Formula One officially shoots itself dead in the US.

[Shamrock]

Let the lawsuits begin. The guy spent $6000 for the weekend, and now is suing for refunds.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/SPORTS0103/50620006/1052/SPORTS01

[NAZCA M12]

I heard some info on Speed TV about the track and the IRL teams. They said the track was resurfaced in winter and after that, a 2-hour IRL test was conducted (which runs of course on Firestones) but, the test was cut short because of...tyre problems :lol2: Can someone confirm this? In any case, Bridgestone should have gotten some useful data on the tracks' new surface i guess.

Kimi got 2 points for finishing 7th, why didnt FIA give the points to 7th and 8th place? they STARTED the grid! Even if they DQ them, they get the 3 points available.

If i recall correctly a driver is eligible for points only if he has completed 75% of the distance or more. In any case, they didn't sweat it, why take even half a point for not showing up? It's what pissed me off real bad, show up for the warm-up lap, give the impression/hope to the spectators or the tv viewers who had just switched on their TV's that apparently a solution was found even at the very last moment, and then all of a sudden go into the pits and park the cars :screwy: Not getting out of the garage would have given a clearer message to the crowd instead of playing with them.

EDIT: And that fellow should win the lawsuit hands down because, unless i'm really messed in my head, one of the cornerstones of the Concorde agreement demands a minimum of 18 cars to start every race. When there were fears that one of the small teams (Minardi or Jordan) or even both might even not make it to the grid due to economic problems, a third car would have to be raced by the teams or at least by the top teams (that was a possible scenario by Ecclestone) in order to have 18 cars or more on the grid.

[intercede007]

Peter Windsor on Wind Tunnel :

I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner.

And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it — obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about "the tires were unsafe." I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way. Beyond that, I am as shattered as anyone else. I love Formula One. I've been involved for 30 years and to see that happen on the warm-up lap, the formation lap, all those cars coming in like that, I think it was an absolute disgrace. To be honest, our obligation in this sport, or any sport is to the fans and for that to happen is just appalling.

I think the Michelin was naive in thinking that there would be a solution that falls outside the framework of the Formula One regulations ... because they suggested a chicane that makes cars go slower through Turn 13, but that was never going to happen in a million years. The FIA, the governing body of the sport — this is the governing body that disqualifies cars for having a brake duct half a millimeter too large — they are never going to put in a chicane in on race morning, around which the cars are not allowed to practice or do anything at all ... equally, there was talk about using another batch of tires, but that was never going to happen either.

Tell me where the difference is in what happened Sunday and what might happen at any Grand Prix where there is a sudden downpour and one tire company, on intermediate tires, with no grip at all, everybody spins off on the straight and there is only five cars left in the race. That's happened before and everyone thinks "Wow, what a great race." They should have been out there racing and if there are problems, you drive around the problems as best you can. Racers are racers.

It's the teams, these massively paid teams and drivers, who have a responsibility to the fans ... not one of those Michelin team guys said "We made a horrendous mistake today and we take full responsibility." All they did was blame the FIA, blame Bernie (Ecclestone), blame Ferrari, blame Bridgestone, blame everyone else, but they never actually blamed themselves. Do you know how many teams from Michelin actually did the pre-USA tire test to select the correct tire for Indianapolis? Two — Felipe Massa and Anthony Davidson — everyone else was at Silverstone.

One of the watersheds was that Ecclestone stared people in the eye, literally eyeball to eyeball before the race, and said you are going to get in that car and race — not to the drivers, but to the team owners ... and they stared him back. At the end of the day, in this particular situation, the eyeballing didn't work for Bernie. It's the first time I can remember it not working for him, and there will be repercussions.

F1 is about people getting out there and going motor racing. We race in the rain. We race in the wind. We race in the hail. We race in the hot weather. And we have tire failures and lots of other terrible things, but that's what Formula One is all about, for good and for bad.

[bigC]

well, go on a vacation for a few days, kinda pissed that i would miss the US GP, and return to find that i didn't miss a race at all. :)

i watched the tape of the race. what a farce. no doubt, Michelin has to shoulder most of the blame for the fiasco on Sunday. they came to Indy ill-prepared, knowing that the track was resurfaced around 5 months ago, and that it was so poorly done that the IMS had to use a diamond grinder to score the surface, adding little grooves and getting rid of the bumps. but Michelin knew this, and they knew about the 9 degree high speed banking turn, since this is year 6 for the race, yet they still came with poor tires. they did have a set that would have allowed the cars to race, albeit slower, but why waste an engine when you would likely not win. they could have driven slower through the turn, but chose not to. or, they could have all participated for no points, and just change their tires often. the 7 teams who didn't race will have virtually new engines in France, the home of Michelin, and i'm sure the tires will work there.

only Toyota suffered blow-outs, likely due to running with lower tire pressure to gain better grip. if they used the proper pressure in their tires, they may not have had any problems (funny that no other Michelin-shod team had blow-outs). but, Michelin had to do something to save face, taking the stance that they were concerned for the safety of the drivers, so they demanded concessions and then forced all of its teams to quit, hoping that FIA would blink and allow some changes to the course or tire rules.

FIA is partly to blame. they created the idiotic 1 set of tires rule in the first place, an ill-conceived plan to "slow down" the race cars, which has hurt both the Bridgestone and Michelin runners, and has proved to be very dangerous (ie, Kimi's crash 2 races ago). funny that nobody cared about Ferrari’s tire problems, and no one proposed changes to courses or rules. however, a way to tweak the tire rule could be to have mandatory tire changes, so every car would be forced to change their tires at least twice in a race at pre-determined intervals (for example, every car would have to change between laps 10-15, 30-35 etc, without filling up and fuel) so the cars would be safer and the field would get mixed up more. they would continue to be able to fill up on fuel without changing tires.

perhaps the Bernie-eyeballing tactic didn't work because he forgot to bring his stool, since he is very short, and couldn't look anyone in the eye. the penalties for boycotting the race should be harsh and should have been clearly laid out beforehand. i think Ecclestone and Mosley thought Michelin et al were bluffing--how insane could they be to skip a race? if Michelin was concerned about their reputation, they likely did more damage to themselves by quitting, admitting that their tires suck. but, they are a French company (insert France-quitter joke here). :D

still, 7 out of 10 teams refused to participate: majority rule, or should the rules in F1 trump all other views? why should the Bridgestone cars, which all had proper tires, be punished for the mistakes of others, and have the course changed or allow the rules to be changed to benefit the unprepared? Ferrari did the right thing in racing, although the optics of only 6 cars starting and racing really sucked.

could F1 be dead in the USA? i’d never go back to Indy, lest something like this happen again, but it may survive in another city. the US is still the only major market that F1 still has trouble growing the sport, and last weekend did not help at all. F1 needs the US more then the US needs F1, since it is still the biggest and most powerful consumer market in the world (a lot of cars and tires get sold there, as well as other products, and racing, aside from being a sport, is also a form of advertising). i'd be interested in seeing the TV numbers for the previous 8 races, since i think the viewership numbers would be a small blip on the radar. Indianapolis may not be the right city for F1, i think, although it has a tradition of loving auto racing. it is not cosmopolitan or pretension enough to host an F1 event.

could something like what happened in Indy happen in Montreal too:http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/formula_one/news_story.asp?ID=128513&hubName=auto_racing-formula_one

the fall-out continues:http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/formula_one/news_Story.asp?ID=128438

Michelin teams called onto the carpet:http://www.formula1.com/news/3212.html

[Shamrock]

OMG!! Michelin "could" be excluded from the championship!?!?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15080.html

Son of a gun!
http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=f1&id=2091112

Minardi team owner Paul Stoddart, who serves as spokesman for the nine teams, has called for Mosley to resign. Ecclestone's former lawyer and friend, Mosley has been accused of being dictatorial. Stoddart has called for "more transparency in how F1 is run, a precise regulatory process and a stable and consistent way the rules are applied."

Remember, Paul is on Bridgestones

[BrianG]

And what was that I sad about Mosley wanting one tire manufacturer? Heh.

[NAZCA M12]

That can't happen. Okay, they are dangerously idiots but leave 7 teams with no tyres? No way, i guess they'll finish this year normally (aka championship goes to Ferrari :rolleyes: ) and they're finished from 2006 onwards. On the other hand, guess who's a major tyre supplier in WRC, and guess who runs that championship. Heh, i'd like to know who's going to be the technical expert who'll decide about Michelin's tyres. Sources say it will be Hisao Suganuma or Ross Brawn (omg) :lol2: Lets see if i'm proved right and all of a sudden Schumacher and Ferrari find themselves 34 and 63 points ahead from the rest of the field :naughty: :D

[intercede007]

About the IRL vs F1 debate. Who provides tires for the IRL Indy 500? Firestone. Who is Bridgestone's sister company (division of Bridgestone)? Firestone. Bottom line, Bridgestone had a 3 week head start on the resurfaced track, with the data provided by Firestone, to Bridgestone. And Bridgestone compensated for it. Michelin had none, they didnt even test at Indy (could they?)


Got proof of that?

Derak Daly does not a reputable source, make.

[intercede007]

Why didn't anybody say a thing about that questionable incident? How come and no one was concerned? Why no fan said Bridgestone might have ****ed up? Even they (Bridgestone and Ferrari) didn't have a concrete explanation, just a maybe. You want more? Whiting is very correctly saying that at Indy, Michelin didn't bring a second choice and for that alone, i hope they get a penalty. Well wake up Charlie, Brazil 2003: Torrential rain, one tyre manufacturer had brought the wrong tyre specification, an intermediate one, not a full wet, and that was Bridgestone. The other manufacturer had brought a full wet and were prepared to race. The only wet option that the Bridgestone teams had at their disposal (intermediates) were deemed dangerous under these conditions. Did anyone say a thing? No. Shouldn't the non-existent FIA tell Bridgestone exactly the same thing they told Michelin yesterday, that their tyre was not suitable, and they could not allow them to race under these conditions? They didn't. Instead, they took the pace car out, and we were treated with an awesome "race" for i don't know how many laps until the cars cleared a dry path and made the conditions "suitable" for Bridgestone, then they let the race start.

Running a pace car for a few laps does not equate to decertifying a track the morning before raceday!

Do you realize what would have happened to the FIA if they had changed Turn 13 to include a chicane, and somebody got hurt? They would have been in violation of their own rules! It didn't matter if Ferrari, Bernie, Max, Black Baby Jesus, Bono and President Bush agreed to the proposal. Their lawyers would never have let it happen! The FIA would have been immediatly liable for any and all damages because the track was no longer certified for racing.

[MUYA]

Formula 1 cars should all built like Flintstones car...bah..i am just not interested in this F1 farce anymore....gone are the days of good battles for championhips, characters, thrills, rooting, despising...these days...it's all bloody politics

[intercede007]

http://members.cox.net/intercede007/michletter.jpg

:D

[Sazar]

:rofl

Sooooo accurate, and yet... so funny :D

[bigC]

OMG!! Michelin "could" be excluded from the championship!?!?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns15080.html

Son of a gun!
http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?series=f1&id=2091112



Remember, Paul is on Bridgestonesif Michelin is kicked out, or perhaps even sanctioned too harshly, F1 is dead and the rival league starts up sooner then expected. how could F1 survive with only one major manufacturer? F1 needs Renault, BMW, Mercedes more then they need F1, but any split will likely end up harming both sides, as the audience becomes fractured and advertising money is harder to come by (case in point, the IRL/Champ Car split, which has helped kill open wheel racing in the US). they should be fined several millions dollars, to be put into a trust fund to pay off any disgruntled fans who attended the "race."

Ecclestone and Mosley are a problem. they should loosen their grip on the sport, share the wealth so teams wouldn't have to cut back on testing, tires, engines, etc. the complaint in F1 is that it is too costly to run the sport--well, share the money, problem solved.

[NAZCA M12]

if Michelin is kicked out, or perhaps even sanctioned too harshly F1 is dead

Theory would say that a GPWC then would be even more likely to happen with Michelin providing the tyres. However, to correct a part I wasn’t sure in a previous post, even if Michelin is banned or decides to quit right now, in the middle of the season, the rest of the teams will have tyres. Each of the two companies involved has got to be prepared to equip the rest of the field if needed so, in that event I guess Bridgestone would hand out all the used rubber of Ferrari tests and everone would be fine

Running a pace car for a few laps does not equate to decertifying a track the morning before raceday!

Running a pace car in Brazil '03 for about 10 laps was illegal, they had the option to do so, according to the rules (start the race behind the pc) but they can (at least could back then) use it for only 3 laps. Broadly speaking, if they had let them race from the word go, the Michelin cars would have disappeared in the distance. Also, back then there were rumours that Whiting was talking to one particular person all the time the pc was out, waiting to get the OK and let them race: Schumacher. Like i said, in Spain '94 and possibly Canada '94 they used chicanes (a stack of tyres tied together) on practice but took them out for the race. At Indy, FIA said putting a chicane would be illegal since it would change the track on race day. Wasn't that equal to changing the track configuration between practice day and race day in the past? Back then they were governing the sport, and took a decision violating their own rules on the same grounds, safety.


Do you realize what would have happened to the FIA if they had changed Turn 13 to include a chicane, and somebody got hurt? They would have been in violation of their own rules! It didn't matter if Ferrari, Bernie, Max, Black Baby Jesus, Bono and President Bush agreed to the proposal. Their lawyers would never have let it happen! The FIA would have been immediately liable for any and all damages because the track was no longer certified for racing

Do you realize what would have happened had the race started under the FIA's stupid proposal (Bridgestone runners race at full speed, Michelin ones go slowly through turn 13)? Either a Bridgestone equipped car would have slammed into a slow going Michelin car or an accident could happen by trying to avoid that situation. Regardless of Michelin screwing up, they could risk racing anyway, and in case of an accident blame debris as the cause. They were adamant however that with that tyre it would be dangerous to run the race and insisted on not going out. They wouldn't risk their reputation for nothing you know. If the scenario i mentioned had happened under the stupid proposal of the FIA and a driver was killed, who do you think would be held responsible the FIA or Michelin?

Do you realize what would have happened if at Monza we have a problem with Bridgestone cars, with the M7 adopting the "we don’t care, don’t race then" attitude and the Bridgestone mechanics advising its teams to only run that tyre provided that a chicane was installed overnight on the fastest part of the track and FIA supposedly saying "no way"? No? Well, I can so here’s the ensuing telephone dialogue (and a chance for one more mother****er joke) between Fiat’s president and FIA’s Charlie whiting:

(Montezemolo) : Hello? Erm yes, this is Luca Montezemolo and I….
(Whiting) : Done
(Montezemolo) : (looks at the the phone headpiece in disbelief) Mother****er!

Here's a very interesting article by a guy who knows tyre business:

http://motorsport.com/magazine/feature.asp?C=Musings&D=2005-06-21

You know, i could quote entire articles too as you did with Peter Windsor's but i trust myself enough not to let other guys do the talking. Btw, he's a reporter for quite a lot of years, and a quite respectable one so it strikes me that some of his arguments are a bit weak:

...because they suggested a chicane that makes cars go slower through Turn 13, but that was never going to happen in a million years

What a shame, it did happen NOT a million years ago, by the same guys, it happened more than once, and the artificial chicanes did not last for the whole weekend. Count the rule violations yourself, but back then the federation did that for... safety reasons.

The FIA, the governing body of the sport - this is the governing body that disqualifies cars for having a brake duct half a millimeter too large - they are never going to put in a chicane in on race morning...

Wrong, this is the same governing body that disqualified Ferrari for illegal wings (by a few millimeters as well) and insisted that the means of measuring used, were the finest and most accurate and thus, they could NOT be wrong, then a few hours later gave them the points back, and apologetically said they had probably made a mistake in the measuring process (Jo Bauer case). Ferrari must have laughed all the way home.

It's the same "responsible" governing body that was not represented by its president for one more time at Indy. Mosley was talking through the phone with the rest of the teams saying "no" to every proposal made to save the race.

It's the same governing body whose president once said (about the lack of overtaking maneuvers criticism) that the viewers don't care about overtaking, they're interested in the strategic elements of a race and the pit stops since F1 is like a game of chess!! I just love it how Windsor tries to make FIA look like it is "the ****". They are so tough aren't they? Unfortunately, it's the same governing body that singed a new concorde agreement with one team (Ferrari) and issued a 2008 and beyond new rules proposal that was drafted by...Ferrari mechanics only (since they were the only ones signed). Talking about not giving a **** about the others. Go ahead and blame them for not wanting to go the GPWC way.

This is the same governing body that correctly send a letter to Michelin after Nurburgring (and Raikonnen's tyre related accident) asking them not to sacrifice safety for performance yet totally forgot (doh) to issue a similar warning TWICE to rival company Bridgestone after Schumacher and Barichello had tyre failures twice, in Barcelona, twice:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=85580]

It’s the governing body that repeatedly stated (concerning the stupid Sunday qualifying rule) that no rule would be changed in 2005 even if it wasn’t a good one and instead, it would be reevaluated at the end of the season, then less than a month, the they change qualifying.

This is the governing body that treats all teams and drivers equally and it is only a coincidence that they black flagged for example Montoya for passing a car under yellow, but don't do **** to a certain Ferrari (incidence) driver who, (just a quick example here) drove his own brother to the grass with 250Km/h (Imola 2001). One more past example:

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=78332]

This it the governing body that decided to forbid team orders, yet forgot to ever penalize a certain team which repeatedly orders its drivers through the radio to slow down and keep their positions (anyone see the pattern again at Indy, when RB was supposedly close to Schumacher, then Todt spoke to him through the radio and the next lap, he had dropped his pace?)

It is the same governing body that when asked before the start of the season by Patrick Head about the FW27's radical new gearbox legality said it violates the rules and had to be scrapped, while at the same time BAR-Honda were developing a similar design which was deemed legal since they were given permission by...the FIA.

Finally, this the intact governing body whose technical director is a drinking buddy of...Ross Brawn. Did anyone say anything about impartiality? Nice try to make them sound professional and resolute. History though has shown that they're idiots, arrogant as hell (i've said it agin, grooved tyres were Mosley's "brilliant" idea and was forced after everyone on the grid said it’s rubbish), partial and prone to gaffs.

Tell me where the difference is in what happened Sunday and what might happen at any Grand Prix where there is a sudden downpour and one tire company, on intermediate tires, with no grip at all, everybody spins off on the straight and there is only five cars left in the race. That's happened before and everyone thinks "Wow, what a great race."

On a wet race there are fewer risks taken, because the speed is significantly reduced. Not only are we not talking about a wet race here, we're talking about one of the fastest places of the track and a good "demo" of what can happen was Ralf's accident. A worst demonstration of what could happen would be a fatality and i am pretty sure that in such a case, being a journo (and usually journalists become a public judge and take sides depending on the situation) he would probably drop the "they should have been out there racing" bull**** mentality and replace it with a "why did the FIA let them race? Why did the tyre company show no responsibility, why did they not strongly advise their teams not to start the race?"

They should have been out there racing and if there are problems, you drive around the problems as best you can. Racers are racers

Horse****. How do you drive around such a problem? He's talking about a normal race. This was a special situation here. It's not on every race that a serious safety concern is expressed by a company involved. What are your options if there is indeed a problem? Hit the wall with 190 miles instead of 200? Right on. I will never forget the last time that i saw a driver having a flat tyre at a fast track (incidentally it was at Indy though the track doesn't matter) in 1996, the late, great Scott Brayton. He got a rear flat tyre and what he could do to "drive around the problem" was nothing, he was just a passenger, he hit the wall, and was killed. Conditions weren't the same but it was a high speed accident caused by a flat tyre, there was not a tyre concern back then, but you can see what you can do if it happens: Nothing. His Menard was on Firestones (oh the irony). Maybe he should ask Adrian Newey or Patrick Head about the charges they got in Ayrton Senna's case, an accident that regardless of what caused it, it was a fatal one. Or is he under the impression that, Head for example would invoke a "after all, racers are racers, **** happens, you got a problem, you drive around it" and the judge would say "well that settles it then, why didn't you say so from the beginning dude?" It doesn't work that way. You race under all conditions and stuff, true, but when one of the companies involved has some serious doubts there has to be a careful re-evaluation of the situation.

I like his tough mentality, we all secretely agree with that, but i'd rather hear this whole "should have been out. Racers are racers" attitude from a driver who actually puts his head on the line, not from guys like him, you, me, Bernie, Max, Black Baby Jesus, Bono or President Bush. This is a rather cold approach especially from Windsor since i'd expect him to be a bit more sentimental and show more understanding and sympathy when we're talking about safety, and accidents. I'm saying that because i seem to remember a wonderful article written by him in F1 Racing, about a bad car accident that happened many years ago and two very important Williams people who were involved in it. Luckily they both escaped with their lives but one of them was paralyzed and if it wasn't for Ecclestone sending his personal jet to fly him to a hospital with the best specialists, he would have died. Windsor was the guy who got unscathed (he wasn't always a journalist), so i'd expect him to be a bit more sensitive to safety measures or bad accidents instead of his "cool" "**** happens" approach, especially when the other guy could easily be standing on his feet right now with him confined to a wheelchair. The other guy's name was Frank Williams.

[Shamrock]

Got proof of that?

Derak Daly does not a reputable source, make.

Even Derek Daly is a better source than you are. But I didnt get the info from there. It's common knowledge that Firestone is a division of Bridgestone, to NOT share the information would absolutely be moronic and stupid. Read around the internet, you probably have broadband, i dont, you look it up. :)

You are appearing that your motive in this discussion is nothing more than to cause a debate. You MUST be a Ferrari fan.

[intercede007]

Even Derek Daly is a better source than you are. But I didnt get the info from there. It's common knowledge that Firestone is a division of Bridgestone, to NOT share the information would absolutely be moronic and stupid. Read around the internet, you probably have broadband, i dont, you look it up. :)

You are appearing that your motive in this discussion is nothing more than to cause a debate. You MUST be a Ferrari fan.

I'm actually a Porsche fan. If you know anything about Sports Car racing, you'd know that pretty much means I am certainly *not* a Ferrari fan.

And I know Firestone and Bridgestone are related. What I don't know is that Firestone gave Bridgestone any information, at all, period.

And neither do you.

[intercede007]

Do you realize what would have happened had the race started under the FIA's stupid proposal (Bridgestone runners race at full speed, Michelin ones go slowly through turn 13)?


I watch it happen every year.

http://members.cox.net/intercede007/Rolex24.JPG

2005 Rolex 24 at Daytona

Daytona Prototype Class Winner Riley Motorsports Pontiac (LS6)

#1 10 DP Angelelli/ Taylor/ Collard SunTrust Racing / Pontiac Riley 710 1:47.339 105MPH Avg

GT Class Winner Porsche 911 GT3 Cup

#10 71 GT Henzler/ Farnbacher/ Price/ Eh Farnbacher Racing USA / Porsche GT3 Cup 1:56.891 98MPH Avg

EDIT

Ohh..and in case you were wondering:

http://members.cox.net/intercede007/Daytona.JPG

They also use 2 of Daytona International's high bank turns :)

[Shamrock]

This is from Autosport Atlas, I have to copy and paste, because you have to subscribe to get this info....it's a public letter to th epress why he asked for Mosley's resignation. Notice, Paul himself wrote FIA sco himself, twice!

The Facts

Friday, June 17
I noticed that Ricardo Zonta’s Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumacher’s accident, both on the monitors, and more significantly, I could see what took place from my position on the pit wall. This necessitated a red flag, and in the numerous replays on the monitors, it looked very much like the cause of the accident was a punctured rear tyre.

Throughout the afternoon, numerous people in the paddock suggested it was a tyre failure and commented that it was similar to the serious accident which befell Ralf Schumacher during the 2004 US Grand Prix. Later that evening was the first time I was aware of a potential problem with the Michelin tyres at this event. In all honesty, I didn’t pay a great deal of attention, as our team is on Bridgestone tyres.

Saturday, June 18
On arriving at the circuit, the word throughout the paddock was that there was a potential problem with the rear tyres supplied to all Michelin teams for this event, and it became evident as the first and second sessions were run that most of the affected teams were being very conservative with the amount of on-track running they were doing. In addition, Toyota announced that it had substituted Ricardo Zonta for Ralf Schumacher, who would take no further part in the event. Speculation was rife in the paddock that some Michelin teams might not take part in qualifying. Also, during the practice session, I was informed there would be a Team Principals’ meeting with Bernie Ecclestone at 1430 hrs after qualifying, which I incorrectly assumed would centre around the Michelin issue.

Qualifying took place, and indeed, all 20 cars qualified for Sunday’s Grand Prix.

At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise, and in fairness, it was not discussed in any great detail. I personally found this strange, but as I have stated, it did not affect Minardi directly, and therefore I had no reason to pursue the matter.

Throughout Saturday evening, there was considerable speculation in the paddock that the tyre issue was much more serious than at first thought, and people were talking about a fresh shipment of tyres being flown overnight from France, and what penalty the Michelin teams would take should those tyres be used. By the time I left the paddock, people were taking bets on Minardi and Jordan scoring points!

Later that evening, I checked with our Sporting Director on what developments had occurred, and was told that the issue was indeed very serious, and the possibility existed that the Michelin teams would not take part in the race.

Sunday, June 19
I arrived at the circuit at 0815 hrs, only to find the paddock was buzzing with stories suggesting the Michelin teams would be unable to take part in the Grand Prix. I was then handed a copy of correspondence between Michelin, the FIA, and the Michelin teams that revealed the true extent of the problem. By now, journalists were asking if Minardi would agree to a variation of the regulations to allow the Michelin teams to compete, and what penalties I felt would be appropriate.

A planned Minardi press briefing took place at 0930 hrs, and as it was ending, I was summoned to an urgent meeting, along with Jordan, with Bernie Ecclestone, the two most senior Michelin representatives present at the circuit, IMS President Tony George, Team Principals, and technical representatives from the Michelin teams. At this meeting, Michelin, to its credit, admitted that the tyres available were unable to complete a race distance around the Indianapolis circuit without a change to the track configuration, so as to reduce the speed coming out of the last turn onto the banking. Much background information was provided as to the enormous efforts that Michelin, with support from its teams, had undertaken in the preceding 48 hours to try and resolve the problem, but it was clear that all those efforts had failed to produce a suitable solution that wouldn’t involve support from the non-Michelin teams, and ultimately, the FIA.

What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to the only sensible solution – a chicane. During this discussion, a technical representative with specific knowledge of the Indianapolis circuit, together with representatives from IMS, were tasked with preparing the design of a chicane, and Bernie Ecclestone agreed to speak with the one Team Principal not present, Mr Todt, and to inform the FIA President, Max Mosley, who was not present at Indianapolis, of the planned solution to allow the successful running of the US Grand Prix. With only a few hours now remaining to the start of the race, we agreed to reconvene as soon as Bernie had responses from Messrs Todt and Mosley.

At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith. These words had a familiar tone to me, as they were similar to those I had heard around midnight on the Friday preceding the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, when I was told by all the senior FIA representatives present that the Australian Grand Prix would be cancelled forthwith if I did not withdraw pending legal action between Minardi and the FIA. Once again, Mr Mosley was not present at that Grand Prix! It is fair to say at this point that the vast majority of people present in the room both felt and stated that Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence.

By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non- championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur.

By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his team and drivers to conduct themselves in the spirit of providing an entertaining race for the good of Formula One.

At this point, we called for all 20 drivers, and indeed, all 20 arrived, at which point we informed them of our plan. While I cannot testify that each and every driver agreed with what we were proposing, what I can say with certainty is that no driver disagreed, and indeed, members of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association discussed overseeing the construction of a suitable chicane. Jean Todt was the only significant team individual not present, and the Ferrari drivers stated this decision was up to Mr Todt.

I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster.

After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters.

I’m sure this sentence will be treated with contempt by Mr Mosley, but what must be realised is that there are various reasons that other Team Principals, and the most senior people in Formula One, will not say publicly what they openly feel privately about Mr Mosley, his politics and his governance of the sport. There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history.

Discussions then took place concerning the other telephone calls with Mr Mosley from, among others, Bernie Ecclestone, Ron Dennis and Tony George, and it was clearly revealed to what extent Mr Mosley was prepared to go in order to achieve his aims. To my total disgust, it was stated that Mosley had informed Mr Martin, the FIA’s most senior representative in the USA, that if any kind of non- championship race was run, or any alteration made to the circuit, the US Grand Prix, and indeed, all FIA-regulated motorsport in the US, would be under threat – again, exactly the same tactic that was used in threatening the Australian Grand Prix and Australian motorsport in March of this year.

By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix.

At this point, the pit lane had opened and a hasty discussion took place concerning whether or not the Michelin teams would go to the grid. A radio had been delivered to me by team personnel at this stage, and I was able to know which cars were going to the grid. It is interesting to note that the Jordan Team Principal was not present at this time, and indeed, it was the Jordans that first proceeded to the grid, followed by the Ferraris. After discussion with Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed the Michelin teams would go to the grid, but were absolutely prevented from participating in the race because of the tyre situation.

We then proceeded to the grid, at which point I asked Jordan’s Colin Kolles if he intended to stand by the other teams or participate in the race. In no uncertain terms, I was told Jordan would be racing. I was also approached by a Bridgestone representative, who informed me that Bridgestone wished us to race. This left me with one of the most difficult decisions I have had to take during my time in F1, as I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not. I made it clear to Bernie Ecclestone, and several Team Principals, that if the Jordans either went off or retired, I would withdraw the Minardi cars from the race.

It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt.

For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.

Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation.

Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!"

Press Release
MinardiF1

[Sazar]

Wow, I only had to scroll a coupla page lengths to get to the bottom of that post.

:thumbsup:

/me points out the advantages of posting a snippet and providing a link so anyone interested will click and read the rest themselves.

[intercede007]

Max Mosley : FAQ for the USGP (http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/220605-01.html#)

Is this why Ferrari objected?
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.

Gee wiz...

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

Makes perfect sense...

Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?
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 tyre companies and with many of the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.

Rumor mill, dead.

[Shamrock]

Wow, I only had to scroll a coupla page lengths to get to the bottom of that post.

:thumbsup:

/me points out the advantages of posting a snippet and providing a link so anyone interested will click and read the rest themselves.

re-read my statement, I couldnt have provided a link, as you need a subscription to view the message.

[Shamrock]

From the SAME statement from Mosley:

But it’s what the teams wanted.
It’s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. 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.

Oh really...Jordan and Minardi wanted the chicane, ONLY Ferrari refused the chicane. Therefore "lack of support from Jean Todt"

read the entire article, Mosley double talks and re states alot of things when the reviewer kept asking for certain answers. All he could do was keep talking about the options handed to Michelin. ALL of which would not have validated a "race" reducing the speed in the corner (while Bridgestone got to go full on), Use the new tire, but be penalized by a stop and go penalty, OR (here's the kicker) run the race on the qualifying tire, then come and change the left rear, when it is deemed dangerous. When is that? when a tire blows out? Under current FIA rules, you cannot change a tire, unless the official says so. I have yet to see one be changed unless it has delaminated, or blown already. Teams are afraid to change the tire, until it's too late.

Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?
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 7th and 8th 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.

Yeah. at 60MPH!!!! He suggested Michelin teams use pit lane, AT PIT LANE SPEEDS!

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

It would have been a race for the 14 teams on Michelin tires, LOL....OMG this is hilarious. Meanwhile Bridgestone teams are long gone, those 14 Mich teams are battling for 7th and 8th Way to go Max, more double talk!

Mosley is a farse.

Do I blame Michelin? yeap. But I just dont see Michelin ignoring all the info. IMO, Michelin didnt bring the wrong tire, they brought defective tires (unknown defects).

It's Michelins AND FIA's fault for this FIAsco. I dont even like Michelin, but now I also dont like FIA.

Champcars!!!!!

[bigC]

Williams may use Bridgestone next year. they may be the first of many teams to switch tires: http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/formula_one/news_story.asp?ID=128693&hubName=auto_racing-formula_one

while

Ferrari prez Luca di Montezemolo blames the tires rules for the fiasco at Indy. so do i. it is an absurd requirement to force F1 teams to use one set of tires for qualy/race, while only allowing them to change the tires if there is a problem. no other racing series does this, for good reason. the one set rule was apparently done in the name of cost-cutting (and probably a way to slow down the cars) but how much R&D money went into creating a tire that could last a weekend? besides, it obviously doesn't work all too well, and has proven to be dangerous to the drivers:http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33233

[Shamrock]

I agree 100% BigC, my sentiments exactly, we wouldnt have this farse, if F1 hadnt made that rule. Cost cutting? it only is inflating the costs due to tire blowouts, INCLUDING Bridgestone teams. carbon fiber, and suspension parts arent cheap in F1.

[DSC]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/tnc23/bilde.jpg

Not that I care about F1 these days, but the comic was amusing. :D