glojo

Hi Bob,
Thanks very much for a very informative post, and also confirming the #82 . Jim Clark although a Scotsman (not his fault ) was very much one of my all time hero's

I have just done a quick bit of 'memory upgrading' and come up with the following facts confirming your posts and highlighting the difference in engines.

In 1963 Lotus arrived at the 'brickyard' with three cars; one for Clark, one for Gurney, and a spare. Chapman and Gurney had gone to Ford for an engine and a modified, aluminium-block Fairlane V8 was fitted. The Lotus 29 was a larger version of the Grand Prix 25. Power was 80bhp down on the Offenhauser fours (a magnificent engine, by any measure) but the Lotus was another example of Chapman 'building lightness', bettering the roadsters on the scales by as much as 450 pounds.

In 1964 Chapman had persuaded Ford to build a four-cam version of the V8, bridging the power gap to the Offenhausers. Clark took pole, with Bobby Marshman and Ward alongside, also Ford-powered, the first non-'Offy' front row in 25 years. Sachs lost control, and his life, in a crash on the first lap as Clark led the field. Clark led again on the restart but a fault in the Dunlop D12 Formula One tyres dropped both his Lotus and Marshman's out of the race when the tread began to fly off, damaging the suspension. It was a public relations disaster for Lotus and Ford, which had shaped up as clear favourites. If the tyres were chosen to emphasise British manufacturing, it was a dangerous bit of brinkmanship, as the fault was considered a strong possibility before the race.

Formula One cars are normally aspirated (no turbo, or super charger) and they run on road going petrol. During this period they were also 2.5ltr engines, hence the need for having specially designed engines solely for this race.

Just thought I would clarify my earlier statement about the confusion over Graham Hill’s brilliant win at Indianapolis. Clark lost his lead after the first spin, and his pit crew managed to lose track of Graham Hill during his second excursion off-line, so that he found himself trailing Hill when his pits were signalling a lead.

When Jackie Stewart's engine blew up, costing him the win, Hill inherited the lead. Clark conceded later that he couldn't have caught Hill had the true position been known earlier, and it is true that when he couldn't win, Jimmy enjoyed Graham's successes.

It should be pointed out that any Grand Prix driver competing at Indianapolis would have to be in the US for the whole month of May, therefore they missed a number of Grand Prix events in Europe.

Thanks again John

MB-BOB

John, I think one of the sources you quoted from mentioned the the F1 drivers shuttled back and forth to Europe between Indy Qualifying and the Monaco GP, usually held in the same month. This was easy when the Indy race took all month, because the European drivers ideally tried to qualify the first weekend, then spent the next two at Monaco, arriving back at Indy in time for Thursday carburation and the race the following Sunday. In some years, this worked fine, but in other years when the Monaco GP was too close to Indy Quallies, the European drivers would pass on Indy.

Eventually the European teams got fed up with the lack of attention and the insurance guys insisted that the F1 guys focus on their sport without risking injury at Indy.

Mario Andretti did the Indy shuffle nearly every year he was in F1, well past his 1979 F1 championship year.

glojo

Hi Bob,
I don't think many Formula One drivers actually raced in the Indy. Jim Clark, attended more than once Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart made appearances, but am I correct in thinking that 'rookie' drivers need to be present for an extended period?

Monaco, is one of the races that takes place in May, but Formula One likes to usually have one race every 14 days per season. They sometimes have an extra seven day break August\September time.

The problem apart from the 'rookie' issue is costs of designing a one off car solely for one race.

Yes the car 'looks' like a F1 car, but it has a larger V8 more rugged, durable engine.

Were they also turbo, or supercharged?

Is the fuel different from normal petrol that you can buy from the average garage? (this is what F1 cars had to use)

Gearbox
A Formula 1 car had a racing gearbox with numerous gearing. Am I correct in thinking that in the 60's Indy cars only had a few gears?

Off set suspension was also the fashion for Indianapolis.

Brabham went over with the Cooper and the successful Clark and Hill used Lotus cars that were adapted as has been described..

Mario was indeed the exception, I think he had contractual obligations to race in the US and then he would fit the odd F1 race into his busy schedule. He then went full time with Lotus and won the World Championship with the all conquering Lotus ground effect car.

John

MB-BOB

Jack Brabham, and later, Eddie Cheever, Stephan Johannson, Andretti, Jackie Stewart, etc. Rookies weren't required to be there the whole month, and of course they wore the rookie three stripes only their first year.

During the 60's there were only a handful of F1 races (6-8 per season). So they didn't always run the alternate week schedule. Left plenty of time to shuttle back and forth to Indy. Keep in mind that Clark's consecutive 1963-66 runs at Indy were right in the middle of his F1/F2 career in Europe. He didn't miss any Indy 500s during this time, and I doubt he missed any European races, either.

During the 60's the Lotus Indy cars were normally aspirated fuel injected V8s of various Ford lineage. Of course, dozens of F1 Ford Cosworth variants raced at Indy for many years after 1968. The Offenhausers adopted turbocharging later. The use of ethanol also came later. The Lotus 56 "wedge" turbine car used kerosene in 1968, though.

Americans were well used to multiple speed gearboxes in the 60's and I believe they used the same number of gears (4-5 spd) as F1, except geared more for high speed ovals, etc.

glojo

I have little, or no knowledge of your excellent Indy 500, but I have copied the results of just the 1968 season, and as you can see May has two races, and there is slightly more than 6 - 8 races.

race date winner
Kyalami 1968-01-01 Jim Clark
Jarama 1968-05-12 Graham Hill
Monte Carlo 1968-05-26 Graham Hill
Spa Francorchamps 1968-06-09 Bruce McLaren
Zandvoort 1968-06-23 Jackie Stewart
Rouen 1968-07-07 Jacky Ickx
Brands Hatch 1968-07-20 Jo Siffert
Nürburgring 1968-08-04 Jackie Stewart
Monza 1968-09-08 Denny Hulme
Mont Tremblant 1968-09-22 Denny Hulme
Watkins Glen 1968-10-06 Jackie Stewart
Mexico City 1968-11-03 Graham Hill Graham Hill wins the championship

Earlier seasons at the beginning of the 60's had TEN races, but still had two in the month of May.

You have noted that Jim Clark drove in TWO formulae but you have not mentioned the saloon cars they also drove. Formula 2 is a smaller car than the Formula 1 and sadly Jim Clark died whilst driving a Formula 2 car. Their are countless prints available of Jim Clark racing a Lotus Cortina 1500cc car and beating the big V8 Ford Fairline 500's. He was contracted to race ALL these cars.

I stand to be corrected but I was under the impression that along with the completely different engines the gearbox only had two forward gears. I appreciate it sounds silly, and I repeat, I stand to be corrected on this issue, but I am sure I can recall the pit crew helping to push the cars away from the pits to help with the high gearing? Formula 1 engines were completely different from the Ford engines that were used for the Indy race. The Lotus 29 we are talking about is the 'one off' designed car. It was based on the Lotus 25 used in F1, but had the altered\modified parts I listed.

This is a copy from the BBC site that highlights the significance of the Indianapolis 500 in the F1 calender.

*****The Indianapolis 500 had officially been part of the F1 World Championship throughout the 50s, in an attempt to justify the 'World' title by including a non-European race. However, the difficulties in shipping an entire team across the Atlantic ensured that, aside from a miserably off-pace entry from Ferrari one year, no F1 team competed, and eventually the race was dropped from the F1 calendar in the early 1960s. It remained America's most prestigious race, and had the largest prize-fund in the sport on either side of the Atlantic. Despite this, it was devoid of the technical innovations that had revolutionised F1 in the previous few years, and Chapman felt that the prize was there for the taking. *******

When we talk of the very early 160's Formula 1 cars were 1500cc? which I believe was increased in 1966 to either 2.5 or 3ltr. These engines were very highly tuned 'screamers' that were designed to last just one race. Which was no longer than approximately 2 hours or a set distance ?(which ever come first!! The Indy is 'slightly' longer.

John

lars

1948-1953: 4.5 L NA or 1.5L supercharged
1954-1960: 2.5 L
1961-1965: 1.5L, 500 kg minimum weight
1966-1980: 3.0 L NA or 1.5L supercharged
In 1952-53, the world championships were run in F2, which was 2 L NA. There was a US round of the world championships at Watkins Glen from 1962 on.

glojo

Spot on. I couldn't remember if from '66 it was 2.5 or 3ltr. Thanks very much for clarifying.

Kind Regards,
John

lars

Since we're talking about European manufacturers at Indy, I wanted to point out that Alberto Ascari ran a 4.5 L Ferrari with a modified F1 chassis in the 1952 Indy 500. He qualified 19th, but a hub seized after 40 laps, forcing retirement. This was a factory entry. Ferrari never tried Indy officially again (until much later), but another specially built 4.5 L was entered privately by Marion Chinetti (Luigi's wife) for Luigi Villoresi in the 1954 Indy 500. He didn't show up and the car was not qualified.

Villoresi finished 7th in the 1946 500 in a supercharged 3 L Maserati. This car is in the Indianapolis museum.

lars

Returning to the topic, this from CNS:

"F1 teams could boycott races if the sport's governing body punishes them heavily for the US Grand Prix fiasco, Minardi boss Paul Stoddart has warned. The seven teams using Michelin tires have been summonsed to the FIA's world motor sport council meeting in Paris on Wednesday after pulling out of the June 19 race in Indianapolis on safety grounds.

"Stoddart, who has acted as an unofficial spokesman for teams opposed to the FIA and Ferrari over proposed rule changes and testing, told BBC radio the consequences of "draconian" sanctions could be far-reaching."

trench

I recall reading years ago that Laguna Seca is the only other US track that is currently "approved" by the FIA for certain types of international racing - including F1 (it has the proper garages on the pit lanes, run off, etc.). However, I've also read that the "Powers that Be" don't consider the straight long enough to warrant utilizing it for an F1 race.

I usually attend a couple of events there a year, and I think it would be suitable, with good passing areas going into both the Andretti hairpin and the Corkscrew.

Years ago, when I used to go to see the F1 race in Phoenix, I'd say most of the fans were from California, Japan and Mexico (and other latin countries further south). I'm sure if the rumored Las Vegas race were to happen (assuming the lastest fiasco hasn't completely killed F1 racing in the US) most of the fans will again be from these areas, which leads me to wonder - why not simply use one of the "real" road courses in California to better showcase F1 cars.

And with regard to said California tracks, I beleive most of the European ALMS drivers think that the Sears Point racecourse (the full length track - not the shorter NASCAR one) is generally more challenging than Lacuna Seca. The Sears Point track definitly has a better infrastructure in place for holding an F1 event, especially in regards to the grandstand seating that seems to be required to maximize revenue (the annual NASCAR race usually draws well over 100,000). Sears Point, however, is relatively narrow and doesn't really have any sort of straight, so I think passing would be more difficult - I'm going to the first IRL race being held there in August, so we'll see how well it works for open wheeled cars.

glojo

On the morning of the hearing it is all boiling up to a big show down.

Michelin are making the right noises about compensation, but at present they are not giving precise details of their offer?

Max Moseley has stated the 'seven' can expect anything from a reprimand to a lifetime ban.

Paul Stoddard who is not even amongst the so callled 'seven' has issued a statement saying the owners will boycott races if the punishment is 'draconian'

Formula One might not miss Minardi, but if just Mclaren and Williams were to boycott, then I would predict either Moseley resigning, or the nine teams starting their own series.

Not long though before we know.

My thoughts are that the Judge and Jury have already decided the verdict, the punishment will be quite mild with a warning or perhaps suspended sentence??

anyone else got a prediction?

Happy motoring and the French GP is this week-end,
John

glojo

Well surprise, surprise.

The seven teams have been found guilty of two out of five charges.

Guilty of failing to ensure they had suitable tyres to race with.

Guilty of refusing to start the race!!!!!

Much to my surprise the punishment has been deferred to the 14th September

Now my questions are:

What tyres could the seven had used that were suitable?

If the seven teams refused to start the race, then surely it should have been called off through insufficient numbers??

What really annoys me is the fact that Max Moseley, Judge and Jury of this farce is actually releasing correspondance between himself and Michelin before the hearing?

The alleged reason for the delay in issuing punishment is so that the teams and Michelin have time to repair F1's image?? The man is in cuckoo land.

John

MB-BOB

You're absolutely right about that.

However, the delay in pronouncing punishment does not surprise me. (OK, you were being sarcastic) Any boycott that could occur after the announcement September 14 would come after the critical Italian (Sept 4) and Belgian GPs (Sept 11), the last of the European races, having potential effect only for the following three "fly away" events in Brazil, Japan and China.

It doesn't take much of a cynic to realize that any draconian punishment announced today could have resulted in a boycott/cancellation of the remaining season, right at the outset of the second swing through Europe starting this Sunday in France.

If the Michelin teams boycott after Sept 14, then, well... who cares? The European season (the sport's ecomonic base) is over, and China was a newbie race anyway. It would queer the FIA's popularity with the loyal Senna and Barrichello fans in Brazil, and the equally fanatical Japanese. But the FIA could say there was no point to incurring the huge transportation costs of shipping the circus outside Europe if participation by all teams couldn't be guaranteed.

If the punishment is too severe, I think the 2005 season might end Sept 14... Remember the teams weren't keen on a 19-race season to begin with.

A thoroughly pragmatic decision today, imo... Too bad FOM/FIA misplaced its business hat on June 19th.

glojo

Hi Bob,
Absolutely spot on as usual.

Moseley is still putting even more pressure on Michelin by releasing coorespondance that should have remained confidential.

Cynics might think it has more to do with the 2008 single tyre manufacturer rather than what has happened in the US.

John

lars

That's an interesting point. Imagine that there was only one supplier for the US GP and that supplier was Michelin, who had only the same tires available. Now the FIA says they couldn't install a chicane because of the legal liability for not following their own rules, so what would they have done? Run through pit lane? Limit speed and ban passing going into 13? Would the only decision not leading to a farce create this legal problem?

glojo

Just read that Max Moseley is now threatening to make Formula One a single tyre manufacturer Formula following the debacle of the US Grand Prix. This is being threatened on the grounds of safety and has nothing to do with the revised rules for 2008.

Moseley is merely increasing the pressure on the so called 'mutineers'.

Six of the seven teams have now appealled yesterdays decision and the seventh, Red Bull is considering its options?

It looks like the President of the FIA is letting everyone know their place, but will it work?

John

trench

More likely we'll have two single tire manufacturer Formulas in 2008. Bridgestone for Ferrari and whatever half-*** teams the FIA can find to race them in Formula One, and Michelin for the rest of the real teams in the breakaway GP championship.

glojo

PRESS CONFERENCE
FIA PRESIDENT MAX MOSLEY
29.06.2005

The hearing of the teams took place this morning. They were represented by counsel, with one exception, which was Red Bull. As you will recall, there were five charges against the teams.

The first of these was failing to ensure they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 United States Grand Prix, and they were found guilty of that, but with strongly mitigating circumstances.

The second thing was they were accused of wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race, and they were found guilty of that on the grounds that they could have used the pitlane, it would have been very slow but they could do that.

The third charge was refusing to race subject to a speed restriction, and they were found not guilty because there was no clear plan in place as to how that would be done. They were also found not guilty of combining to make a demonstration because they satisfied the World Council that it was genuinely their intention to race when they went out of the pits and onto the starting grid, and finally they were found not guilty of failing to inform the stewards for exactly the same reason, that they did intend to race. So guilty on two and not guilty on three of the charges.

The World Motor Sport Council decided to adjourn discussion of any penalty to an extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council on September 14, 2005, when it will also examine what steps have been taken by the seven Michelin teams and/or their tyre supplier to compensate the Formula One fans and repair the damage to the reputation of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and to the image of Formula One. Also what steps have been taken by the Michelin teams to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Those two questions will be examined in September and depending on where we have got to on those two points will make the final decision on a penalty, if a penalty is imposed by the World Council.

The difficulty that we have is that the FIA has no direct relationship with the Michelin tyre. We have no contractual relationship with them, we are therefore not in a position to impose a penalty on Michelin. Had we been in a position to do that, they would have been summoned to the World Council and, judging from what we heard from the teams, they would have found themselves in a very difficult position.

You have seen the various exchanges of correspondence, you have seen the letter that was sent this morning to Mr. Edouard Michelin and you will have seen how they said in their letters that they had no knowledge of the forces on their tyres. And if I were not able to show that in a Michelin letter then you would think that I had invented it, because it is an extraordinary statement for them to make. They also said that they could not guarantee their tyres wouldn’t burst if used under extreme conditions and that is of course exactly what Formula One is. I think it doesn’t need me to launch into an attack on Michelin after what we have seen of them and what they can do and their responses over the last ten days. The facts speak for themselves. It is a disastrous performance and that company should be deeply ashamed. I don’t intend to go into the detail but I certainly can if asked to do so.

So that is what has been decided.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: Was it a decision taken by all the members of the World Council?
MM: This decision was unanimous for the World Council. Of course, not every member of the World Council could participate in the discussion because, for example, Jean Todt, of Ferrari, who is a member of the World Council, absented himself before we started the discussion on the Indianapolis speedway. Equally Nazir Hoosein was the chief steward at Indianapolis, so he played no part, and then Bernie Ecclestone played a very restricted part because he, too, was also involved. Otherwise everyone was there and it was unanimous.

Q: Isn’t Michelin honourable to decide for safety and not to race?
MM: Michelin’s job at Indianapolis was to turn up with a racing tyre. That inevitably is something on the limit that may not work on all the cars, but to they also have to turn up with a second tyre, which is allowed by the regulations, that would be completely reliable in all circumstances. They didn’t do that, by their own admission they turned up with two tyres with the same construction but with different compounds. That meant that if there was a problem with the construction, which there turned out to be, they would find themselves in Indianapolis with no usable tyres.

They then flew in a tyre from France, the so-called Barcelona tyre, but that had the same construction as well and showed the same problem in testing. So they completely failed to take the most basic precaution, which is to make sure they had a safety net. And in the circumstances to do anything other than race down the pitlane would have been dangerous.

Arguably, by all of their own admissions, even the chicane would have been questionable because they were asking for a chicane at the same time that they said they couldn’t find the root cause of the problem.

If they didn’t know what was a problem, how did they know that the chicane would be safe? Also, one of the failures was in turn five, and that is another high-speed corner. One of the two Toyota failures was in turn five, we could have had other failures in turn five and they themselves admitted that this was a possibility. So on every count, what they have done is completely extraordinary and it really does require explanation. And for them to sit there and say ‘for reasons of safety we told the drivers not to race’ completely begs the question that avoids the whole discussion, which is why did they turn up there with no proper tyres?

The whole purpose of the regulation that allows two different tyres is to give you the possibility of having a safety-net tyre, which is inevitably going to be slower, but that is the sacrifice you make. They didn’t do it, and they have done enormous damage to Formula One.

Q: How encouraged are you by the statement made by Michelin overnight, in which they have offered compensation to the fans?
MM: It is a big step forward and it is something we have been strongly urging them to do for more than a week. We put out a statement on Wednesday saying that Michelin should compensate the fans and that the fans should get free tickets next year, and they have gone some way towards doing that. By delaying as long as they have they have done damage. It was one of those situations where we needed a reaction within two days, not ten days.

Q: Max, your decision to defer any penalty, would it be fair to say that you have given into the teams in respect to them possibly not running in this weekend’s Magny Cours race?
MM: No, there was never any question of them not running. There was one eccentric gentleman who mentioned that, but no serious team would have considered that, that was never an issue, and they certainly would not have done that after what happened at Indianapolis. It would simply be cutting off the nose to spite the face. That was never a question.

What came out very clearly today was that the teams were saying ‘we did all we could, we wanted to be there racing but Michelin told us that unless there was a chicane, we could not race’. Well, that was, of course, very annoying from our point of view, because it wasn’t an option. The pitlane wouldn’t be ideal, but at least it was a safe option. So, the teams had strong mitigating circumstances because they didn’t play any part in this failure to bring the right tyres and they obviously didn’t know that this was going to happen. On the other hand, they are the ones who are answerable to us, we can say to them ‘it is up to you to turn up with the right equipment, you should make the necessary arrangements with your suppliers’.
Today it’s tyres, tomorrow it might be spark plugs or anything else.

Q: What does this do to the image of Formula One? You say it has damaged it, but can you expand on that?
MM: I am not an expert on these things, but I think it is fairly evident that what happened in Indianapolis did great damage to Formula One worldwide but particularly in the United States, and that needs to be put right.
Because the sooner people start to behave properly, for example to refund the tickets and to offer free tickets next year, the better the situation becomes. I think we won’t know for another two or three months really what damage has been done.

Q: You mentioned you have no contractual relationship with Michelin, so no ability to do anything to them. So would your only option be to file a suit against them, and if so would that be in the United States, in Indianapolis?
How would you go about it?
MM: We can’t impose a penalty on Michelin because they have no more relationship with us than any other team supplier, we just don’t have any power over them in that sense. We are able to indirectly put pressure on them through their teams and this is one of the things we are doing at the moment.

Q: () You said they didn’t know what was wrong with the tyres and so the chicane could not be a good idea, but a speed restriction is the same, you don’t know what is the solution.
MM: Absolutely, you can argue that. Michelin was saying a chicane was acceptable. If a chicane was acceptable, then logic dictates that a speed restriction was acceptable, but the teams had a defence to that because nobody said what it was, where it was, which part of the track precisely and how you separate the fast cars and the slower cars, so that is why they were acquitted on that point. As far as running in the pitlane is concerned, whatever the risks of the chicane they would have been much smaller using the pitlane, but obviously it would demonstrate each lap that the teams were uncompetitive. There were two fundamental problems with the chicane, to be clear. One was that the circuit would not have been properly inspected, homologated, probably the insurance would have been invalid and there may have been safety issues. So that was point one. That alone would be enough.
Point two was that, from a sporting point of view, it was completely unfair, because what we would be doing is changing the whole nature of the circuit to suit a group of competitors who had the wrong equipment to the detriment of a group of competitors who had the right equipment. You cannot do that if you are trying to run a sport, and to illustrate that, you just have to think. What would have happened if it had been the other way around and Ferrari or one of the other Bridgestone teams had gone to Charlie Whiting and said ‘ you need to install a chicane because our tyres won’t work around the banking’? It wouldn’t have even been listened to. If it is true for one group, it has to be true for the others. We have to try to maintain a level playing field.

Q: The World Motor Sport Council is not going to make a decision for another two-and-a-half months or so. I just wanted to know why that period was chosen? Is it a cooling-off period, or is there more evidence to be heard?
MM: It is several things. The first is that the number one priority, from our point of view, from the moment the race took on the form it did, was to secure compensation for the fans in the States and, if we can, somehow, to make it up to the people watching on television, but the main people were the people who bought tickets. So that was our number one priority and that is what we have been trying to do, trying to get that sorted out. Apart from that, there is the whole question of how this is allowed to continue in the United States and it is very important that Formula One should maintain its position and not lose a Grand Prix in the United States. That is very much in the hands of the teams and, in particular, their tyre company. That means, in turn, that if we give them a bit of time, we will know in September what has been done and what hasn’t been done. If a great deal has been done, the World Council will undoubtedly take a very lenient view. If, on the other hand, nothing has been done, it could be very different. But it did seem fairly reasonable to give everyone the time to sort the problem out.

Q: The financial damage is all about commercial deals and the Federation is not part of the commercial deals. Can you explain the way you will control the way they will repay?
MM: We won’t be involved in the commercial side of it. We are not saying exact sums, how it has to be done, we are saying it has to be sorted out, come back in September, tell us what you have done, then we will consider the penalty in the light of that. It seemed to be the most rational way of approaching it.

Q: Max, when you define what you will do, could it be taking off points, because it would make the whole championship very strange, or would it be a money fine? If it goes into the points it could have a different affect on the championship.
MM: I cannot speak for the World Council, always remember it is not me, it is 26 people including me. But, personally speaking, I would be very reluctant to do anything with points unless what the person had done affected their sporting performance. It doesn’t seem to be this would be a case where it would be be appropriate to deduct points and come to that, not an appropriate case for banning people from a race. On the other hand, we do have the ability to impose a fine and, as far as I know but I have to check this leagally, we can do what we wish with the money. So, ultimately, we could impose a series of enormous fines and use that money as best we could to compensate people. But this is really not the business of the FIA, our business is to run the sport, so what we have said is, if you sort all this out we will take a lenient view, if you don’t sort it out we may not take a lenient view.

Q: Apologies if I have misunderstood the suspended ban hanging over BAR, but this is a clear ‘guilty of wrongfully refusing their cars to start the race’
so, aside from what they do to make up the image, does that trigger their suspended ban?
MM: We considered that question carefully and we invited their counsel l representative to make submissions on that point and the view of the World Council was that the two things were so different it would not be fair to impose the ban that was suspended. We really would only impose that ban if there was a repetition of an offence similar to the one for which the ban was imposed, and this seems to be quite different.

Q: You are not able to regulate Michelin, but we have spoken a lot about them and they might feel that they are being made scapegoats.
MM: They are not the scapegoats. They are responsible. They admitted themselves that they are responsible. They have not denied that they turned up at Indianapolis with the wrong tyres and because they got the wrong tyres their teams could not race on the circuit they had agreed to race on, and to try to describe them as a scapegoat would completely go against the English language, it is simply not true. They were responsible for what happened and the teams technically share the responsibility in that it is up to them to get the right equipment and to have the right contracts with their suppliers, which arguably they failed to do. But this is a completely new element in Formula One, we have never had anything like this before, and as you noticed the second part of the thing that is outstanding until September is what they intend to do to make sure it never happens again, and the sort of thing you could imagine is that they have clear terms in their contracts, for example with a tyre company, requiring that company to bring a tyre that would be safe in all circumstances, even if it is not quick.

Q: Given that Michelin will compensate fans who were there and they are buying 20,000 tickets for next year, what do you expect the teams to do by way of compensation?
MM: What we are really hoping the Michelin teams will do is make sure that what the Michelin tyre company has suggested they do is actually done, and also the teams, everyone, will be looking to Michelin for indemnities against any actions that are brought in the United States.

Q: So, if any action is taken, that Michelin should deal with it, rather than the teams?
MM: That would be our position. Michelin or the teams. The trouble is we can only talk to the teams, we cannot really talk to Michelin, but the teams in turn can talk to Michelin. It is up to them to get it sorted out.

Q: From your view, do you think the World Council will decide from next year or the year after that, rather than 2008, that there will be only one tyre manufacturer in Formula One?
MM: This is conceivable, but that would not be the World Council, it would be a decision taken on grounds of safety, and as has become apparent, because we released the correspondence this morning, after Mr Michelin’s letter was released, we have asked Michelin for details of all the failures they have had in the last two years. This is because there is a suggestion from several Formula One engineers that there have been several other sidewall failures in the past. We do not know if that is true, we have to investigate, but if it turns out that this is not just a one-off problem and that it has happened on several occasions, and if it turns out that there have been failures of a similar kind during private testing, with tyres of this construction, then it may well be that the technical department might conclude these tyres are dangerous and they should not be allowed to run in Formula One. Now not to pre-judge that, that must be looked at very carefully and we would have to have independent experts because we don’t have experts on tyre technology, we would have to get someone independent to look at that on a neutral basis. But it would not be a decision in the first instance for the World Council.

Q: Max, just reading the verdict here, do you feel that a part of what should have happened today was a very clear verdict and statement of blame and punishment and what we have got is a mixture of the two and the American public, who like things in black and white, will look at this and say, well, nothing has happened today.
MM: I couldn’t agree that nothing has happened. We have agreed two things have to happen. It has to be sorted out with the fans and we have to have proposals to make sure it never happens again. That couldn’t be done today, not by any stretch, but it should be done by September. It would be unfair to impose a severe penalty today on the evidence that we had. On the other hand, if nothing happens, it would be entirely fair to impose a heavy penalty. As we didn’t have the information to decide on which of those two courses to take, the only thing to do was to postpone it to a future meeting. In the meantime we will have a great deal more technical knowledge and a great deal more information.

*************************************************

John

MB-BOB

Well, if the FIA wants to take the position that the problem is not of their making nor their problem to solve, but rather up to the teams, I assume the teams will in fact solve the interim problem, as suggested... then fix the long-range problem by (ultimately) thumbing their noses at FIA and starting their own series.

Stated another way, if the FIA/FOM have decided to abdicate their responsibility for running the sport to the teams, the teams will take control, as they have been the last few years, when the big money manufacturers came into the game (at the urging of FIA). How ironic?

Anyway, so be it. I've had it up to the eyeballs with Bernie, Max and all the stiff jackets at FIA. It's time for a change.

glojo

Morning Bob,
I totally agree with how you think this is all going to end. Max Moseley could not resist having his dig back at Paul Stoddard.

A true 'Leader' would rise above Stoddards remarks or answer them in a professional manner. Stoddard is a very small fish in a large pond of piranha, he should be heard as he is a team owner. Moseley appears to listen to the 'odd' one owner when it suits, but ignore the 'odd' one when it does not.

I have pasted parts of Moseleys words to try to point out just how wishy, washy the actual FACTS to this hearing really were. The FIA had NO evidence whatsoever to find the 'seven' guilty of the offences that have allegedly been 'proved'.

Without a shadow of doubt Michelin were guilty, that is not being disputed, but the seven teams had no option other than do what they did. Moseley even admitted his options were non starters although he now suggest 'racing' through the pit-lane at pit lane speeds. This suggestion in itself is bonkers. Imagine the Michelin shod cars hurtling down the slip road into the pits (before the restricted white line) and a Jordan taking a conservative slower approach!! No room to overtake, no time to perhaps take avoiding action and most important the track design has been altered just like the suggestion of nine out of ten teams, but in a different style!!

Moseley eventually makes allegations in public about Michelin tyres being 'dangerous' which without Michelin being present, they cannot be rebutted, these allegations are surrounded though with 'if' words and 'suggestions from unknown sources' Instead of saying ""several"" Formula One engineers he should have the backbone to name them. It is cowardly and grossly unfair to say ""several"" without naming them.

*************************************************

This is because there is a suggestion from several Formula One engineers that there have been several other sidewall failures in the past. We do not know if that is true, we have to investigate, but if it turns out that this is not just a one-off problem and that it has happened on several occasions, and if it turns out that there have been failures of a similar kind during private testing, with tyres of this construction, then it may well be that the technical department might conclude these tyres are dangerous and they should not be allowed to run in Formula One. Now not to pre-judge that, that must be looked at very carefully and we would have to have independent experts because we don’t have experts on tyre technology, we would have to get someone independent to look at that on a neutral basis. But it would not be a decision in the first instance for the World Council.

It would be unfair to impose a severe penalty today on the evidence that we had. On the other hand, if nothing happens, it would be entirely fair to impose a heavy penalty. As we didn’t have the information to decide on which of those two courses to take, the only thing to do was to postpone it to a future meeting. In the meantime we will have a great deal more technical knowledge and a great deal more information.

************************************************** *

Now IF the FIA did not have the technical knowledge when they held their hearing into the US Grand Prix, how on earth have they reached a decision of guilt on anyone? I say this because Moseley has admitted they do not have tyre experts and by September they will have a great deal more technical information.

It appears more a case of guilty until proven innocent!

Regards,
John

MB-BOB

You know, it's odd to me that the concept of installing a chicane was dismissed out of hand, since "altering the course would have been against the rules and deserving of a non-sanctioned race." However, FIA's suggestion that the teams use the pit lane every lap was apparently sanctionalbe, even though it ALSO would have been an alteration of the course. Hypocrites.

glojo

Not only that,

But we have just had the French Grand Prix.

Two cars actually had left rear tyres 'blow out' whilst actually racing!!

Both cars were Bridgestone shod Minardi's so I think it a safe bet, nothing will be said. Strange how Schumacher stated the Ferrari's were now quick enough to win races on merit yet the head of Bridgestone went to the Ferrari team during the race and Barichello was driving so slow he was lapped, and Schumacher was about to be lapped as the race finished. Ross Braun however stated there was not a problem with the cars, or tyres!!!!!

So the 'safe' Bridgestone de-laminates and is safe, yet Michelin face being thrown out of Formula One because they acted in a responsible manner and declared they thought the tyres they took to the US 'might' be dangerous in race conditions!Incidentally eight team owners are meeting after the French Grand Prix to discuss the competance of the President of the FIA??

Regards,
John

lars

I thought the the FIA's reasoning was that pit lane is part of the course.

MB-BOB

If so then it would be at every race course. But it's never used for racing, is it? This is because there are posted speed limits in the pits. Would it have been any less a farse had the Michelin runners drove the pit lane at 100kph on every lap?

glojo

Latest update to the ongoing farce is that the President of the FIA has now cancelled a meeting with the Grand Prix Drivers Association (The F1 Drivers)

The drivers were scheduled to discuss safety issues with Max Moseley, but at the last minute he cancelled the meeting.

Red Bull has now also lodged an appeal against the FIA decisions over the US Grand Prix, so all seven teams have now appealled.

There has been no comment about both Minardi cars crashing in the French Grand Prix when both crashes were a direct result of 'tyre delamination' Minardi are a Bridgestone user so there was no surprise over the silence on this issue. What would the FIA have done though if this was a Michelin shod team????

Regards,
John