The Great American Disaster
Great American Disaster was the name of a
restaurant, but the disaster I am referring to is the complete
farce that was dished up to the US public as an F1 motor race
last weekend. It was a wonderful example of how cynical the
teams have become, how avaricious, how stupid, how cowardly
and how they would attempt to make everyone else, especially
the FIA and even Ferrari, into the scapegoats. No wonder they
were having meetings while the “race” was going on, so
they could put out a joint statement at the end. I was
disgusted.
Here are the true facts. First off, the
tyre rules. Teams are supposed to bring two different types of
tyre to meetings, and then pick one, on which they qualify and
race. Indianapolis is known to be hard on tyres, the left rear
in particular, so one would imagine that the tyre companies
would have a harder tyre as the back-up.
Now here is the lead-up. In practice, the
two Toyotas of Ralf Schumacher and Ricardo Zonta blew the
sidewalls of the left hand rear tyres. Toyota is one of the
seven teams supplied by Michelin. The tyre company examined
the failures, said they couldn’t guarantee the other
Michelin teams would not have the same problem and admitted
that they had not brought a harder sidewall tyre. They
estimated that the tyres they had brought to America would be
good for 10 laps. Their initial suggestion was that Michelin
fly in suitable tyres from France overnight. However, here is
the nub of the problem - the regulations plainly state that
substitution of tyres is in violation of the rules, and anyone
caught running the “wrong” tyres would be penalized.
To attempt not to be penalized, the next
course of action that the seven Michelin shod teams and
Michelin came up with, was for the FIA to reduce the speeds
the cars would do through the high-speed Turn 13 right-hander,
and they suggested a chicane be built on the morning of the
race day! They then decided they would hold a gun at the
organizers heads and say that if the chicane was not built,
the Michelin tyred cars would not race.
Now what must also be remembered, is that
the three Bridgestone tyred teams (Ferrari, Jordan and
Minardi) were having no problems with their choice of
(Bridgestone) tyres; however, Jordan and Minardi decided to go
with the majority and said they wanted a chicane as well, or
they wouldn’t race either. This only left Ferrari, but their
take on it was that it was a problem between Michelin,
Michelin teams and the FIA, which is correct.
Michelin sent their letters of demand to
the FIA Race Director (Charlie Whiting) who replied as
follows:
“We are very surprised that this
difficulty has arisen. As you know, each team is allowed to
bring two different types of tyre to an event so as to ensure
that a back-up (usually of lower performance) is available
should problems occur. It is hard to understand why you have
not supplied your teams with such a tyre given your years of
experience at Indianapolis.
“That the teams you supply are not in
possession of such a tyre will also be a matter for the FIA to
consider in due course under Article 151c of the International
Sporting Code.
“No doubt you will inform your teams what
is the maximum safe speed for their cars in Turn 13. We will
remind them of the need to follow your advice for safety
reasons. We will also ask them to ensure their cars do not
obstruct other competitors.
“Some of the teams have raised with us
the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in
qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the
rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty
would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to
ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the
future.
“Another possibility would be for the
relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during
the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear
is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the
technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each
change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus
for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were
not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this
meant using tyres additional to a teams’ allocation, the
stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what
penalty, if any, to apply.
“Finally, it has been suggested that a
chicane should be laid out in Turn 13. I am sure you will
appreciate that this is out of the question. To change the
course in order to help some of the teams with a performance
problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to
the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to
those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct
tyres.
Yours sincerely,
Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Race Director”
So in other words, the FIA said that
Michelin knew the rules and they should stick by them. If
their drivers need slow down for Turn 13, then this is under
their control (the pedal is the one on the far right and the
drivers are paid millions to know this!).
The Sunday was race day, and the seven
Michelin teams formed up on the grid with the three
Bridgestone ones, as if they were prepared to race, then did
the warm-up, and giving the American public a total slap in
the face with a wet haddock, the Michelin teams drove back
into the pits and got out of their cars. What a farce! If they
were not going to race, why did they line up in the first
place?
In another display of gutlessness,
Minardi’s Paul Stoddart, the spokesman for nine of the teams
(not for Ferrari), fronted his team on to the grid for the
race, along with Jordan. This he said was because Jordan
backed out of the ‘solidarity’ deal and had decided to
race! The fact that picking up points meant millions of
dollars to Minardi had nothing to do with it, I’m sure.
The team bosses have now shown their hands.
They could not care about race fans. They didn’t like
playing to the rules and took their footballs and went home.
Pathetic! And don’t be suckered in that it was for the
“safety of the drivers”. That was just a smokescreen.
Driver safety was covered by either lifting off and driving
slower through Turn 13, or coming in for new left hand rear
tyres every 10 laps.
Mind you, what I would have done is agreed
that they could have a chicane down on the right side of the
track, through which all the Michelin runners would have to
go, but the Bridgestone teams could avoid it and go through
Turn 13 flat out.
What do the
Aussies think of “our” Toyota Vigo?
Many people who live in Thailand do not
truly understand just how important this country has become as
a world player in the automotive stakes. In the first quarter
of this year, for example, did you know that Thailand exported
over 35 billion baht of motor cars? That was almost 87,000
vehicles that were built here for export.
Individually, the AutoAlliance of
Ford/Mazda shipped out the greatest numbers with almost 20,000
vehicles leaving Laem Chabang. Mitsubishi was second with a
little over 18,000 units, closely followed by Toyota with 17.8
thousand units.
So where did all these vehicles go? Well,
Asia took 11,274 units, Australia and NZ took 7,222 units,
Europe (6,123), all the way down to Africa which took 837
vehicles.
I found the following review in an
Australian newspaper website, so I clipped a bit, as I thought
it interesting to see what the lads Down-under think of our
Thai product. The vehicle was the new Toyota Vigo double cab,
which is marketed in Australia as the Toyota Hilux SR5
Double-Cab. Remember when you read this, that the Aussies call
pick-ups “Utes” (pick-ups are something you take out of
bars!).
Aussie tester Bill McKinnon wrote on June
3, this year, “The 2005 Hilux is new from the wheels up.
It’s a much bigger truck than its predecessors and comes in
single cab chassis/pick-up, extended cab chassis/pick-up and
double-cab pick-up body styles.”
Now this is where it gets difficult to
compare. The Aussie Vigo gets a 2.7 litre four cylinder (which
we don’t get), or a 4 litre V6 (which we also don’t get),
as well as the 3 litre, four-cylinder turbodiesel engine, with
the choice of five-speed manual or four-speed auto
transmissions, that we do get here.
Going back to the review, “The SR5 gets
the top-of-the-line standard equipment list, which includes
two front airbags, front seat belt pretensioners, anti-lock
brakes, MP3-compatible six-stack in-dash CD/cassette player,
15-inch alloy wheels, power windows and mirrors,
leather-wrapped steering wheel, trip computer and permanently
illuminated instruments.
“Well-fed blokes might find the
driver’s seat a bit soft and underpadded. You sit quite
close to the floor, with no reach adjustment for the steering
wheel. Leg room is adequate.
“Double-cab utes are usually five-seaters
in name only, with the back stalls being far too cramped for
average-sized adults. Toyota has fixed that problem in the
Hilux, with a 235mm longer wheelbase. The back seat is now
comfortable and spacious, though the centre position still has
only a lap belt.
“Off-road, the Hilux will go just about
anywhere you point it. The 3.0 turbo diesel, with a canopy on
the back to keep the dust out of your gear, would make a
terrific outback touring vehicle but the petrol engine
versions will stretch the range of the 76 litre fuel tank.
“The new Hilux still drives like an old
truck - because, chassis-wise, that’s what it is - however,
it is also less nervous and twitchy than its predecessors. The
longer wheelbase and wider track are the basis for more
reassuring, secure dynamics, assisted by an upgraded
suspension, rack and pinion steering and more effective
brakes. Stopping power, though, is still insufficient. Rear
drums just aren’t adequate on a 1.8 tonne ute.”
So the Aussie tester basically said that
this was the best yet from Toyota, but still hated the ride.
However, you have to remember that in Oz, the usual “ute”
is a Holden or Ford, based on the sedan platform, so rides
much softer. But in 10 years time, I’d put my money on the
Vigo still delivering the goods (literally and
metaphorically), while the other two would have become
land-fill after six years.
Autotrivia
Quiz
Buckeye
Bullet
Last week, I asked who holds the Land Speed
Record for electric vehicles? And when? The answer is the Ohio
State University’s electric vehicle the Buckeye Bullet,
which on October 29, 2004, broke the electric vehicle land
speed record, raising the bar to more than 300 miles per hour
on the Bonneville Salt flat. Over several days the car set an
official world record of 271.7 mph, an official US record of
314.95 mph (different rules), and became the fastest electric
vehicle ever at 321.8 mph. By comparison, Camille Jenatzy set
the first mark at 65.79 mph in 1899.
So to this week. What is the name of this
vehicle? And what horsepower does it churn out?
For the Automania FREE beer this week, be
the first correct answer to email [email protected]
Good luck
No GP’s this
weekend
The next GP will be the French on July 3,
and if it is another disaster like the US GP, will mean the
end of F1.
