*** 2005 United States Grand Prix ***

[graywolf624]

The letter to the teams demanding their presence:
http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...sc_letters.pdf

[RC45]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 The letter to the teams demanding their presence: http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...sc_letters.pdf

Hey - that looks like the same form letter the UN sent to Saddam a number of years back.

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of these archaic governing bodies and the birth of something that actually has the best interest of the "sport", owners and fans at heart.

[ZfrkS62]

WTF ZfrkS62, you fucked with my math from one of my previous points, have you no dignity??

When you associate with me, dignity has NOTHING to do with it (figure out where i stole that and get a cookie )

[mindgam3]

Haven't read through all 13 pages but my opinion is this:

It was almost certainly michelins fault - they should have provided a good enough tyre.

However, for the sake of the fans, something should have been done to get all 20 cars racing, whether this meant running it as a non championship event or have a chicane put in; something should have been done.

This farce wouldn't have looked half as bad if all 20 cars ran. This should have been resolved by the FIA and the teams the night before, not trying to 20 minutes before the race.

As I understand it Ferrari were the only team not letting them put a chicane in - which ok is fair enough, they have done nothing wrong. But the consequences that have arisen from 20 cars not running are a hell of a lot more serious.

When a championship point can mean millions more much needed money for Jordan and Minardi, even they were in favour of the chicane.

Also, the teams HAD to pull. If michelin gives multi billion dollar companies a statement saying it would be unsafe to run this grand prix then there's NOTHING you can do about it, you have to not run.

A single tyre company would not solve this problem..... the possibility would be that all 20 cars would retire.

At the end of the day its fucking ridiculous, and ultimately michelins fault. The michelin teams can't be blamed and i don't see why they should be fined. What happens if a team ran out of engines for a race and could not start, would they be fined then? The FIA should have done something to get 20 cars racing on sunday though: the blame for billions of angry fans lies soley with the FIA.

[SFDMALEX]

/\/\/\You have to understand that putting a chicane would be impossible. The chicane would have to go through a load of safety testing inspections etc...A week just to do that

Only thing was to limit the speed through that corner which FIA offered to organize somehow, and the teams refused *shrug*

If you ask me nothing could have really been done, and what happend that weekend was the best thing they could do. Better 6 then none.

Comes down to Michelin and FIA for making the stupid one tire rule...

[yg60m]

Originally Posted by SFDMALEX /\/\/\You have to understand that putting a chicane would be impossible. The chicane would have to go through a load of safety testing inspections etc...A week just to do that Only thing was to limit the speed through that corner which FIA offered to organize somehow, and the teams refused *shrug* If you ask me nothing could have really been done, and what happend that weekend was the best thing they could do. Better 6 then none. Comes down to Michelin and FIA for making the stupid one tire rule...

Finally some reasonable words and I am now entirely agree with you SFD

[RC45]

You are all wrong!!!.

They should have given every team some wore out tyres from the previous weeks race, dialed in some really crappy suspension settings pulled the barriers down and discarded the infield - and send the teams out on the full oval and changed the race toa D1GP drifting formula event..

At least the ricers would be happy...

[ZfrkS62]

Originally Posted by RC45 You are all wrong!!!. They should have given every team some wore out tyres from the previous weeks race, dialed in some really crappy suspension settings pulled the barriers down and discarded the infield - and send the teams out on the full oval and changed the race toa D1GP drifting formula event.. At least the ricers would be happy...

I think that's actually the smartest solution i've heard all week

[graywolf624]

One thing Ive been wondering, did the one tire rule even make a difference. Michilin didnt have a tire period that could make it more then 10 laps. They probably would have let them change every 10 laps for safety reasons without penalty but thats 7 stops. The second set of michilin tires failed integrity too. Even without the rule did michilin even have a tire that could make it on the track?

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by SFDMALEX /\/\/\You have to understand that putting a chicane would be impossible. The chicane would have to go through a load of safety testing inspections etc...A week just to do that Only thing was to limit the speed through that corner which FIA offered to organize somehow, and the teams refused *shrug* If you ask me nothing could have really been done, and what happend that weekend was the best thing they could do. Better 6 then none. Comes down to Michelin and FIA for making the stupid one tire rule...

It wouldn't have been impossible otherwise they wouldnt have discussed it and had a vote on it. They had at least a whole day after michelin wrote to the teams.

The FIA suggested limiting michelin runners; the speed differential between michelin and bridgstone runners would be highly unsafe.

Fining the teams is just an act of insanity: how can you fine someone for acting on the grounds of safety?

[graywolf624]

The FIA suggested limiting michelin runners; the speed differential between michelin and bridgstone runners would be highly unsafe.

As opposed to the differences between say ferrari and jordan to begin with? I have to call bullshit, sorry.

max responds:

THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX QUESTIONS TO MAX MOSLEY 22.06.2005 What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars? My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that’s just my personal view. Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans? You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality. Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane? The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous. Why unfair? Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event. Is this why Ferrari objected? No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved. Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone? No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness. Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One? OK, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane. All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons? There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes. How can you say a chicane would be “potentially dangerous” when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons? A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court? But it’s what the teams wanted. It’s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to. Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France? It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig. Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre – why did they not have a back-up available? You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems. Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe? Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing. So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do? We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre – but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested. How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner? They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver. But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others? No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits – effectively a drive-through penalty. How would a driver know what speed he was doing? His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane. But would this be real racing? It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race. Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged? Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship. But that would have looked very strange – could you call that a race? It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened. Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all? No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane. Didn’t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points? I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats. What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams? This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone’s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules. Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website? We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them. Wouldn’t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport? No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both. Didn’t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race? No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example. Finally, what’s going to happen on June 29 in Paris? We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.

I might not like the man, but I have to agree with him here.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...220605-01.html

[ZfrkS62]

Quote: The FIA suggested limiting michelin runners; the speed differential between michelin and bridgstone runners would be highly unsafe. As opposed to the differences between say ferrari and jordan to begin with? I have to call bullshit, sorry.

whats the difference with only 6 cars compared to the full field? Jordan and Minardi are that slow all the time anyway

[graywolf624]

whats the difference with only 6 cars compared to the full field? Jordan and Minardi are that slow all the time anyway

That was my point, every race theres 2 rolling chicanes.. How would a few more matter?

[SFDMALEX]

What can I say, Max got it spot on for once.


And Paul Stoddart is a fucking dick! Read his press release, little bitch likes to twist words, hate on Ferrari and the whole shebang....

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.h...22131809.shtml

[RC45]

Latest press release....