Petmerctech

The FIA's solution of the Michelin teams to slow down on turn 13 is not entirely without flaw. Imagine if the Bridgestone shod cars were coming up behind some Michelin cars slowing down for turn 13. The speed differential that you have would cause accidents.

You might argue that they can drive around or avoid the Michelin cars but going off line in that corner can send a car into the wall. On the flip side, people will argue that that's a race car driver's job, to deal with such conditions. But we are talking about safety here. Who is to say for certain that even under reduced speeds, the tires would not have failed? We are talking about a corner where a car can be sent into a wall at over 150 mph, not just a gravel trap/runoff area.

There really was no true viable option other than to stop the race and work out a solution (which there really wasn't any without consequences), or what they did that day, which was run the race as they did, but no one other than the Michelin teams knew that they would not race.

I don't think the FIA knew of the Michelin teams' intention to pull in after the formation lap. They should never have left the pits when they knew they were not going to race. There is speculation that they went out to fulfill contractual obligations and make the race official, but they should have stayed in and protested the race and give word to the FIA that they will not run instead of screwing the fans. Then maybe they would have delayed the race and searched for a viable solution. Instead the teams pulled a fast on on the FIA and the fans.

glojo

FACTS are something we know to be correct! Most of my posts are opinions just like yours. Perhaps one of us has a more accurate grasp though of the present situation? Pots calling kettle’s black springs to mind. Whenever I say anything I hopefully try my hardest to be accurate. My ‘babble’ has yet to be contradicted by you. Now the FACT s compared to your version!
Where on earth did you find this ‘fact’?

Regulation 73 (ish) of the 2005 F1 Sporting Regulations
SUPPLY OF TYRES IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND TYRE LIMITATION DURING THE EVENT

Two tyre suppliers present : each of them must, if called upon to do so, be prepared to equip up to 60% of the entered teams on ordinary commercial terms ;

Each tyre supplier must undertake to provide no more than two specifications of dry-weather tyre to each team at each Event, each of which must be of one homogenous compound. Any modification or treatment, other than heating, carried out to a tyre or tyres will be considered a change of specification ;
Each tyre supplier must undertake to provide no more than one specification of wet-weather tyre at each Event which must be of one homogenous compound.

I will politely suggest that you are putting the blame onto the seven teams and Michelin?? Now you have read the above regulation, Did Bridgestone offer to sell their ‘safe’ tyres to any of the seven teams in accordance with the Sporting Regulations? Has anyone raised this issue?

Another of your ‘facts’??? I am not a racing driver, merely a fan. Where did you get this information from? I am not defending anyone really, I am disgusted that a race did not take place. A proper race with all teams actually competing. I will just use one expert’s advice that has raced both with Ferrari and Williams. Nigel Mansell…… He states a temporary chicane could be used, as per my previous post. I am not going to argue with such an eminent person. Barcelona in 1994 has set a precedent on this.

Here we go again… I totally accept Michelin did not have a tyre that could go the full distance of that circuit. So perhaps that part is a fact. What I do NOT accept though is that Bridgestone actually had a tyre that could go at full race speed the distance!! I accept that I am the only person expressing this opinion!! Nine tenths perhaps might disagree. However my reasons for saying this was witnessed by all that watched this farce. NO team, NO team will readily detain a car in the pits and give up the lead of a race. They might short fuel it to get it out quicker, but to just do a routine pit stop and take nearly THREE times I emphasis the word ‘nearly’ three times as long. Is out of the normal parameters. There is a reason, and in this case the reason was solely the left rear tyre. Give me just one example of ANY leading Formula One car taking a routine sixteen second pit stop AND giving up the lead and I will shut up!! (There’s a challenge) All cars that so called 'raced' around that circuit lapped at speeds far slower than the racing speeds that Michelin had bravely stated their tyre would have difficulty with. It is easy to say Bridgestone tyres were safe, but not substantiate that claim!!

This FACT simply beggars believe!! My opinion is that if a team ignores the advice of the tyre supplier, then they are being criminally!! Negligent (I have used the word criminally but I really mean they will be liable to face the courts and be punished for any incident caused by tyre failure)

Again this is NOT a fact. All teams are contractually obliged to race at every circuit during the specified season. The parade lap strangely enough is I believe? deemed part of the race. I blame mainly the FIA, this did not happen hours before the race!! This could have been resolved the day before, but I stand by ALL the ex World Champion Formula One drivers I citied in a previous post, but will just stick with Nigel Mansell. I totally agree that the NINE teams had no intention of actually racing on the current circuit. Michelin had given them expert opinion on the safety issues. Two of the nine changed their minds right at the last minute, because they did not have they Michelin advice as a defence. Why did the two teams first attempt to boycott this event? Did they suspect that if they HAD to actually RACE at proper speeds they might indeed have prpblems??? (Speculation because in the event they cruised around to get points that only their wildest dreams could have predicted) .

Wow!! This fact takes some understanding… Frank Williams has been charged over the death of Ayrton Senna da Silva so does that make him a criminal??? To give the money paying American public value for money YES a big resounding YES it would make it right. The FIA should have stageg a race, then taken action behind the usual closed doors. So far your ‘facts’ are not looking to good!!

Here we go again… Your ‘FACTS’ are certainly entertaining and sometimes I even agree with some of them.

1. Certainly cannot disagree with that
2. Certainly cannot disagree with that and indeed the second choice dry weather tyre. was 'screwed'
3. Certainly cannot disagree there either
4. What LEGAL suggestions were there?? Think before answering and please use facts. FACTS please. Slowing down just for that bend was a suggestion that with 20/20 hindsight would have worked and no doubt made fools of Bridgestone. I say this because of the actual lap speeds that were set during the race. Anything else would again be pure speculation. The speeds all the so called racing cars were producing would have meant that the Michelin cars would NOT have had to reduce speed. The tyre was causing concern when pushed to the limits of its performance envelope, NOT cruising at safe reliable speeds. Regarding the FIA recommendation about coming in to the pits every eight or so laps to change tyres is absolute hypocritical rubbish. I have posted the relevant FIA regulation that clearly states only four sets of tyres can be used here it is again: During the Event no driver may use more than four sets of dry-weather tyres, four sets of wet weather tyres and three sets of extreme-weather tyres. Now before you go on about any suggestion of using ‘Wet weather’ tyres. That is silly beyond belief, and I will not prattle on about heat dissipation, tyre break-up and the race being declared a wet weather race! I have also attached another interesting regulation which seems to perhaps have some significance: Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season without the agreement of the Formula One Commission. (may be relevant, may not!!!) So how can four sets of tyres for the whole week-end fit into this 'fact'
5. The ‘Teams’ offered a solution that did not conform to the rules. The FIA offered a solution that did not conform? So are you saying what is wrong for one is actually right??? I accept the slower speed issue, but only after the event, all the other FIA suggestions broke your same rules. Where is the logic?


This is your most annoyingly INACCURATE dare I say ‘babble’!!!

I am on quite a high dosage of morphine medication so perhaps I might ‘babble’ but at least I have an excuse!!

What I am afraid of is my post sounding vindictive or spiteful! It is neither. I am a passionate follower of Formula One and have enjoyed attending or watching ever since my first outing to Silverstone and watching Stirling Moss. I certainly had no problems with Ferrari until they hired Ross Braun. This man has an exceptional talent, he is without doubt the best race engineer to grace Formula One but his philosophy of winning at ALL costs is simply too high. Yes Formula One is all about winning and yes second place is really the first placed looser, but what has happened at Ferrari is beyond the acceptable standards of Formula One. You will say I am babbling and nothing I say will alter that, I am merely being honest to myself. 'babble, babble' All teams except Ferrari have very restricted periods of testing. No other team tests five days a week, I thought Ferrari were acting illegally, but they have said it is a Gentleman’s agreement which they did not agree to?? Babble to you, but to me it is more serious. I am sorely tempted to justify my ‘babble’ in greater depth but it would only add fuel to your argument. Just let me say I am not jealous or envious of Ferrari’s achievements. It is merely something I would expect from Ross Braun.

I was always a fan of BRM racing cars, but do not really have any leanings whatsoever to any one manufacturer. I simply admire\respect the individual, hence my annoyance at your comments on my observations about Ferrari. I have loved watching certain drivers who raced for this famous marque. Your late Gilles Villeneuve being a very good example. Someone who was a victim of so called team orders!! Nicki Lauda, and Nigel Mansell represented the marque with both honour and culture. They were splendid ambassadors, both for Ferrari and Formula One. I would dearly love to see Valentino Rossi make the transition into a Ferrari, but here I go babbling again. These of course are just my ramblings on a sport that has inflicted a severe wound on itself in public. I still believe that what took place last week-end was a power struggle that had to happen. It definitely should NOT have happened at the expense of the paying public.

The FIA has completely lost touch with those it represents, you call it babble, but I still say that if the FIA wants to survive then my nine soldiers marching in step must be listened to, as opposed to the one that is out of step. The sport must be bigger than the individuals that participate. I apologise for my not being clear on this issue, and also for waffling on.

Just noticed
I think Petmerctech has raised several valid points. The teams would have been in breach of numerous contractual obligations if they had not started the race. The parade lap is part of the race!!! If they had refused to go out, then that is a prima facia breach of contract which they would have great difficulty defending. The race officials were ALL fully aware that Michelin had said the tyres were NOT safe to race on that specific track.

Would the race officials have any legal culpability if they allowed the Michelin shod cars to race and these cars were involved in a serious incident?

I would merely suggest that the starter could easily have indicated a false start!!! And order ALL cars to reform. Why didn’t he??? I don’t think the teams pulled a ‘fast one’. They merely played their hand in this ridiculous game of poker (they raised the stakes) Again I am not defending anyone the public suffered terribly.

The FIA are now raising the stakes in this redicilous game for a number of reasons including the very real threat of huge compensation claims being made for this fiasco. There are going to be NO winners and I still suggest that any race would have been better than no race (which is what happened) Michelin were wrong, ALL the teams were wrong, the FIA were wrong and Bridgestone were extraordinarily crafty They have sat back and are now watching from a safe distance. (Unless someone reads this post and asks about the 60% supply question!!


Take care,
John

A really HOT lunchtime in Torquay

BklynBenz

exactly, i mentioned this too in my first post. seems like all the ferrari haters forget this all the time.

taylor192

Interesting, I wonder why it was never proposed...
I'd have to disagree with that. This was not a race, it was evident by the speeds of the Ferraris. That noted, why not take some extra time in the pits to ensure the cars and tyres could finish the race and get the much needed points?

I'm wondering why they stopped MS and not Rubens...
I'll find the Michelin press release, yet they explicitly state that the tyres were safe at lower speeds. It should then be up to the FIA to decide how to lower speeds.

Can you agree with that?
Look at the FIA charges. Parade lap or not they are being charged with not participating in that race.
I think you just made my argument. If Michelin had choosne to race they would've been fine with a slight reduction of speed that Ferrari was obviously able to manage themselves without FIA intervention.
The FIA is the governing body, the teams are not. The FIA should have the power to decide the rules that could be broken to ensure a race, not the teams. That aside, one of the FIA solutions required no rules to be broken.
To me its this kinda stuff that is ruining the sport. F1 used to push the limits of the sport at all costs, even death. Now when oneteam has more resources available to push the limits further there's gentlemen agreements not to. Forgive me for siding with Ross Braun, yet F1 used to be about winning at all costs, I'd like to see it get back to that.
This is an interesting point, especially since the chicane was unproven to actually ensure the safety of the tyres. Would the added stress of a chicane before a sweeping high speed turn further damage the tyres... Michelin says no, then again, they were wrong before.

Passion is great John, I wish the teams were as passionate as you. They would've raced bad tyres or not and gave it alll.

Chris

Hoyt Clagwell

Good morning in hot sunny Torquay from a humid Kentucky.

So you're saying if your organization has ten employees to work on a computer project that they've known about for several months and nine of them show up for the project completely unprepared (Bob shows up prepared), and they say that you should take away Bob's keyboard so Bob will be working as inefficiently as the nine unprepared workers, that you'll take away Bob's keyboard? I say the nine employees are disciplined while Bob's preparedness is recognized. The Micheline teams came unprepared and were disciplined by receiving no points for the weekend. Bridgestone came prepared and were recognized with full points.

Every situation is different and judged on it's own merits. I removed my favorite team bias when I consider what happened at Indy. I wish it was that easy for everyone else.

Even though I would have liked to have seen a full grid, I understand that rules should not be broken just to placate some unprepared competitors, thus penalizing the competitors that were totally prepared.

I suppose this is a case where we all agree to disagree.

Things will be back to normal in France in a fortnight.

Hoping a nice breeze and a shady cloud comes your way in Torquay,

Hoyt

Jim Banville

If the 9 workers THOUGHT they were prepared, but only find out at the last minute that their keyboard supplier gave them bad equipment, and if 145,000 people paid lots of money to watch, then YES, you do what you have to to put on the show for the people, and later give no credit to the unprepared workers and fire their keyboard supplier. Fans come FIRST!

Has anyone else read Paul Stoddart's (Minardi) timeline of the events and his opinion on how Max Mosley and John Todt/Ferrari kept the fans from seeing a "race", albeit one that wouldn't count towards the championship?

glojo

My opinion about why Ferrari took so long is simply because they were very concerned about the reliability of the tyres. First off as you rightly point out the cars were not at proper ‘racing speeds’

Next, schumacher in my opinion had a lighter fuel load so had to come in first. Whilst refuelling extensive (relative wording) tests were carried out on the rear left tyre. We saw thermometers and depth gauges being prodded and poked into the carcass. These measurements and no doubt samples will be analysed, the information will then be entered into the computers along with all the telemetrical information, then the Bridgestone representatives will be able to give an informed opinion on the tyres durability. Only data from one car will be required for this, hence it will naturally be the first car that comes in. This is what team work is all about and something that is a credit to the technology they have at their disposal.

No need to post it. I totally accept that.

Again this is the FIA with its back against the wall. They are slowly waking up to the ramifications of what has happened. The penny is dropping that this farce is going to cost someone megabucks. What a pity they did not realise this earlier. I will politely suggest that the Parade Lap is deemed part of the race for a number of reasons. One being fuel. Cars enter qualifying with the fuel they intend to start the race with. Not after the Parade Lap. Now we get down to the real reason. There are set procedures prior to the start of the race to clear all officials from the grid. These occur prior to the start of the ‘race’. Hence they are cleared prior to the Parade Lap, tyre warmers come off engines started etc etc. I fear that either I am wrong or the FIA? Funny if it was me!! And expensive for the seven who will be in breach of their contractual obligations to the FIA, their sponsors and the public. I believe the charge that will probably stick is the ‘Catch All’ of Fetching the Sport into disrepute, but they have an excellent defence on pure safety grounds.

Don’t forget I said that ‘Slowing down just for that bend was a suggestion that with 20/20 hindsight would have worked and no doubt made fools of Bridgestone. I say this because of the actual lap speeds that were set during the race. Anything else would again be pure speculation’ If the ‘seven’ had raced do you seriously believe that Ferrari would have lapped at the same speeds as they recorded for the race?? I personally think not.

AT LAST!!! Absolutely 100% agree about the first part of this reply but not the second. Lawyers would have a field day with Regulation 147 which we discussed earlier. This relates to team orders but lawyers would, I suggest make a small fortune arguing semantics. Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited. Therefore I would suggest that telling seven teams to go around a corner slower than three other teams is a direct order which might be interpreted as ‘interfering with the race result’!! I am still of the opinion that a chicane would have been the answer. It is not a new idea, there has been a precedent and the more I think about it (and read various comments from retired professionals) the more I get convinced. Set the chicane up Saturday evening. (Nothing outrageous and under the supervision of the GPDA Grand Prix Drivers Association). Then Sunday morning have an agreed timed practice. Then discuss qualification times and the fuel starting amounts. Maybe, let the crafty Bridgestone users start at the front???

I half agree with you on this very thorny subject. The escalating costs of Formula One have gone completely OTT. This in itself might not be a problem IF you could get full grids, but that is not happening and even now there are only a few teams that realistically have any chance of winning. Sauber have just been bought by BMW, so hopefully things might get more interesting but they need a budget of something like 600 million dollars a year to really compete. Where on earth will they get this from???? Toyota and Ferrari are the real big budget spenders with other teams desperate to keep up, so ‘winning at all costs’ is very relevant.

I am surprised at your saying this then querying Kimi Raikkonen’s driving in the European Grand Prix. He was ninety seconds from victory. Just one lap. Sort of winning at all cost. I fully understand what he was doing and why he was doing it. Many laps before this when the camera’s focused on that tyre I was pleading with him to stop (but I knew then that there was NO WAY he would) Can you remember Nigel Mansell in I believe Australia when he could have won the World Championship, everyone was pleading for him to come in and change tyres (I believe he even had time in hand) but he stayed out and got a puncture. The Worlds leading drivers simply do not want to come second!! Now we come to my remark about Ross Braun and winning at any cost!! He is not a driver, he is a very knowledgeable engineer that has a ‘history’ way before ‘babble’, babble’ Ferrari. When he gets caught ‘cheating’ he merely blames someone else or the illegal traction control excuse, “Oh dear, I forgot about that” These remarks are way before his time at Ferrari so please do not come out with your Ferrari 'bashing comments. I do not like cheating. It endangers the honest drivers life who tries to keep up with a car that has an unfair advantage.

It takes place in Formula One because of all the cutting edge technology, and the skilful engineers that can ‘bend’ the rules. Mclaren had the ‘floppy’ rear wing that flexed when the car got above a certain speed. So at slow speeds the wing worked as it was designed, but at really high speeds the thing bent, making the car more slippery. Clever engineering, or cheating??? Drivers can only drive with the machine they are given but if the car has an illegal traction control system that needs a button to switch it on and then hide it at scrutineering then that is going over the line!!! Just me being old fashioned perhaps??

Excellent point, hence my observation about it being designed in conjunction with (Not by) the GPDA, then have the Sunday morning practice.

I am so pleased that we are having this very interesting, friendly debate. We will clearly never agree, but then if we did, we would not be having the debate.

Take care,

Kind regards,
John

glojo

It's hot, da***d hot but I bet no where near as uncomfortable as Kentucky?? No, I'm not saying that. I am perhaps saying you have nine experts saying one thing is right (experts in that field) and then you get a single expert in the same field saying it is wrong!!! Then you would reasonably expect to air on the side of the majority. I just know someone is going to nit pick this comparison!

Anyway here is another link.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=33213

Please can someone post links saying that the 'seven' were wrong from experts other than those implicated. I want to read constructive criticism of the actions by learned people in the field of Formula One. I want to get a balanced view.

It is strange how all the criticism is coming from folks that accuse us nuetrals of being Ferrari knockers, but I for one do not blame them for this farce. My comments referring to the 'one' being out of step or what ever, clearly point to Ferrari but I will defend to the hilt their right to object. That is called democracy. Ferrari were 100% correct in the way they conducted themselves so please, please try to rise above this 'Your picking on me because I'm red' attitude. Ferrari are innocent and like Bridgestone sitting on a nice comfortable fence watching the destruction of the Worlds best Formula. I am just disappointed that the FIA listened to the 'one' as opposed to the NINE. I have NEVER criticised Ferrari for making this objection. All teams have a history of lodging objections.

At present I am leaning towards blaming the FIA, but this incident is perhaps the final straw that has been loaded onto the camel. The straws have been coming for a number of years, and this straw might just be one to many??

Sorry for the additional post, but I just found this link whilst trying to find a favourable post that supports the FIA?

Bye again,
John

Give you all a quick laugh.

I am disabled and cannot sit, so yesterday afternoon I layed on the grass and painted\treated our garden furniture. Today the outside of my right leg is glowing like a red Ferrari with sun burn. (I was going to say as red as a beetroot, but that would not be topical) Boy does it sting

Take care

Hoyt Clagwell

Chris, sorry but I disagree here. The FIA should not have to decide how to lower speeds, it's the Michelin group that should have changed their race strategy to deal with their shoddy equipment.

If seven teams all used the same transmission, and the transmission was found to have been assembled with the wrong gearing resulting in slower top end, does that mean the race track has to be altered so that everyone is competitive again? No. The seven teams deal with THEIR (not FIA's) problem and either go racing at lower speeds or pack up and go home. It is not a case of unsafe tyres. The tyres were safe if driven at lower speeds in one corner.

I think the bigger issue is the Michelin teams didn't want to be embarassed by the Minardis and Jordans lapping them in front of a large international audience. The secondary issue is the teams showing solidarity for their own breakaway GP series in a couple of year's time and doing their best to give Bernie a black eye.

Hoyt Clagwell

There's a difference between a sporting event and a business activity. In business, the customer should be considered of primary importance. In sport, the rules and regulations should be considered to maintain integrity of the sport.

Consider this scenario of a sporting event -- it's a wrestling match during the Olympics. Two wrestlers (Mike and Bob) are entering the arena ready to compete against each other. Mike slips and breaks his arm. Now what? Does Mike's coach cry to the organizers that Bob should now have his right arm tied behind his back to make the match equitable? No, the rules dictate that Mike has to forfeit the match.

So, you have to decide -- was Indy a sporting event or a business activity? You can only choose one, and no gray area. If you decide it was a business activity then a chicane should have been installed to satisfy the customers. If you decide it was a sporting event then the unprepared teams forfeited the contest to the ones who came prepared.

taylor192

I think we do agree, just semantics again.

The Michelin problem became the FIA problem cause the FIA ultimately have to make the decision about the rules in order for the teams to safely race. The FIA had to propose a solution, yet the solution didn't need to be applied to all 10 teams! That's the semantics.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with the Minardi/Jordan embarrassment issue. Racing competitively, albeit in 2 groups, the slower Michelins and the faster Bridgestones, would've been embarrassing. Then again, it's happened in years past (recently with Ferrari racing in a class of its own) and every race (Jordan and Minardi only competitive with each other, not with the front runners). For some reason people only found issue when Ferrari raced in a class of its own, and the rules changed. When Jordan and Minardi race every-week in a class of their own (at the bottom) no-one cares. Hypocritical?

Requiring 'fair' competition moves F1 towards NASCAR. I don't like that prospect, I already watch NASCAR and miss the old days of 'bump-and-run' #3 racing. Lets not make both sports boring.

taylor192

I said this before and referred a 'sport' that decided to call itself 'sports entertainment', the WWE. Rules of the 'sport' are broken purposely by the governing organization, the teams, and the individual participants inorder to provide 'entertainment'.

Would any F1 fans perfer to have their 'sport' associated with the 'sports entertainment' industry instead? I think not.

----

That being said, I am anathlete and play several sports. For instance my softball league is very recretaional. Often the rules (# of female players, # of players) are broken just so we can play a game, cause we'd all rather play than go home. Then comes the tournaments and playoffs. Rules are strictly enforced and teams sent home if they cannot satisfy the rules.

We've forfeited 2 games this season due to the rules. Do we complain to the league? No, we attempt to make sure we can field a proper team the next time, or we make a compromise with the other team that has included giving them the victory by default then still playing so we can have some fun, or playing a real game even though we'd take the field with empty positions, or take automatic outs due to the lack of female players (ie play an inning with 2 outs rather than 3).

If our team can play by making consessions to the other team, I see no reason why the F1 teams we hold in a higher regard cannot do the same.

glojo

Hi Hoyt,
I am beginning to think that

a) You never watched this farce

or

b) The US did not show the interview with Paul Stoddart the owner of Minardi.

Mr Stoddart does not blow your arguement away..... He unfortunately makes it look silly.

Mid-way through the race he walked away from his pit area and gave a TV interview.

There might well be a transcript somewhere or indeed a reported interview so please forgive me if my account is not 100% accurate.

First off he apologised to theTV presenter, then the watching public.


He explained how he was disgusted in what was taking place at present (the race was half way through)

He then explained that he wanted no part in the event, but his hand was forced by Jordan who backed down just minutes before the race and decided to compete.

He then laid into the FIA and Jean Todt (not me here) He explained that he had never, never left his pit area during a race, but what was happening was NOT a race (whoops) and he felt ashamed to take part.

He expected to get a bag full of points but would take NO pleasure in getting them.

He wanted a temporary chicane and he wanted ALL the teams to compete. He certainly did not want to race and felt badly let down by Jordan.


Now WHY did Paul Stoddart not want to race????? Why did he back the Michelin shod teams. WHY wasn't he pleased to get the points. These points amount to millions of dollars for next seasons racing.

At the time I wasn't convinced by his behaviour but as the seriousness of this disgraceful cherard sink in, I commend his bravery in standing up and speaking out. You can bet he will be summoned to appear before the FIA as a witness, because something stinks. Minardi are a slow car that are shod on Bridgestone tyres??

Did you see the interview? and can anyone confirm that I am not making up this claim?

Off to try to find a link
John

Here we go

http://www.sportinglife.com/others/n..._Stoddart.html

Back in a minuteThis link is in a similar vein but highlights my point about all NINE teams being in agreement. As I have always maintained this is NOT just Michelin vs the FIA. something is going to have to give. The referral to all nine teams is near the end of the interview. I won't bother with anymore links as obviously they will all be in a similar vein. (Unless I find anything contraversial

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/4109978.stm

taylor192

This form one of the articles:if they want to treat the sport like a business go ahead, I'll watch Nascar and cheer for Gordon who proved he could outdrive the current F1 drivers anyways. (but that's a different argument :p )

glojo

Hi Chris,
Sadly I feel anyone that thinks that Formula One is a sport first, is deluding themselves.

Mr Ecclestone dropped Belgium from the racing calender not because the circuit was dangerous but because of the governments objection to tobacco advertising. He has threatened Silverstone on numerous occassions not because of a dangerous circuit or falling attendance, but simply because of the corporate facilities!!!

Sorry to be such a kill joy.

John

taylor192

I don't think they measured MS cause he was the first. We both know Ferrari is about putting MS on the podium before Rubens. Ferrari, with race in hand, could've changed strategy and forced Rubens to pit early. I think the measurements were more to ensure the driver they wanted to win was adequately equipped to do so.
Ah, I understand your logic now, wasn't quite clear before. Yes, interpretted that way it is clearly breaking the rules. I think its the semantic sof the word 'interfere'. Orders placed from the stat of a race would decide the outcome, yet is that interference or strategy? Clearly pulling out of the race and into a pit-stall affected the race results too - should the same rule be applied to the current situation?
It depends on what you consider winning. I watch a lot of Nascar, and racing for points is a much bigger consideration. In F1 the points have been such to encourage the drivers to race to win each race, not race to win a championship. The new points system and the increased number of races changes that perspective of F1, and I'd much rather see Kimi race to win the championship than race to win each race (I'd actually liek to see both, yet understand the 2 are not the same).
I'm an engineer, different field, yet know a lot about 'bending the rules' and there's no such thing. The difference betwene the button and the wing exmaple you used is trivial, both are cheating cause the people involved know of the cheat and know how to exploit it - just one is more obvious.

I hate the ruling earlier this year and the 3 race ban. I didn't consider that cheating, cause technically it wasn't. The rules were enforced setting a precidence for this incident.
I heard even Toyota wasn't happy with this arrangement cause it would've required them to break a further rule, cause their car had so little fuel it wouldn't have been able to complete the practice.
We will never agree, that's true, yet at least we can agree on some things. Friendly debates are interesting

I'm interested if you can relate to my softball analogy I posted above. Currently my team is in 2nd place, and even won our last tournament after having to play the first game with 2 outs per inning instead of 3 due to our female players sleeping in

I still feel Renault, McLaren should've adopted this strategy and attempted to get at least a few points. Fans aside, there is still a championship to be won, and Kimi/Mercedes had been gaining.

Chris

taylor192

You're not the kill joy, the "business of sports" is the kill joy. Hockey is everything in Canada, and business has killed that sport as well.

Montreal was supposed to be dropped as well, yet was put back on. Tobacco advertizing has since been removed from several other countries as well. I think that was a motivating factor, yet the real reason is the newest tracks offer bigger and more afluent audiences. Bahrain is amazing, and something had to be dropped to make room for it. I don't think it'll be long before some other smaller European countries are dropped in favour of larger markets using some other excuse to do it.

If they drop Montreal I'm becoming a Nascar-only fan! :p
Chris

Hoyt Clagwell

I don't know the answer to the following question, so excuse my ignorance on the matter:

Is Paul Stoddart part of the breakaway GP group? If so, I can clearly see why he would back the Michelin shod teams for political and not racing reasons.

Hoyt Clagwell

Another reason for Stoddart backing Michelin shod cars -- he has a bone to pick with the FIA from his problems earlier this year -- wasn't he the guy that complained to the FIA that he couldn't field cars that conform to the 2005 regs and had to start the year with 2004 spec cars just before the 1st race in Melbourne ? Then when the FIA refused he somehow within just hours managed to put two 2005 cars on the grid.

I don't think Stoddart is unbiased when it comes to the FIA, so I take what he says with a grain of used salt.

Jim Banville

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.

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.



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!"

Press Release
MinardiF1

glojo

Paul Stoddart is an owner of a racing team and as such it is only fair his voice should be heard. Or do you believe he should just keep in the background and keep quiet.

I am trying to think of a team other than Ferrari that have not had major issues with the FIA?

So yes Paul Stoddard has had issues, who hasn't?

Belgium was dropped to teach it a lesson. Thankfully it is back on the racing calendar, but the new circuits are breathtaking and I have no objection to circuits being dropped that are not conjusive to good, exciting motor racing. Hungary?????

That is a philosophy that is absolutely alien to our way of thinking. Drink today, for tomorrow you might die I just know that will get misinterpreted, but our drivers go to win, winning makes points and points make prizes. As I previously said, coming second is merely the first placed looser. Team orders in Formula One will supercede this though, but usually only near the end of a season (with one exception ) If you ever get the oppurtunity to watch Motor Gp racing then you will see EXACTLY where I am coming from. This is the best, most exciting motor sport I have ever had the priviledge to watch. Tell Rossi to settle for second!!!!

One hundred per cent agree cheating is cheating is cheating, but the punishments are crazy and hard to understand. Totally agree about the ban but vehermently disagree about 'precedent' What team had oversized barge boards and had used them for a number of races? The traction control was explained away by the engineer saying that the button and traction control software should have been removed but they 'forgot' it was there. The same engineer blamed sub contractors for 'oversized' barge boards that had been used for a number of races When caught they merely claimed it was an oversight on behalf of a sub-contractor. The floppy rear wing was punished the fuel tank as you have pointed out was punished, but 'Precedent' can't see that sorry! babbling again... Sorry

Ouch (It hurts when I laugh ""I heard Toyota"" I think you will find a 'party line' is being taken by most of the Michelin teams and the official Toyota line is """"The only practical solution was for a chicane to be installed prior to Turn 13 and nine of the teams were prepared to run under these conditions even forgoing championship points or by allowing non-Michelin teams to take top positions on the grid.

Unfortunately all proposals were rejected by the FIA."""""

http://www.toyota-f1.com/public/en/g.../4_press2.html


Good try, but you failed to even reach the target You can only have so many bites at a cherry. One minute you say that these teams are being charged with ""not participating in the race"" Then you want to charge them for "" pulling out of the race and into a pit-stall """ I understand though what you are saying but your arguement has a slightly sic interpretation if followed to its logical conclusion. It was ALWAYS the recognized procedure to withdraw the second car if the other driver was killed during a race. Thereby the withdrawn car "Clearly pulling out of the race and into a pit-stall affected the race results too " I totally accept you would never infer that, but you have already mentioned setting a precedent. If a car is withdrawn from a race for safety reasons then that is the correct, responsible action. (full stop) Sorry for my ghoulish example!

I can't see your softball analogy, but what the heck? I'll agree with it anyway!! I'm that kinda guy.

Take care,
John

taylor192

I still find this comment rediculous.

Watch any race and you'll see the front-runners lap the slower cars. Watch wet-weather races and you'll see the drivers be more cautious around the circuit on wet-weather tyres.

After reading that article I'm convinced why Mr. Stoddart and Minardi have sided with the Michelin teams. Mr. Stoddart admits he has no interest in the situation, and only after Mr. Mosley responds harshly to the compromise and Mr Todt won't compromise does he seem interested in the problem.

Like Hoyt said, I'll take this opinion with a gain of used salt.

glojo

Typical Ferrari Lovers response sorry about that, but it felt good.

Stoddard is clearly annoyed at the way he has been treated but can't you see that this is simply the catalyst that has lit the touch paper. Why did the Jordan team first side with the Mitchelin teams? Or aren't you interested in that either. Take off your very bias glasses and merely look at the professionals that have gone public. Why are you only listening to yourselves.

Where is there anything that blames Michelin apart from biased forums speak? I desperately want to read it. I always like to read both sides of any incident. WHERE have you read anything that puts the blame on the Michelin folks?

John

taylor192

LOL

Good question, I did wonder when you mentioned 9 teams agreed why Jordan and Minardi would agree. I can see why Minardi agreed, yet why did Jordan apparently change their minds? I'm gonna search for a Jordan press release.

I'd speculate Jordan went along at first in the essense of sportmanship. After Mr. Mosley's ruling little is said about Jordan still agreeing to the chicane compromise. Perhaps they agreed only if the compromise was accepted by the FIA. More needs to be said from the Jordan team.

I haven't read much that puts the blame on the Michelin teams, yet I refuse to give into the 'public perception', as most of what is published in the media is biased by the majority of the fans reaction. The reaction of past drivers is surprising... then consider the current drivers who did want to race, and the others that give the prepared team response rather than what they really think.

I am biased cause I don't want to see the fans dictate the rules. They already have and the sport has suffered IMHO.

Chris

glojo

Noooo!!! In a way I agree with you in so far as we must never have mob rule, BUT.... any sport must be entertaining, they MUST consider the ticket paying public, and this did NOT happen.

Jordan have major problems, Eddie Jordan sold the business and the new owner did not realise the full extent of the financial commitments I don’t believe all is very well in that particular camp. Their web-site is down allegedly ‘undergoing maintenance’

The only comment I have found have been extremely non committal,

*******Adrian Burgess, sporting director
"Today was an unusual race for Jordan Grand Prix. With the extraordinary circumstances, we did our best to bring both cars to the finish and we were there to get the points. We have done the same job as we normally do in a race and made sure we did not make any mistakes or take any useless risks. Now our main focus is on our test next week in Barcelona and to keep on improving the cars.******

I always try my hardest to listen to both sides of any argument and try to get opinions from the experts. No current driver will say anything that will be at odds with their team. The only drivers that will speak out are those that have retired. Nigel Mansell is an ideal example because he was very upset with Frank Williams over the way he was treated after winning his World Championship and he had a wonderful relationship at Ferrari. Paul Stoddard has issues with the FIA and I understand why perhaps you might not want to believe his version, but to make a decision solely for the reasons you give are perhaps not the best of grounds.

I want to see all the spectators that attended this farce get a full refund, plus travelling costs (At least) Michelin MUST accept their part in this fiasco, they were aware of this new surface and should have taken the necessary steps. However they didn’t so something else had to be arranged, that is my grievance with the FIA they are the governing body and they simply failed everyone, now to top it all they are going to be both judge and jury over this monumental ‘vertical urinary discharge apparatus.’

This is where the boss must earn their salary, but they failed miserably. It is easy being in charge when things go well, but when the going gets rough, that is what sorts the men form the boys. In this case when the going got rough the command structure ceased up.

Shame on them,

Bye again and good night,
John