Turn 13 Controversy
Wow! Second post of the day and this one too is on Sports. And I felt like writing this because something unique happened yesterday which the sport has never ever witnessed in its history and I just wanted to record the same in my blog and also let my views on this controversy which would be debated for a long time.
Turn 13 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway is the centre of all the controversy, those unique turns, 12 and 13 of this circuit,which you travel at around 200 miles per hour for a duration of around 20 seconds(this is a curved oval part of the circuit ) and once you reach the start finish straight, you still carry the same speed until you break late for the turn 1. So literally for more than 30 seconds, you are inside a car which is travelling at more than 300 kmph.Scaring !? And how about doing this for 73 times on a race day? Ready for it? I wont have the courage to do it even in my dreams. What happens when you take the turn 13 is that the whole stress shifts to the left rear tyre and makes it vulnerable to wear and that is where the controversy lies.
Indy circuit has a lot of history behind it. It is the second oldest track on a F1 calendar. Though F1 came to Indy only in 2000, other forms of racing have been going on since early 1900's.What happened exactly was our dear Ralf hit the wall at turn 13, literally at the same place like what he did last year at a speed of more than 200 mph. Last year, he was out of action for months, but good news this time, he was fine, but wont be able to race for this race atleast. Though replaced by Ricardo Zonta, the replacement also had his share of bad luck. He also crashed like ralf because of tyre failure.Michelin supplies tyres to 14 out of 20 drivers, and after the double accidents that happened on friday,michelin were unable to identify the reason for the failures exactly. They felt the current setup of tyres might not last the race completely and it was dangerous to race with this tyre setup.
Now, comes the first question. Why didnt Michelin bring the right set of tyres for the race? The regulations introduced this year clearly states that you have to have the same set of tyres for the entire race weekend,you cannot change the tyres during the pit stops of a race, so they know that they have to get the tyre setup right. And they have been doing it perfectly well for the first 8 races of the season so far: all the first 8 races of the season have been won by a michelin runner. There were even speculations that ferraris on bridgestone tyres are suffering a great deal because of their tyre package, bridgestone seem to get it all wrong for a race: to find tyres that would last the race distance since you cant change it in between. Number of times we have heard Rubens and Narain this season saying that they were running conservatively to preserve the tyres. So it was always michelin who got it all right. What happened this time? Indy is not a new track for them. They have been racing for 5 years now and in fact Mika Hakkinen in his michelin run mclaren had won there once. So its not that the circuit is new for them. They know how it is. So how could they make the mistake at the first place. Of course, they should have had backup tyres and tyres for all possible conditions and surfaces and why did they miss on it? Formula 1 is such an advanced sport in terms of science and technlogy and how could michelin not have simulated all the race conditions and get a suitable tyre for the teams?
Ok, I am agreeing that we all make mistakes and I can forgive michelin for that.How can you ask to introduce a new chicane just because you failed to provide the correct set of tyres? Bridgestone has done a good work in getting correct set of tyres for the race and why should ferrari agree to that proposal? It is totally unfair.This is what Rubens had to say regarding this at the post race conference, which is true: "I mean, if I had changed one of the corners in Bahrain, my tire would have finished, it wouldn't be in such a problem and I probably would have finished even on the podium. So why would we have to agree to that? People think, okay, you put in a chicane, but we haven't tested with that chicane so that could have been even more dangerous. If you take a different line and people spin to the other side, crash into the side wall, how can we do it? It's silly."
Also, taking turn 13 at low speed is a stupid idea as well. You have been accustomed to taking it at a high speed until qualifiers and suddenly to take it at a low speed is nonsense. Also, the guys who raced, proved that the corner as such is not unsafe, all the six of them finished the race without any accident. So I dont agree to the statement that the corner was dangerous in the first place. And, I am disappointed by the rules of F1 as such: Why is this new rule that you cant change in the tyres during the race? If that had not been the case, it would have all become so simple for everyone. Everybody would have been able to change their tyres in between if they seem to be wearing out. Some rules like these are too stupid. May be FIA can think abt it.
And what about moral ethics? Seeing so many teams retire, shouldnt ferrari also declined to race? Ha ha ha. why should they? They have done everything right this time atleast and F1 has become so competitive that every single point you score is very important. So why should ferrari throw it all away? They have been getting it all wrong for 8 times now. Then there was no complaint.You were all enjoying it. Now if you get it wrong and they get it right this time, why should they suffer for something wrong with you?
Whatever the argument be, at the end of it, there was not a single person who could do something that would be aggreable to all the teams. Everybody seemed to be right in their own way, it is really sad that there was not a single person to get them all to a compromise. The sport suffered because of it and so were the thousands of fans who came down to watch something which they can watch only once every year. This incident has put a big '?' over the future of the sport in US and I sincerely hope that things like this dont repeat ever. But US Grand Prix 2005 would go down in F1 history as one of the black days for the sport.Hope it all changes in Magny Cours, which incidentally is the home grand prix for Michelin!
Turn 13 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway is the centre of all the controversy, those unique turns, 12 and 13 of this circuit,which you travel at around 200 miles per hour for a duration of around 20 seconds(this is a curved oval part of the circuit ) and once you reach the start finish straight, you still carry the same speed until you break late for the turn 1. So literally for more than 30 seconds, you are inside a car which is travelling at more than 300 kmph.Scaring !? And how about doing this for 73 times on a race day? Ready for it? I wont have the courage to do it even in my dreams. What happens when you take the turn 13 is that the whole stress shifts to the left rear tyre and makes it vulnerable to wear and that is where the controversy lies.
Indy circuit has a lot of history behind it. It is the second oldest track on a F1 calendar. Though F1 came to Indy only in 2000, other forms of racing have been going on since early 1900's.What happened exactly was our dear Ralf hit the wall at turn 13, literally at the same place like what he did last year at a speed of more than 200 mph. Last year, he was out of action for months, but good news this time, he was fine, but wont be able to race for this race atleast. Though replaced by Ricardo Zonta, the replacement also had his share of bad luck. He also crashed like ralf because of tyre failure.Michelin supplies tyres to 14 out of 20 drivers, and after the double accidents that happened on friday,michelin were unable to identify the reason for the failures exactly. They felt the current setup of tyres might not last the race completely and it was dangerous to race with this tyre setup.
Now, comes the first question. Why didnt Michelin bring the right set of tyres for the race? The regulations introduced this year clearly states that you have to have the same set of tyres for the entire race weekend,you cannot change the tyres during the pit stops of a race, so they know that they have to get the tyre setup right. And they have been doing it perfectly well for the first 8 races of the season so far: all the first 8 races of the season have been won by a michelin runner. There were even speculations that ferraris on bridgestone tyres are suffering a great deal because of their tyre package, bridgestone seem to get it all wrong for a race: to find tyres that would last the race distance since you cant change it in between. Number of times we have heard Rubens and Narain this season saying that they were running conservatively to preserve the tyres. So it was always michelin who got it all right. What happened this time? Indy is not a new track for them. They have been racing for 5 years now and in fact Mika Hakkinen in his michelin run mclaren had won there once. So its not that the circuit is new for them. They know how it is. So how could they make the mistake at the first place. Of course, they should have had backup tyres and tyres for all possible conditions and surfaces and why did they miss on it? Formula 1 is such an advanced sport in terms of science and technlogy and how could michelin not have simulated all the race conditions and get a suitable tyre for the teams?
Ok, I am agreeing that we all make mistakes and I can forgive michelin for that.How can you ask to introduce a new chicane just because you failed to provide the correct set of tyres? Bridgestone has done a good work in getting correct set of tyres for the race and why should ferrari agree to that proposal? It is totally unfair.This is what Rubens had to say regarding this at the post race conference, which is true: "I mean, if I had changed one of the corners in Bahrain, my tire would have finished, it wouldn't be in such a problem and I probably would have finished even on the podium. So why would we have to agree to that? People think, okay, you put in a chicane, but we haven't tested with that chicane so that could have been even more dangerous. If you take a different line and people spin to the other side, crash into the side wall, how can we do it? It's silly."
Also, taking turn 13 at low speed is a stupid idea as well. You have been accustomed to taking it at a high speed until qualifiers and suddenly to take it at a low speed is nonsense. Also, the guys who raced, proved that the corner as such is not unsafe, all the six of them finished the race without any accident. So I dont agree to the statement that the corner was dangerous in the first place. And, I am disappointed by the rules of F1 as such: Why is this new rule that you cant change in the tyres during the race? If that had not been the case, it would have all become so simple for everyone. Everybody would have been able to change their tyres in between if they seem to be wearing out. Some rules like these are too stupid. May be FIA can think abt it.
And what about moral ethics? Seeing so many teams retire, shouldnt ferrari also declined to race? Ha ha ha. why should they? They have done everything right this time atleast and F1 has become so competitive that every single point you score is very important. So why should ferrari throw it all away? They have been getting it all wrong for 8 times now. Then there was no complaint.You were all enjoying it. Now if you get it wrong and they get it right this time, why should they suffer for something wrong with you?
Whatever the argument be, at the end of it, there was not a single person who could do something that would be aggreable to all the teams. Everybody seemed to be right in their own way, it is really sad that there was not a single person to get them all to a compromise. The sport suffered because of it and so were the thousands of fans who came down to watch something which they can watch only once every year. This incident has put a big '?' over the future of the sport in US and I sincerely hope that things like this dont repeat ever. But US Grand Prix 2005 would go down in F1 history as one of the black days for the sport.Hope it all changes in Magny Cours, which incidentally is the home grand prix for Michelin!
3 Comments:
me busy to my butt man :(...not reading blogs, not blogging...hope things improve in the near future...
bumped into your blog just now. though its been a while since USGP and turn 13, nonetheless heres my $0.02
One of the big reasons why Bridgestone got it right and Michelin didnt was that Indy is not included as a testing circuit at all, and teams needed to depend on last year's test data which would be quite different. But Bridgestone's sister company Firestone recently ran a NASCAR race at Indy and this data was available to Bridgestone.
And the real culprits in my view were Jordan. Minardi had decided not to race along with the Michelin runners, but Jordan looking at the point-scoring opportunity at the last moment decided to race on, and because of this Minardi were forced to race. Else 9 teams would have backed out, and there would not have been any race, and then the teams would have been forced to reach some compromise and have a race (even if its a dummy race) for the sake of the spectators.
It was funny when despite having no other team to compete with, Schumi still almost took his teammate out when he came out of his pitstop. If they crashed at that point, then it would have been hilarious. Jordan 1 and 2, Minardi 3 and 4 :D
hey zealous zygote...who are you???thanks for the comment in my blog!
Post a Comment
<< Home