Magic Roundabout - F1 USA

[Lorry]

Max defends his position well, by saying that if a car has a faulty part, its their problem, and he had warned the tyre companies some weeks earlier that they should ensure that there was no risk of tyres failing (but how).  Even Michelins second batch of tyres were faulty.

They should have done a deal, but Ferrari said no - can you blame them?

I say sack the lot.

[Nordic]

Max is right when he says about a car having a faulty part its down to the team to sort it. However when 7 teams have been supplied with a some duff gear that could and did result in a serious crash some flexibility is needed.

If the teams had raced, knowing full well that the tyres where faulty the outcome could have tied up the teams and FIA in court for years ( Mark Donohue's widow did just that with Goodyear)

The teams had no option not to race, the FIA & Max did have the option to change the track.

Having said that, if the FIA did change the track, the tyres would still have been faulty, would the teams have raced knowing that? or did the 7 teams know full well that Ferrari would object and therefore be made to look even more arrogant.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, being a devout member of Corner 2 Racing Inc. who have been attending races at Mosport since the 1970s, I somewhat agree with you in regard to the "hard core fan" riff.  However, if I am flying in from Athens (Greece, not Georgia) for a race, I have no intention of camping in the wilderness and driving 35 miles for dinner (see Road Atlanta) every night.  When we went to Monza we stayed in a nice B&B in Lake Como and I can't recall any mention of camping at the circuit although there may have been some.  Ditto at Montreal; there's no camping on the Isle Gilles Villeneuve that I have ever heard of.  Nor does Indianapolis, or does it?  Do the majority of people who attended the USGP at "Indy" actually camp?

Mid-Ohio does not attract F1 type crowds (I like it there very much but again if you don't have a car, you have nowhere to eat, assuming you can get there in the first place); nor does Mosport, although we got 45,000 to the race the year of the Great Northeastern Blackout, the biggest crowd since the old CanAm days.

I am thinking of the people who actually do attend Formula One races, not the people who attend NA$CAR races and those die-hard camping people who will go anywhere and bear any burden for a good race.  Beautiful People Don't Camp.

[Fax]

Agreed, the grid posers and celeb wannabe's don't camp.  That said I've got buddies who have been to Imola, Hockenheim, Spa and Silverstone and all camped in or around the circut.  Monza don't know about but at Indy there are a fair number of campers up in the Coca-Cola lot at the north end of the speedway. Personally I'll take Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta over IMS or Daytona any day but I don't really give a sh*t about being pampered either. Just as happy standing in the mud at Sebring as being in a sky box somewhere.
Fax

[Lancs Se7en]

JOINT PRESS RELEASE FROM:

B.A.R Honda
BMW Williams
Renault F1 Team
Sauber Petronas
Team McLaren Mercedes
Toyota Motorsport GmbH


Paris, France, Wednesday 29th June 2005

The six Formula One Michelin teams identified above are very disappointed by the decision of the World Motor Sport Council to find them guilty of two of the five charges brought against them by the FIA in relation to the 2005 U.S. Grand Prix at Indianapolis.

1) In relation to the finding that they failed to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres, the Teams point out that they reasonably relied on Michelin, an approved FIA tyre supplier and a highly reputable manufacturer of tyres worldwide, to provide suitable tyres for that race. As Michelin have already acknowledged, they were responsible for the supply of unsuitable tyres for the Indianapolis circuit. The FIA's decision accepts that there were "strong mitigating circumstances" for the Teams. In truth, those circumstances provided a complete answer to the charge, given that the Teams cannot be held responsible for what occurred.

2) In relation to the finding that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap, the Teams respond as follows. The charges suggested only one means by which the Teams could safely have raced (the use of a speed restriction). On that charge, the Teams were found not guilty. The Teams cannot understand how they can be found guilty by reference to another proposed solution, which was not part of the charges brought against them, which was not suggested by the FIA at Indianapolis, which was considered unsafe and which, in any event, would not have achieved a satisfactory race for the fans.

The Teams therefore will be lodging an appeal against each of these findings.

The Teams explained to the World Motor Sport Council that, in the light of the clear and written advice from Michelin that it was unsafe to race at Indianapolis on the tyres supplied by that company, the Teams had no choice but to decline to race. Any other decision would have been irresponsible. Nineteen of the current Formula One drivers have expressed their agreement with the decision of the Teams.

The Teams much regret that the American public were unable to enjoy a race involving all ten Formula One teams, and would like to express their thanks to the many fans who have communicated their support for the stance taken by the Teams and by Michelin on grounds of safety.

The Teams are pleased that Michelin have agreed to compensate fans who attended the race.

The Teams very much look forward to the next Grand Prix on Sunday.

[Kate Shaw]

Agreed, the grid posers and celeb wannabe's don't camp.  That said I've got buddies who have been to Imola, Hockenheim, Spa and Silverstone and all camped in or around the circut.  Monza don't know about but at Indy there are a fair number of campers up in the Coca-Cola lot at the north end of the speedway. Personally I'll take Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta over IMS or Daytona any day but I don't really give a sh**t about being pampered either. Just as happy standing in the mud at Sebring as being in a sky box somewhere.
Fax

The cardinal error of thought is the assumption that "everyone wants what I want."  I have lots of friends who camp, some of my best friends are campers.  Nevertheless, I do not believe, from my own experience, that the majority of Formula One fans are campers.

I recently priced a week at the Monaco Grand Prix and it came to $13,700.00 Canadian.  Had I spent that kind of money for a race and got the treatment meted out at "Indy", you can bet they'd have already heard from my lawyer.

[Fax]

Kate,
Your clearly willing to spend alot more money than I am to see contemporary F1!  Would rather spend a hell of alot less and go to Le Mans.
Fax

[Matt Harper]

Nevertheless, I do not believe, from my own experience, that the majority of Formula One fans are campers.

I agree. I think that the overwhelming majority of spectators at F1 (and probably all motor racing events, excepting 24 hour races) are day trippers, who live within a days drive of the circuit, so have no need for accommodations. In my experience of F1, a very large proportion of attendees, who are in hotels and seeking gourmet food and entertainment, tend to be the recipients of corporate hospitality.
There is nothing wrong with that, of course. It is far more agreeable to sip the finest wines and pick at the larks tongues and other exquisite finger food, whilst enjoying unobstructed and panoramic views of the circuit, all paid for by conglomorates who are bribing you for your business (Did I mention that UPS gave me 'all access' passes and Nextel Tower Suite tickets to the Pepsi 400 on Saturday?)  
That said, I have stood in the mud, alongside Fax at more than a few events - and we've had a total blast (2004 Rolex 24 being a good example) - so it works either way.
Last time I went to the British GP, at the luncheon, prior to the race, it was clear that at least 75% of those in attendance, as guests, had not the faintest interest in the race and were there simply to enjoy the free Verv Cliquot and king prawns.

[hgb]

Very interesting so far... read this too: http://www.minardi.it/press/dettaglio.asp?IDComunicato=1875&LN=UK&IDGara=&IDComunicatiTipo=

It's Paul Stoddart's view of things, maybe a bit biased but you can feel the fresh breeze which is going through F1 at the moment.  


Edited because I failed to add that Minardi is running on Bridgestone.

[Kate Shaw]

NOTICE OF COURSE WHO DID NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT -- SURPRISE!

Joint statement by 19 drivers
Racing series   F1  
Date  2005-06-29

World Motor Sport Council Hearing: 29th June 2005
Statement of F1 drivers regarding the 2005 Untied States Grand Prix at Indianapolis

The attached statement has been signed by the following drivers (in alphabetical order):

Christijan Albers
Fernando Alonso
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Pedro de la Rosa
Giancarlo Fisichella
Patrick Friesacher
Nick Heidfeld
Christian Klien
Felipe Massa
Juan Pablo Montoya
Kimi Raikkonen
Takuma Sato
Ralf Schumacher
Jarno Trulli
Jacques Villeneuve
Mark Webber
Alexander Wurz
Ricardo Zonta

Introduction

1. We the undersigned drivers make this statement in order to assist the World Motor Sport Council in its consideration of the events at the Indianapolis Grand Prix on Sunday 19th June 2005.

2. We wish in particular to respond to the suggestion that we could have raced with a speed limit (which was never defined) somehow imposed through Turn 13 on cars with Michelin tyres, or that we should have raced but the cars with Michelin tyres should have slowed down voluntarily through this Turn.

3. This suggestion would have been an unprecedented restriction in an F1 race and would have been completely contrary to the competitive essence of Formula One or any motor race that we have ever participated in. It would have been unworkable, unpoliceable and above all, unsafe.

Safety

4. Not all cars would have been subject to the speed restriction. At least 6 cars would have been going through Turn 13 as fast as possible i.e. over 320 km per hour. The other cars - if they all complied - would have had to slow suddenly going into the Turn, travel at a much slower speed through the Turn and then accelerate back to racing speed.

5. This would have meant a huge speed differential between cars at the approach of Turn 13, during Turn 13 and exiting Turn 13. Having cars travelling at dramatically different speeds at the same point on the race track would have been completely chaotic and highly dangerous.

6. There is one good racing line through Turn 13. All of us would have tried to take that line. If a car subject to the restriction had to slow down approaching Turn 13 on the racing line, a car behind it not subject to the restriction would have had to take avoiding action and try to overtake on the Turn off the racing line. this would have put both drivers at considerable risk.

7. Given the competitive nature of a race, the speed restriction would have become a focal point for overtaking. For instance two cars both subject to the speed restriction racing each other going into or coming out of Turn 13 would inevitably have each tried to gain advantage by braking later or accelerating earlier. With other cars racing through the Turn at higher speeds this too would have been chaotic and very unsafe.

8. Given the nature of a race there would also have been a clear incentive for drivers to maintain speeds above the restricted speeds, particularly if they were close in the race. This would have risked damaging the Michelin tyres which would have created yet further risks.

Practicality

9. The Teams would have been unable to fit a speed limiter which would have operated (a)round Turn 13 in the time available. It would have been left to the Drivers to attempt to accomplish the speed restriction by themselves whilst still trying to race each other. Quite apart from the safety issues explained above, none of think that it would have been possible for a Driver to do this.

10. Unlike the pit lane (which has an obvious and clearly marked entrance and exit) there was no clear physical marker on the race track for where any speed limit should begin and end at Turn 13. In a pit lane, we race to and from well-defined lines, and we are aware precisely when to brake and when to accelerate so as to maintain race speed before and after the pit. In Turn 13, we would and could not have known when and where to break and when and where to accelerate to achieve the speed restriction through the Turn. Each Driver would have had to make a judgement which would have been different on each lap depending on what was happening in the race. It would have been quite impossible for any of us to know each time whether or not we had maintained the speed restriction.

11. We also believe it would have been impossible for the Stewards or anyone else to tell at Turn 13 precisely when any car had slowed, and whether it complied with the speed limit throughout the restricted areas.

12. For these reasons, we have no doubt that a speed restriction imposed at Turn 13 would have been impossible to comply with and impossible to police.

The day of the Grand Prix

13. On the morning of the Grand Prix, all of the Drivers attended a Drivers' briefing with representatives from the Teams. We were told of the Michelin tyre problem. Even though we all wanted to race, we accepted that the Michelin Teams could not go against the safety advice from Michelin and take the risk of serious and potentially fatal accidents.

14. We were also told of the proposal for a chicane at Turn 13. Chicanes have been successfully introduced in races in the past. We believe that a chicane would have been a perfectly workable solution at Indianapolis. Accordingly none of us objected at the meeting.

15. Many of us were also consulted by our Teams about the FIA proposal for a speed restriction. Those who were consulted explained to their Teams that a speed restriction would not work because it would be dangerous and impractical (for the reasons set out above). The Teams in turn explained this to the FIA officials.

Conclusion

16. All of us wanted to have a proper race at Indianapolis, which is one of motor racing's most sacred venues, and to showcase Formula One to the American public. We are extremely disappointed that we were unable to do this.

23 June 2005
Signed by Christijan Albers, Fernando Alonso, Jenson Button, David Coulthard, Pedro de la Rosa, Giancarlo Fisichella, Patrick Friesacher, Nick Heidfeld, Christian Klien, Felipe Massa, Juan Pablo Montoya, Kimi Raikkonen, Takuma Sato, Ralf Schumacher, Jarno Trulli, Jacques Villeneuve, Mark Webber, Alexander Wurz, Ricardo Zonta.

[smokie]

Thanks guys - it's all coming out now isn't it?

Stoddart clearly has it in for Max (me too!) and if his account is truthful then Ferrari need to learn a thing ore two about team spirit etc. This account sort of tis in with other stuff I heard on the day and have read elsewhere.

Where were Mr Schumacher (M) and Mr Barrichello when the driver statement was being signed? Maybe they had an unfortunate coincidental attack of some debilitating disease (I wish) but I am tending towards Mr Stoat (for it is he) "preventing Ferrari being drawn into the dispute".

Michelin have stuck their corprate hand up to a degree and offered the compensation thing. I suppose it would be too much to expect the FIA to be at all contrite...

[Robbo SPS]

What a cracking account from Mr Stodart. I thought when i watched the highlights he was upset, But to put into fairly graphic words his feelings is something ace.

[Paddy_NL]

that's Dutch television for you, Robbo

[Fax]

Got to admit, Michelin is  going to come out of a PR, pile of sh*t disaster smelling like roses. All for the, in corporate terms, chump change of about twenty million bucks.  Ferrari on the other hand are shown to be the complete pricks that we all knew they were.
Fax

[Nordic]

Very interesting so far... read this too: http://www.minardi.it/press/dettaglio.asp?IDComunicato=1875&LN=UK&IDGara=&IDComunicatiTipo=

It's Paul Stoddart's view of things, maybe a bit biased but you can feel the fresh breeze which is going through F1 at the moment.  


Edited because I failed to add that Minardi is running on Bridgestone.

While I am sure this is a truthful account of what went on at indy, Paul stoddart does have a history of putting personal gain before honesty.

This was shown when his airline European Airways failed after Minardi defaulted on loans that the airline had put forward.

This left a large work force without a job & in my brothers case 2 months wages that covered an overseas posting and therefore sizeable amount. many attempts have been made by the staff to speak to Stoddie but to no avail.

To date no wages have been paid yet he still runs an aircraft parts sevice and the Minardi F1 team amongst others.