Best US F1Gp ever!
06-21-05, 04:57 PM
#29
Originally Posted by silverrotor
Nick86, you've gotta lay off the white font man. 
I would have hated to see you lose a long post as this one so I edited It. Let me know If I did It right.
I would have hated to see you lose a long post as this one so I edited It. Let me know If I did It right.
I appreciate the editing job, and while some things are different - there is some sort of point in my ramblings still!
06-22-05, 12:33 PM
#30
Get comfy - here are Paul Stoddart's Thoughts. Do you think there is any animosity here? lol
Paul Stoddart faces the media at Indianapolis
What follows is a press release from the MinardiF1 team giving the views of Paul Stoddart.
"Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.
While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, effect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.
Background
For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday's United States Grand Prix.
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 wererun 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 withrepresentatives 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 veryserious, 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 organizers, 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. be 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.
Three teams line up for the US Grand Prix
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!"
Paul Stoddart faces the media at Indianapolis
What follows is a press release from the MinardiF1 team giving the views of Paul Stoddart.
"Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.
While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, effect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.
Background
For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday's United States Grand Prix.
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 wererun 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 withrepresentatives 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 veryserious, 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 organizers, 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. be 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.
Three teams line up for the US Grand Prix
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!"
Last edited by Nick86; 06-22-05 at 12:43 PM.
06-22-05, 12:54 PM
#31
I Like Beer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vancouver Island Oceanside
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Paul has always hated Max.
The Toad looks pretty ugly in all of this as well.
Politics does make strange bedfellows (ie PaulS in bed with Ron Dennis...who'da thunk it!)
The Toad looks pretty ugly in all of this as well.
Politics does make strange bedfellows (ie PaulS in bed with Ron Dennis...who'da thunk it!)
06-22-05, 02:07 PM
#32
Interesting how Ferrari-hater Soddard suddenly puts blame on Jean Todt. Let's see what happens the next time Bridgestone brings a bad tire.
Also intersting how the Minardi's still drove and collected points
...why didn't Stoddart boycott as well, then.
Also intersting how the Minardi's still drove and collected points
...why didn't Stoddart boycott as well, then.
06-22-05, 02:21 PM
#33
Originally Posted by eViLRotor
Interesting how Ferrari-hater Soddard suddenly puts blame on Jean Todt. Let's see what happens the next time Bridgestone brings a bad tire.
I have a lot of time for PS, but I find it somewhat ironic that he made the statement about things becoming personal, and then he obviously brings in personal issues in his staement.
That said, the reason nobody would cry for Bridgestone and Ferrari should they have had the problem is because of their previous actions over the last few years. They sealed their fate a while back. Just like Michelin did last weekend. If in the future anything were to happen, nobody would give Michelin any sympathy whatsoever. Had Bridgestone made some concessions at the USGP, they would have been given a "get out of jail free" card. But in the end it wasn't up to them to fix Michelin's problems.
While PS would like to blame Ferrari, I think it is somewhat misguided. Ferrari did nothing wrong (except have the arrogance not to attend team/driver meetings) but in the end they did what was best for them. While that may not be the most constructive approach, in current F1 that should be expected. Everyone was trying to do what would help them most, and not see the big picture. And therein lies part of the problem.
06-22-05, 06:37 PM
#34
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so do you guys actually think mr. Mosley was acting purely on the regulations of the matter, or did he fail to realize the magnitude of the situation and carried out his own political agenda?
i can understand that none of the alternatives could have been officially sanctioned in any way, but the fact that he used tactics in the way of threatening the motorsports organization and market if those alternatives were carried out, well...it gives me more reason to dislike the FIA.
worst case scenario i could have seen is let the teams decide if they wanted to race an unofficial race, on the condition that all the teams would agree.
everyone would have come out of the situation far better, even Ferrari, since i know they would not want to agree at all, but would do an unofficial race anyways since being the only team to disagree would be the lesser decision.
i can understand that none of the alternatives could have been officially sanctioned in any way, but the fact that he used tactics in the way of threatening the motorsports organization and market if those alternatives were carried out, well...it gives me more reason to dislike the FIA.
worst case scenario i could have seen is let the teams decide if they wanted to race an unofficial race, on the condition that all the teams would agree.
everyone would have come out of the situation far better, even Ferrari, since i know they would not want to agree at all, but would do an unofficial race anyways since being the only team to disagree would be the lesser decision.
06-22-05, 07:30 PM
#35
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with Nick's basic assessment.
Michellin screwed up. Fine, penalize them or whatever. There was too much risk involved in running the tires so they did the responsible thing and said they were unsafe and they advised none of their teams to run.
They proposed to save the race that a chicane be added and points only be given to Bridgestone runners. Tony George agreed. The FIA said this was unacceptable. Why? A race would have happened for the fans who paid for the tickets, sponsors would have gotten value and people would have watched on TV, but the points would have gone to Ferrari.
Michellin flew in Spain spec tires, but the FIA wouldn't let them use it, ever under the scenerio where bridgestone runners would be awarded all the points. The problem goes back to the FIA's rule that stipulates that tires must be shown to the FIA before hand. What is the purpose of that rule? Michellin obviously weren't trying to cheat, they were trying to save the race after they screwed up.
As for the "B Spec" tires. What exactly does that mean in the context of the FIA's arguement. It was an unforseen problem. Bridgestone's B tires weren't some biplys from the '60's "safe" tire. They were a race tire as well. The manufacturers cannot be expected to some ridiculously under performing B tire.
The teams: They have a contract with the manufacturers. They couldn't prevent Michellin from screwing up. Because of the FIA's arbitrary and unflexible rules they couldn't have used any other tires by the time that the tires were determined to be unsafe.
Michellin screwed up. Fine, penalize them or whatever. There was too much risk involved in running the tires so they did the responsible thing and said they were unsafe and they advised none of their teams to run.
They proposed to save the race that a chicane be added and points only be given to Bridgestone runners. Tony George agreed. The FIA said this was unacceptable. Why? A race would have happened for the fans who paid for the tickets, sponsors would have gotten value and people would have watched on TV, but the points would have gone to Ferrari.
Michellin flew in Spain spec tires, but the FIA wouldn't let them use it, ever under the scenerio where bridgestone runners would be awarded all the points. The problem goes back to the FIA's rule that stipulates that tires must be shown to the FIA before hand. What is the purpose of that rule? Michellin obviously weren't trying to cheat, they were trying to save the race after they screwed up.
As for the "B Spec" tires. What exactly does that mean in the context of the FIA's arguement. It was an unforseen problem. Bridgestone's B tires weren't some biplys from the '60's "safe" tire. They were a race tire as well. The manufacturers cannot be expected to some ridiculously under performing B tire.
The teams: They have a contract with the manufacturers. They couldn't prevent Michellin from screwing up. Because of the FIA's arbitrary and unflexible rules they couldn't have used any other tires by the time that the tires were determined to be unsafe.
Last edited by Snrub; 06-22-05 at 07:33 PM.
06-22-05, 09:20 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Snrub
I disagree with Nick's basic assessment.
Michellin screwed up. Fine, penalize them or whatever. There was too much risk involved in running the tires so they did the responsible thing and said they were unsafe and they advised none of their teams to run.
They proposed to save the race that a chicane be added and points only be given to Bridgestone runners. Tony George agreed. The FIA said this was unacceptable. Why? A race would have happened for the fans who paid for the tickets, sponsors would have gotten value and people would have watched on TV, but the points would have gone to Ferrari.
Michellin flew in Spain spec tires, but the FIA wouldn't let them use it, ever under the scenerio where bridgestone runners would be awarded all the points. The problem goes back to the FIA's rule that stipulates that tires must be shown to the FIA before hand. What is the purpose of that rule? Michellin obviously weren't trying to cheat, they were trying to save the race after they screwed up.
As for the "B Spec" tires. What exactly does that mean in the context of the FIA's arguement. It was an unforseen problem. Bridgestone's B tires weren't some biplys from the '60's "safe" tire. They were a race tire as well. The manufacturers cannot be expected to some ridiculously under performing B tire.
The teams: They have a contract with the manufacturers. They couldn't prevent Michellin from screwing up. Because of the FIA's arbitrary and unflexible rules they couldn't have used any other tires by the time that the tires were determined to be unsafe.
Michellin screwed up. Fine, penalize them or whatever. There was too much risk involved in running the tires so they did the responsible thing and said they were unsafe and they advised none of their teams to run.
They proposed to save the race that a chicane be added and points only be given to Bridgestone runners. Tony George agreed. The FIA said this was unacceptable. Why? A race would have happened for the fans who paid for the tickets, sponsors would have gotten value and people would have watched on TV, but the points would have gone to Ferrari.
Michellin flew in Spain spec tires, but the FIA wouldn't let them use it, ever under the scenerio where bridgestone runners would be awarded all the points. The problem goes back to the FIA's rule that stipulates that tires must be shown to the FIA before hand. What is the purpose of that rule? Michellin obviously weren't trying to cheat, they were trying to save the race after they screwed up.
As for the "B Spec" tires. What exactly does that mean in the context of the FIA's arguement. It was an unforseen problem. Bridgestone's B tires weren't some biplys from the '60's "safe" tire. They were a race tire as well. The manufacturers cannot be expected to some ridiculously under performing B tire.
The teams: They have a contract with the manufacturers. They couldn't prevent Michellin from screwing up. Because of the FIA's arbitrary and unflexible rules they couldn't have used any other tires by the time that the tires were determined to be unsafe.
As I see it, I don't think our assessments are all that different.
Michelin screwed up, and the FIA were unflexable and unreasonable in dealing with it. Problem was that Michelin didn't want to accept any penalty for the mistake. In essence the Stubborn behavior from the FIA basically bred Stobborn behaviour for Michelin.
It is true that Michelin flew in Spain spec tires, and the FIA would let them use them, but the teams would be assessed a penalty - rightfully so IMO. But, as it turned out, the Spain spec tires were subject to the same flaws that the Indy tires did, so they too were unusable.
06-23-05, 12:31 PM
#37
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that Michelin were the ones who suggested to give all the points to the Bridgestone cars. Michelin came up with a solution and the FIA rejected any solution other than the Michelin cars to take an unsafe risk or go 150km/h through the banked turn. I thought the Spain spec tires were good enough for Indy?
06-23-05, 01:08 PM
#38
Apparantly the Spain spec tires were "defective" as well, so they couldn't be used even though they would be there in time. Don't get me wrong, it took a lot of ***** for Michelin to admit that they made a mistake, and a search for a solution. I think you are right that they proposed a "points-less" race for their teams.
The real question that can ultimately guage Michelin's level of responsability is their so-called "B" tire. As you said - what constitutes a "B" tire? A lot of people (Mosley for one) believe that Michelin developed a "B" tires with absolute disregard for safety, and focused on all out speed instead. I don't think that was the case.
My problem is mainly with the FIA's stubborn stance in respect to "The Good of The Sport", and Michelin's subsequent unwillingness to entertain other possibilities. But after reading some more accounts of the situation, I get the feeling that Michelin's behavior was in response to Mosely's. That doesn't make it right though.
Either way it was a shame.
The real question that can ultimately guage Michelin's level of responsability is their so-called "B" tire. As you said - what constitutes a "B" tire? A lot of people (Mosley for one) believe that Michelin developed a "B" tires with absolute disregard for safety, and focused on all out speed instead. I don't think that was the case.
My problem is mainly with the FIA's stubborn stance in respect to "The Good of The Sport", and Michelin's subsequent unwillingness to entertain other possibilities. But after reading some more accounts of the situation, I get the feeling that Michelin's behavior was in response to Mosely's. That doesn't make it right though.
Either way it was a shame.
06-24-05, 05:12 PM
#39
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why Todt did not get involved is because he is apparently heir to the throne to replace Mosley, Mosley likes Todt and they have had discussions about this. Todt will not go against Mosley in any decision that could affect his future. Of course Todt should open his eyes because if\when everyone breaks away from FIA to form their own series Todt will have nothing.
06-28-05, 01:37 PM
#40
I'll believe it when the money is in my hand, but this is great to see. And I'll just put it towards next year's race, as I for one still support F1 in Canada, America and wherever else they want to go.
Michelin to Refund USGP Tickets
Written by: Cassio Cortes Clermont-Ferrand, France – 6/28/2005
The USGP's disappointed fans will get a chance to be compensated. (LAT Photo)
Michelin has taken a large step 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 critics towards the company.
“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.
Michelin to Refund USGP Tickets
Written by: Cassio Cortes Clermont-Ferrand, France – 6/28/2005
The USGP's disappointed fans will get a chance to be compensated. (LAT Photo)
Michelin has taken a large step 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 critics towards the company.
“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.
06-28-05, 06:27 PM
#41
ERTW
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo for Michelin
honestly out of all the parties involved, IMO Michelin would be the last one to have some sort of hidden agenda or mandate to follow.
i truly believe they just fucked up, but in that situation were correct in their courses of action.
hopefully this will smooth things out.
honestly out of all the parties involved, IMO Michelin would be the last one to have some sort of hidden agenda or mandate to follow.
i truly believe they just fucked up, but in that situation were correct in their courses of action.
hopefully this will smooth things out.