So Rebecca and I are planning on going for a walk this evening... which will be nice, I feel like I don't exercise at all. I did walk to work most of the day's last week...

Then we are hanging out doing something saturday night... and on Sunday we are moving all the crap from the old garage to the new garage. It will suck, but it will be really nice to have the new garage up and running... I would rather go there than the old one in skokie. So THAT day will suck.

Then a full week of work, then (hopefully) a 4 day weekend for the 4th. that will be nice.

Even though it was hot as hell today in Chicago, we moved a bunch of stuff into the new house. Thanks mom, dad, and kevin. I still need to get my stuff packed and ready to go, but nearly all of rebecca's stuff is over there. It is nice to know we have it in the place.

We also went to the place to get the hardwood. Mind you, the price is really really good, and so there is some 'too good to be true' kind of thoughts going on, but I should know more tomorrow when they call me. Hopefully I will have the flooring before the weekend. It will be really nice to get that in the house and we can finish the move.

still maintaining their innocence and how could the FIA screw over so many fans?

Michelin Offers to Refund USGP Tickets
Written by: Cassio Cortes
Clermont-Ferrand, France – 6/28/2005

Michelin has taken a large step in an attempt to smooth the PR blow inflicted by its teams’ withdrawal from the USGP, as the tire manufacturer has announced plans to refund the fans who attended the race at Indy two weeks ago. Furthermore, the company intends to hand out 20,000 free tickets for next year’s USGP among the spectators present at this year’s six-cars-only race.

“Michelin has decided to contribute to the costs incurred by the spectators present at the circuit on Sunday June 19th 2005 by offering to refund their tickets,” the company stated today. “This is an important decision, since Michelin is not at all legally bound to do this.

"Michelin deeply regrets that the public was deprived of an exciting race and therefore wishes to be the first, among the different groups involved in the Indianapolis race, to make a strong gesture towards the spectators.

“Michelin also offers to buy 20,000 tickets for the 2006 U.S. Grand Prix to be given to spectators who were present at the Indianapolis race in 2005. We are offering this to promote further Formula 1 interest in the United States,” it added.

The company’s initiative should also help its squads to get away with smaller penalties in tomorrow’s World Motor Sport Council hearing, scheduled by the FIA to analyze the matter. Still, the statement ratified Michelin’s stance of rebutting FIA president’s Max Mosley’s criticism, and made clear its disagreement ober the role played in the controversy by its affiliated teams.

“We would also like to take this opportunity to underline the fact that it is unacceptable that our partner teams have been accused by the FIA of having boycotted the Indianapolis Grand Prix,” it read. “The reality is that together, Michelin and its partners have done everything possible to assure that the race could take place in total safety.

“We are extremely disappointed that the proposals made with all our teams were not accepted. These proposals, including a chicane, were technically viable and totally met all safety requirements. On Sunday morning, June 19, the sporting authority had all the means necessary to preserve the interest of the race.

“And yet, the sporting authority rejected the proposed solutions. Why? In our view this is totally incomprehensible and reflects a lack of respect for the spectators,” the statement concluded.

I did help a buddy's wife learn to autox though, and that is always rewarding. People are so timid with their cars in the beginning. It always amazes me that people have never pushed their cars. I obviously mean in a controlled environment, but even then you would learn stuff. I think everyone should be required to autox or something to just get a feel for tire sliding, tire squealing, and weight transfer. It would improve the people's accident avoidance abilities... but back to the student... she wasn't comfortable with the sliding, the noises, etc at first... she just hadn't ever done it, but she got over it quickly, and she was sliding and squealing around in no time. It was nice to watch her confidence level increase as the day progressed and her comfort level improved. We may even see her at another event.

It is also a nice feeling of justification for myself and likely car people everywhere when you have a non car person, who has likely asked what makes those $250 tires better than the $80 tires finally realize what it is you have been spending all your money on.

I got my father to an autox a couple years ago and I rode with him and in his non modded A4 and he learned stuff. Then I took him for a ride in my modded A4, and he was like 'now I can see where all the money for tires and suspension goes'. It was a nice feeling.

I like to see people improve in their driving abilities. It is a nice feeling.

You can read the article on crash.net or I have pasted it below...

Q&A – Max Mosley
Written by:
Geneva, Switzerland

The FIA released the following "Q&A" Wednesday with its president, Max Mosley, who presents his view of the controversial events at last weekend's USGP at Indianapolis:

Q: What about the American fans who traveled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only six cars?

Max Mosley: My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the U.S. Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-
of-charge next year. But I emphasize, that's just my personal view.

Q: Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?

MM: You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula 1 is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula 1 is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.

Q: Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?

MM: The decision was taken, quite rightly in my view, by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.

Q: Why unfair?

MM: Because modern Formula 1 cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.

Q: Is this why Ferrari objected?

MM: No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.

Q: Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?

MM: No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organizer to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.

Q: Never mind about skiing, what about Formula 1?

MM: OK, but it's the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder, as in the past. Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.

Q: All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?

MM: There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tires. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.

Q: How can you say a chicane would be "potentially dangerous" when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?

MM: A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?

Q: But it's what the teams wanted.

MM: It's what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tires. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.

Q: Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tire flown in specially from France?

MM: It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tire, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalize them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tire just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tire after trying it on a test rig.

Q: Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tire – why did they not have a back-up available?

MM: You would have to ask Michelin. Tire companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tire and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.

Q: Is it true that you wrote to both tire companies asking them to make sure their tires were safe?

MM: Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumors of problems in private testing.

Q: So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?

MM: We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tire they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tire changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tire – but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.

Q: How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?

MM: They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tires and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.

Q: But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?

MM: No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits – effectively a drive-through penalty.

Q: How would a driver know what speed he was doing?

MM: His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.

Q: But would this be real racing?

MM: It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tires for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.

Q: Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?

MM: Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because seventh and eighth places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.

Q: But that would have looked very strange – could you call that a race?

MM: It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.

Q: Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?

MM: No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.

Q: Didn't the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?

MM: I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.

Q: What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?

MM: This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tires to the detriment of Bridgestone's high-speed tires, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.

Q: Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tire failures, as reported on a website?

MM: We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tire companies and with many of the teams' other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.

Q: Wouldn't Formula 1 be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?

MM: No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.

Q: Didn't this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tires to last for qualifying and the race?

MM: No. The tire companies have no difficulty making tires last. The difficult bit is making a fast tire last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.

Q: Finally, what's going to happen on June 29 in Paris (where the Michelin F1 teams have been summoned to appear before the World Motor Sport Council -Ed.)?

MM: We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.

so when I got home, I asked my roommate what happened, since I knew SOMETHING did... and he explained it as this...

Michelin brought a tire compound that couldn't handle the track. Michelin realized this friday in practice, due in part to the blowouts by the toyota cars. Michelin couldn't get new tires to the track in time for all the teams. FIA granted tire changing options to the michelin teams w/o penalty. They wanted a chicane added to the track... on the day before race day. I don't see how that is fair or a good idea or even possible. So the michelin teams all boycotted.

Seems to me Michelin screwed up. How could they not know this or be prepared for it? MAJOR issue there. I agree this is the first time on the oval with the single tire rule, but still. Also seems to me that the michelin teams were all EXTREMELY poor at handling this. They should have atleast run a lap. Hell, they would have gotten 1 point! They should have run the race and done tire swaps. It was declared legal and we all know they can swap tires faster than fueling. But instead they boycotted. They aren't owning up to their own responsibility of tire choice. Sucks that their supplier screwed up. But they could have run. They decided to make a big deal out of it. Like the FIA should have changed the track to accomodate their problem? As a friend said, if Tim Duncan's Nikes caused him to run slower upcourt, does the NBA shorten the court?

It was a poor showing by all the teams involved. It has potentially huge ramifications for F1 in the US. Michelin may be in big trouble over this one.

But still, all the teams: Babies.

edit... Even the FIA agrees... /edit

Search around, Scott Speed is the Red Bull test driver thing.