USA Grand Prix

[Scoboblio]

I thought the one tyre rule was bought in to close the gap between top and bottom teams and reduce the cost of running an F1 team?

[FaithStalker]

Tlicense -

Michelin stated thier tyres were not safe and dangerous to race with.

FIA stated putting a chicane in was not safe and dangerous to race with.

 

With all the latest statements coming out it proves what I said, that the FIA cannot change a circuit and would be totally liabel if they did.

 

I dont have the "perfect" solution to the problem, but the Teams should have agreed to run speed trapped offline in the corner. They didnt want to be lapped by Minardi's and Jordans in front of the US market. They chickened out and pushed all the responsibility onto the FIA. If you read between the lines of the Paul Stoddart statement on F1racing-live.com you can see he "glosses" over the fact the teams dismissed any other solution open to them other than a chicane - So they can race an equal footing with everyone else and look *good* - even though it was UNSAFE to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

They should stop blaming the FIA and releasing stupid press statements critisising them.

 

Why are the Teams not saying Michelin should re-imburse the fans?

Why are the Teams not saying Why couldnt Michelin produce a proper tyre?

Why are the Teams not saying We understand that safety was the reason the FIA didnt put a chicane in?

[TLicense]

I think you may be agreeing with me here.

 

Are you basically saying that you agree the route of the cause is with Michelin?

 

Agreed Michelin said that the tyres were unsafe to race with.

 

So what are you saying, we should have said "to hell with you, we're going to race anyway?"

 

I think you're suggesting that we raced anyway and just told the drivers to slow down through turn 13. How slow would you have suggested? 10 mph? 20mph? Michelin didn't know, hence why they said the tyres were simply unsafe to race with.

 

I agree that the circuit could not, and should not have been altered. It's simply not as simple as bunging in a new chicane. Not only from a safety aspect, which is what Max Mosley was talking about, but even from the technical aspect of actually running the cars.

 

I shouldn't read too much into what Paul Stoddart says at any time, especially when he's fired up.

 

In terms of financial damage, for the teams, I think this is the worse possible outcome. I would still defend it though, as it was the only safe option that kept the teams within the rules. People will lose jobs over this; I may lose my job over this. Most of our title sponsers are American, at least one of which was due to renew their contract this year.

 

I do believe that Michelin does have a case to answer for, for bringing the sport into disrepute. Maybe the teams should be sued, and then they could in turn sue Michelin. However in terms of objective rules and regulations, the teams fulfilled their contractual obligations.

[Nic]

T, I see BMW has bought Sauber, I guess that will mean Williams will be looking for a new engine supplier/sponsor now?

[TLicense]

I couldn't say

[Whitesupraboy2]

I couldn't say

 

i thought it was common knowledge they have been talkin to Honda for months

 

Also the contract with BMW may be cancelled rather then forfilled as williams are worried they wont get a works engine. Which is why they are trying to confirm with Honda they will get a works Engine.

 

[Kopite]

good for williams i reckon, some of BMWs comments were out of order. plus if BMW leave, the Williams might become a fast car instead of just assumin it rules the track (no offence meant tony )

[imi]

I dont have the "perfect" solution to the problem, but the Teams should have agreed to run speed trapped offline in the corner. They didnt want to be lapped by Minardi's and Jordans in front of the US market.

 

Possibly, however if they are prepared to race without championship points then I doubt that being lapped by a minardi would be a major cause of concern. BTW: I dont think they would be lapped by minardi regardless of the speed trap....the minardi's jordan's are utter slow and handle like crap.

 

Still dont understand how the speed trap option would have been safe, considering that the bridgestone running would have to slow down in the corner in order to avoid crashing into slower michelin runners....and if they slow down - then thats going to upset the setup of the car, braking etc.

[michael]

Amusing interview with Stoddart:

 

http://members.chello.nl/e.beurskens/Stoddart_Interview.mp3

 

(Contains some NWS language)

 

And I stole this from Supraforums:

 

http://www.phdmp.com/pix/michletter.jpg

[Matt T]

Have a read of this.....

 

FIA President (Max Mosley) gives his view of the US GP

 

What follows is a press release from the FIA in which Max Mosley

answers questions on the events on the US Grand Prix, during before

and after...

 

What about the American fans who traveled long distances and spent a

lot of money to see a race with only six cars?

 

"My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin

should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the

Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and

Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix

will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a

ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge

next year. But I emphasize, that's just my personal view."

 

 

Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show

for the fans?

 

"You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a

sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport.

But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it

would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit

without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was

bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality."

 

Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a

chicane?

 

"The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA

officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday

evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European

time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair,

against the rules and potentially dangerous."

 

Why unfair?

 

"Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each

circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has

very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the

teams which had brought correct equipment to the event."

 

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."

 

Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same

for everyone?

 

"No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose

half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom

skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organizer to change

the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill

with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly.

To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely

different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary

to basic sporting fairness."

 

Never mind about skiing, what about Formula One?

 

"Okay, but it's the same from a purely motor racing point of view.

Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from

major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a

commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven

independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a

basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to

drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a

chicane."

 

All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a

circuit for safety reasons?

 

"There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some

teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the

athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten

their shoes."

 

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?"

 

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."

 

Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in

specially from France?

 

"It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they

could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalize

them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by

using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We

also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the

question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the

tyre after trying it on a test rig."

 

Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre – why did they not

have a back-up available?

 

"You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-

the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although

slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems."

 

Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make

sure their tyres were safe?

 

"Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was

prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumors of

problems in private testing."

 

So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest

the Michelin teams should do?

 

"We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre

they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left

rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current

rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would

clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre –

but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already

explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as

Michelin had requested."

 

How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a

corner?

 

"They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin

requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until

they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust

their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and

driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load

is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a

racing driver."

 

But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through

the corner faster than others?

 

"No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have

given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap

and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding

the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits –

effectively a drive-through penalty."

 

How would a driver know what speed he was doing?

 

"His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could

run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to

give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the

pit lane."

.............

[Matt T]

.......................

 

But would this be real racing?

 

"It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars.

Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this

would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for

the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race."

 

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."

 

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."

 

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

 

"No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were

apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly

not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the

instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no

point in asking for a chicane."

 

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

 

"I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find

they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship

race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the

Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats."

 

What about running the race with the chicane but with points only

for the Bridgestone teams?

 

"This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then

the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of

fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It

would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind

Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit

the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone's high-

speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules."

 

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."

 

Wouldn't Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the

commercial side as well as the sport?

 

"No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many

parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that

the international governing body should have the right both to

sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further

its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and

organizers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious

and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with

administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial

consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be

responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both."

 

Didn't this entire problem arise because new regulations require one

set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?

 

"No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The

difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a

compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two

cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability.

Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example."

 

Finally, what's going to happen on June 29 in Paris?

 

"We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are

two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full

opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite.

The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world

and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced."

 

E.A.

Source FIA

[Matt T]

Also, a statement by Paul Stoddard (Minardi Team Director) stating the facts, and an interesting read, its long though.....

 

A very interesting read indeed....

 

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, affect 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 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.

..........................

[Matt T]

.............................

 

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

[michael]

You could have just posted the links you know

[Matt T]

You could have just posted the links you know

I got the quotes off another forum Otherwise i would have, im not a spam whore

[SupraStar 3000]

watched the F1 race in spain when I could have been in the pool or in a bar ;(

 

What a waste of time. The end of F1 in the US i think, ...if not the world.

 

Really wanted to see a crowd riot and a lynch mob grab the red barron shoemaker.

The only people who really didn't look stupid was David Coulthard and Paul Stoddard (boss of Minardi) who I really respect now

[imi]

Profoundly put by Paul Stoddart

 

"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."

 

Get rid of Mosley.....Ferrari - always knew they had no sporty spirit.

[imi]

Peter Sauber Q&A

 

Mansell Cant Blame Michelin

 

Manseel said

 

"You do whatever is necessary in order to race. A compromise had to be found."

 

"And that compromise was a chicane being installed at that final fast corner. "Simple and effective."

 

MAX Mosley should be fired.......Any current or Ex F1 driver said the same, Brundle, Moss, Coulthard, Stewart, Williams....