, the FIA found that there were no teams wanting to participate in F1 under their current formula. So they scrapped it and instituted a new one. It was actually just the previous year's Formula 2 and so they knew that cars were readily available to take part.Anyone reckon that go-karts will be the new F1 formula for 2010?
Clive
John (SYNTAGMA) You open my eyes to F1, Clive. I'd not realized it was so complicated. I saw the race on the news today and it seemed a total farce, as you say. But wasn't it the French Michelin tyres to blame? If they weren't up to scratch, shouldn't they take the blame? No doubt vast sums will be claimed in the courts. I remember that Tony Blair was involved in receiving a million quid from the owner of this circus (can't remember his name) and gave them a wild card on tobacco advertising in return. Well, sport isn't sport these days, it's just greed. Date Added: 20/06/2005
Gone Away Part of the problem is that there are two tyre companies involved, Michelin and Bridgestone. And being on the right tyres can make the difference between winning and losing the race. Tyre development is constant because of the competition and sometimes a new construction of tyre can fail under race conditions - something that just can't be simulated until you try them. Michelin's latest was falling apart under the stresses created by a banked corner (the only one in F1) so it's understandable that it caught them by surprise. So, yes, it's Michelin's fault for having a tyre that could no cope with the entire circuit but it is also the FIA's fault for not taking the safety factor into account and allowing Michelin to bring over different tyres to replace the faulty batch. Of the two, I'd say that the FIA are more to blame since they are far too rigid in situations like these but I do tend to be anti-FIA anyway. The man who was involved in the deal with Tony Blair was Bernie Ecclestone - the FIA's money man and the eminence grise behind the whole F1 show. I heard that he was trying to stare down the owners of the Michelin teams at the Indy race - and that sounds typical of the man. What was needed was fair compromise, not macho staring competitions. And you are right that the big problem these days is greed. Because this whole affair puts F1 in such a bad light, I may do a piece on the Minardi team tomorrow - to show that there is still sportsmanship in places within the whole thing. Date Added: 20/06/2005
Josh Wow! Lots of acronyms. I feel like I'm reading my blog in a parallel universe. ;) I wish I had something erudite to say; It is always fascinates me to peer into the internecine politics of any group, especially when the actors are so clearly defined. As I am not a race fan (I hold no opinion on it, actually) I am left to ponder the simple and emotional response to this situation: How do the French always find a way to bollocks things up? ;) Date Added: 20/06/2005
Gone Away That's easy, Josh - by being French! :D Date Added: 20/06/2005
Mad Bloody FIA... grrrr Date Added: 20/06/2005
Rusty I like go-karts...I think I saw a movie about F1 racing... it had Stallone it.Other than that, no contact at all. Date Added: 20/06/2005
Gone Away It amazes me that the FIA continue after all these years to behave as though the views of the constructors and drivers just don't matter, Mad. If they carry on like this much longer, there will be a breakaway form of F1, just as happened to CART racing. Date Added: 20/06/2005
Gone Away I like go-karts too, Rusty - fantastic fun. But Stallone in an movie about F1? The mind boggles... Date Added: 20/06/2005
keeefer I think its grossly unfair! The FIA are forcing these atheletes to use tire manufacturers, its no wonder they need to be so fit. Gone, you have been away to long i think you meant tyres! Date Added: 21/06/2005
Ned It's been a long time since I read Car and Driver and watched racing events with my older brother, so I am not up on the latest in racing or even the famous teams and names of racing today. But even I heard about the Michelin fiasco. It ranks up there with the whole hockey season being cancelled, but that was the fault of contract negotiations (over money, what else). This seems to be a case where the would-be participants were ready to race but the racing authority turned them away on a technicality they invented. To run a race with only a fraction of the anticipated field is a farce. I had forgotten just how much boys get all wrapped up in that car stuff. Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away As I explained quite a long time ago in the blog, Keef, I use American spelling now. Is this the first time you've noticed? ;) Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away It's priorities, Ned. What could possibly be more important than racing fast cars? :D Date Added: 21/06/2005
keeefer Nope ive noticed before but assumed you weren't well. But tire and tyre are 2 entirely different things. I have the same issue here in Aus. I actually saw a sign that said consealed entrance.......what does that mean????? Its been bricked up by prisoners????? Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away ROFL Keef, good definition. But the Americans do spell tyre with an 'i' unfortunately, so I am forced to follow suit... Date Added: 21/06/2005
keeefer do they pronounce memo as me-mo? that one blows my mind....and route? our techie was on about a ROUTer I thought we were retreating from Iraq. Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away "Memo" they pronounce as we do but "route" can be pronounced either way. I think that might be a regional thing. Date Added: 21/06/2005
keeefer well ive tried to educate them that we aren't 'finding me-mo' but they dont get it yet. The whole nations rather glum at the moment because they have lost all 4 cricket matches on English soil, including a humiliating loss to Bangladesh the worlds worst side. Im praying that we win the ashes back or they will be unbearable. Aussies are not very gracious winners and they are very very sore losers. Whenever rugbys mentioned all i get is 'the worst team won' ' you only had one good player' etc etc and when they lost the first 20/20 cricket match they were saying 'its not real cricket' 'well you can only win the games that dont matter'.....when they lost the one day international it was a little more serious so they concentrated on the start of wimbledon and cricket got a tiny mention at the end of the news Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away You have to understand how important sport is to the Ozzies, Keef. I hope you're not making yourself unpopular by being the classic "whingeing pom"? Date Added: 21/06/2005
keeefer I dont need to whinge to be unpopular :) Im actually very good with them....though my hands never far away from my wallet or other valuables Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away LOL Keef, I think you'll succeed in Oz. ;) Date Added: 21/06/2005
Mad Woah! The pile of cr@p technorati link has become half decent! .o0(and just as I was getting around to stopping putting off my procrastinating over getting around to putting off doing something about it... if I could be bothered) Date Added: 21/06/2005
Josh Yeah, too bad it all-of-the-sudden became decent and completely hammered my layout. I can hear the hue and cry about fair warning off in the distance. ;) Date Added: 21/06/2005
Mad Hmmm and it's better in the 'fox than it is in IE... Date Added: 21/06/2005
Gone Away Good point about fair warning, Josh - it suddenly appeared mid-morning yesterday. Have you seen the Technorati beta interface though? Date Added: 21/06/2005
Josh Yep Yep. I must admit, though, that the idea behind technorati is still quite nebulous from my perspective. Probably more than a litlle "what have you done for me lately" in there, but still, I have traversed that site back to front and have yet to encounter a defined mission statement that struct me as useful. And now I see the old style doodad is back. How very odd. Date Added: 22/06/2005
Gone Away They put out a newsletter about that, Josh. Apparently it was a mistake in the first place so they put things back how they were. As for the uses of Technorati, I think I have it worked out. They find the links to your blog that Google doesn't. So Google reckons I have 97 links and Technorati says 26. Go figure. Date Added: 23/06/2005
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
