>I'm referring not to Ferrari and the FIA being "nice guys". My
>understanding is that one of the proposals was to let the Bridgestone cars
>have the points, or line up first on the grid, etc. The Bridgestone
>runners could have had it any way they wanted. It wasn't about points by
>then. It was about putting on a show, providing the sponsorship exposure
>and fan entertainment that people
Absolutely, the objective "should" be how to accommodate the fans and the
sponsors! However, the issue still boiled down to either a Chicane was put
in at T13 or Michelin would tell it's teams not to run. IMS was ready to
put in a chicane and according to Frank Williams, Ferrari was not part of
those discussions so according to him they bare no blame for that not
occurring. Peter Windsor last night even said that if Ferrari had weighed
in on that issue one way or the other the FIA would have been correct in
ignoring them.
Run without the chicane and Michelin felt they had liability if there was
an accident. Run with a chicane and the FIA would have opened themselves
up to liability since they would have broken/ignored the rules they are
supposed to enforce. Therefore, the FIA said that they would withdraw the
sanction if a chicane was used.
Personally I think running a "demonstration" race without FIA sanction
would have been the best outcome as far as the general fans were concerned
and for the future health of F1 in the US. Although whose sanction and
thereby whose "insurance" would they have run under?
I think that the immovable object of liability litigation exposure was
probably the main sticking point in both groups mind.
>paid for. Now, needless to say, it's become a much larger issue than it
>would have been otherwise. And all US F1 fans will suffer from this. I am
>one of those.
|