Minardi aims to be the only legal car at Silverstone.

[Adam43]

I got this from Autosport http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=23705&s=5

It seems that Minardi are withdrawing it's support for the U-turn on driver aids for the British GP. Remember Max banned them at the end of last year. The start of the ban was set for the British GP. However all the teams agreed that if various other measures including cheaper customer engines and free money for the small teams (fighting fund) were introduced then they could keep traction control and other things for at least a bit longer.

However Minardi says that not all the agreement has been honoured by the big teams, so he is withdrawing his support for the U-turn on drive aids.

So will all the other cars be disqualified at the British GP? I doubt it. I also doubt that this is anything other than a little sabre rattling, but it looks like a bit of fun.

Also is it a coincidence that this seems (I'm not 100% sure on this) after Minardi's first 'pole'?

All good fun.

Frankly I hope the big teams never pay up and this unlikely situation occurs, because the upshot is a ban on those aids.

[BootsOntheSide]

Mianrdi are quite right to pursue this issue. the fighting fund was agreed by all the teams, and doesn't appear to ahve been honoured. I'm another person who likes racing to be pure, uncomplicated, and about driver skill. the aids in modern cars are a long way off that, and are jsut leaving us with a situation where the bread-and-butter privateer teams are being forced out.

Of course, a similar situation loomed in the build up to the 1993 Canadain Grand Prix, when the original wave of active suspention and traction cotnrol were being banned, and it was Mianrdi who stood up to be counted then. Let's see how it goes this time.

[Adam43]

I remember that. Sauber were also a team that had nothing to fear at that point too.

[MrSal]

Am I being cynical or does anyone smell Bernie behind this now he has a stake in Minardi? I'm sure he doesn't want the grid reducing any further so its in his interests to keep a supply of relatively cheap engines available to smaller teams.

[steve nielsen]

Originally posted by MrSal
Am I being cynical or does anyone smell Bernie behind this now he has a stake in Minardi? I'm sure he doesn't want the grid reducing any further so its in his interests to keep a supply of relatively cheap engines available to smaller teams.

I think you might be right:

no more driver aids= more driver errors=more spectacularGP's= more viewers=more income for Bernie

[golem]

Well I think it's more than just saber rattling. If the original agreements on cheapening up the series in exchange for the U-turn on driver aids has not been honoured then why should they be allowed to drive with the aids etc?

Minardi just want to bring it to the public eye again, so that the FIA may be forced to act on it. Doubt it but I imagine that's their goal.

[chezza]

I think minardi have a valid point and I think they should stick to their guns!

[Tristan]

I smell Bernard. Also.

[chezza]

Yeah this does seem to have a bit of a stench about it!

[Spudgun]

Originally posted by Tristan
I smell Bernard. Also.

That popped into my head when I heard it too.

But even so, I reckon they should go for it. I don't really like T/C and L/C. It'll makes things more interesting at least.

[Adam43]

The trouble with this, for me, is that the big team are being a bit "look we do it best" and not always thinking about the best for the sport, but equally Stoddy is being an upstart who comes in and think he knows best and reckons he should be given special rights (and free cash) for having an inadequate team (and not thinking what is best for the sport).

Long sentence I know but arrghhhhhhhh.

[Lee Janotta]

Anyone thinking of putting money on Wilson to win his home GP?

[RWC]

OK,lets try this for the third time...stupid computers!!!You can rely on them doing something wrong just as you can rely on bernie to be dipping his hand into everybody elses money!

Yep,bernie is behind stoddy pushing him..."We'll fight you guys,won't you paul"LOL(what's the matter little feller,can't fight your own battles?)

This whole affair is a huge stuff up.
Max wanted to change the rules to make things cheaper
the teams suggested giving money to the smaller teams if the rules weren't touched.max did what he wanted anyway
stoddy,you should be seeing max,he's the one who stuffed things for you!(that's after you have a long hard look at yourself for complaining about lack of sponsers for a team you won't invest your own multi millions in!!!!)

[avsfan733]

I absolutely agree with Paul, this is total bull****. They can't just push Minardi around. The whole point of the rules and the agreements is fairness and that doesn't just apply to mclaren/ferrari/williams. It would be funny if Minardi protested the results as the FIA court wouldn't have many options but to overturn

[RWC]

they aren't 'pushing minardi around'.They are just not going out of their way to rescue minardi from bad management

[avsfan733]

I see it differently I'm sorry. They make an agreement and then decide they just feel like dropping it. The fighting fund was agreed to, and when the big teams dropped out of it it died. So Minardi is changing their support for the drivers aids. The problem will be them not disqualifying the other cars which I can't possibly see happening. That would be pushing Minardi around because it shows the FIA's willingness to cater to the winning, big budget teams.

[DavidStHubbins]

Weren't Bernie and Max having a squabble a while ago?

Bernie may have pulled off a masterstroke chess move here

[badoer fan]

Originally posted by steve nielsen
I think you might be right:

no more driver aids= more driver errors=more spectacularGP's

Not necessarily. I can barely remember any drivers really making many mistakes when they didn't have driving aids. Sure, Trulli did at Montreal this year, but that's cos he was expecting traction control to kick in and it didn't. In that kind of situation you will spin. But in the few preceding 2001, I can barely think of any instances of that, and the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is Hakkinen at Monza in 99 (?)

[Adam43]

A mistake doesn't necesserily mean going off. Perhaps just a loss of time. A bit too much correction under throttle. A need to get out of the throttle, perhaps. A good driver getting it right and managing to have more throttle than another on the exit. Perhaps an earlier throttle. More controlled than someone else. Better than someone else. A more deserved winner.

[RWC]

Just for the record ,banning TC will have ZERO effect on anything because there are so many dead easy ways to make a peaky engine tractable that simply cant be banned.Ok,sure the fia could try to mandate control ECU's but the teams would simply say no.

[Smokey 6 litre]

push it Minardi, just think, if Minardi are the ONLY legal team then they can come 1st and 2nd.
Who's your money on, Verstappen or Wilson?

[ASCII Man]

5 Euro's on Jos!

[steve nielsen]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
A mistake doesn't necesserily mean going off. Perhaps just a loss of time. A bit too much correction under throttle. A need to get out of the throttle, perhaps. A good driver getting it right and managing to have more throttle than another on the exit. Perhaps an earlier throttle. More controlled than someone else. Better than someone else. A more deserved winner.

and of course this could mean more overtaking........

[gttouring]

look at champcar now it is slip crash brakelock and skid everyweek-F1 isn't so badd though this year, this is a gimmick

[badoer fan]

But when *did* it actually mean more overtaking?