United States Grand Prix

[J.D. King]

(play dramatic music intro here.....)

C'mon Mark,
You know it was Ross Brawn and Jean Todt that were in the backroom with Charlie Whiting. They were all having a good laugh at how they were going to destroy F1 in the US by not allowing any safety concessions to Michelin.

But seriously boys and girls, am I the only one that read this?:


http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...lin_letter.pdf



or this?:


"At Indianapolis we were told by Michelin that their tyres would be unsafe unless their cars were slowed in the main corner. We understood and among other suggestions offered to help them by monitoring speeds and penalising any excess. However, the Michelin teams refused to agree unless the Bridgestone runners were slowed by the same amount. They suggested a chicane.

The Michelin teams seemed unable to understand that this would have been grossly unfair as well as contrary to the rules. The Bridgestone teams had suitable tyres. They did not need to slow down. The Michelin teams’ lack of speed through turn 13 would have been a direct result of inferior equipment, as often happens in Formula One. It must also be remembered that the FIA wrote to all of the teams and both tyre manufacturers on June 1, 2005, to emphasise that “tyres should be built to be reliable under all circumstances” (see correspondence attached).

A chicane would have forced all cars, including those with tyres optimised for high-speed, to run on a circuit whose characteristics had changed fundamentally – from ultra-high speed (because of turn 13) to very slow and twisting. It would also have involved changing the circuit without following any of the modern safety procedures, possibly with implications for the cars and their brakes. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of an American court had there been an accident (whatever its cause) with the FIA having to admit it had failed to follow its own rules and safety procedures.

The reason for this debacle is clear. Each team is allowed to bring two types of tyre: one an on-the-limit potential race winner, the other a back-up which, although slower, is absolutely reliable. Apparently, none of the Michelin teams brought a back-up to Indianapolis. They subsequently announced they were flying in new tyres from France but then claimed that these too were unsafe."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, I know I'm not the only one, because Bob Coury posted similar links earlier.

[DaveW]

Thank you David.

I wondered if there had been a test for the Michelin teams. Where was it conducted? What exactly was the cause of the failures Dave? I believe you to be the only qualified person to tell us on an engineering/technical side. Please help us mere mortals to get a grip (neat punn eh?) on the cause of the failures.

Jon, if you look back in the posts, i did offer a theory of what happened:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...0&page=2&pp=33

[jattus]

Wow..I just watched the race last night (Monday) thanks to DVR and I could believe my eyes.
My take on the whole scenario- (My quest to be involved in the longest thread in apexspeed history)

Bridgestone/ Teams= Prepared
Michelin/ Teams= Not prepared

You should not penalize the teams that came with the proper equipment to race. The blame is to be placed SOLELY with Michelin and NO ONE ELSE. Yes the FIA had the ability to resolve the situation in some form however it is perfectly within there right to hold the in the format that the teams signed the registration for.

On another note.
At first, I was outraged by Shumi's move coming out of the pits but the more I think about it the more I respect him. He is a true driver- Never gives up and drive's 110%- He could have just put it on cruise control for 1 hour but he decided to give it his all and that includes trying to pass your teammate at any given chance. He is a driver- he is paid to win- Where most drivers slack off Michael keeps on going for it and that is what makes him a champion- Very similar to his last shot past at Monte Carlo. I think that most are surprised by his actions because we don't see that competitive spirit and disregard for repercussions from today's over paid/ pick up a paycheck athletes.

[Meredith Motorsports]

I've been waiting to jump in on this thread but I have to say that jattus said it as well as it could be said. I agree with his assessment completely.

[Brian Good]

http://powow.com/brickheads/drink.html

[Eric E.]

lol...

[Bill Bonow]

I've been under a rock for the past few days. How did the USGP race go?

[Jon Horgas]

19 June, 2005

Dear Mr Dupasquier,
Dear Mr Shorrock,

We have received your letter of 18 June.

We are very surprised that this difficulty has arisen. As you know, each team is allowed to bring two different types of tyre to an event so as to ensure that a back-up (usually of lower performance) is available should problems occur. It is hard to understand why you have not supplied your teams with such a tyre given your years of experience at Indianapolis.

That the teams you supply are not in possession of such a tyre will also be a matter for the FIA to consider in due course under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code.

No doubt you will inform your teams what is the maximum safe speed for their cars in Turn 13. We will remind them of the need to follow your advice for safety reasons. We will also ask them to ensure their cars do not obstruct other competitors.

Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.

Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams’ allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.

Finally, it has been suggested that a chicane should be laid out in Turn 13. I am sure you will appreciate that this is out of the question. To change the course in order to help some of the teams with a performance problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct tyres.

Yours sincerely,

Charlie Whiting
FIA Formula One Race Director

cc: Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Dennis (West McLaren-Mercedes)
Flavio Briatore (Mild Seven Renault F1)
Frank Williams (BMW WilliamsF1 Team)
Peter Sauber (Sauber Petronas)
Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing)
Nick Fry (B-A-R Honda)
John Howett (Panasonic Toyota Racing)
Jean Todt (Scuderia Ferrari)
Colin Kolles (Jordan Grand Prix)
Paul Stoddart (Minardi F1 Team)

Formula One Press Corps

[Jon Horgas]

Some of the teams have raised with us the possibility of running a tyre which was not used in qualifying. We have told them this would be a breach of the rules to be considered by the stewards. We believe the penalty would not be exclusion but would have to be heavy enough to ensure that no team was tempted to use qualifying tyres in the future.

Another possibility would be for the relevant teams repeatedly to change the affected tyre during the race (we understand you have told your teams the left rear is safe for a maximum of ten laps at full speed). If the technical delegate and the stewards were satisfied that each change was made because the tyre would otherwise fail (thus for genuine safety reasons) and that the relevant team were not gaining an advantage, there would be no penalty. If this meant using tyres additional to a teams’ allocation, the stewards would consider all the circumstances in deciding what penalty, if any, to apply.

I was reading the letters on the FIA website, and by my understanding, the above portion of the letter gave the teams permission to use as many tires as needed to make it through the corse of the race, and would not be excluded, or they could start the race on tires other than what they qualified. Am I out to lunch here, or what?

[Dave Welsh]

Below is from the 2005 F1 Sporting Regulations. Article 131 is one article that the FIA is going to accuse the Michelin teams of violating.


THE GRID
128) At the end of qualifying practice the fastest time achieved by each driver will be officially published.

129) The grid will be drawn up in the order of the fastest time achieved on the track by each driver. If two ormore drivers set identical times priority will be given to the one who set it first. If more than one driver fails to complete a flying lap in the qualifying session they will be arranged at the back of the grid in numerical order.

130) The fastest driver will start the race from the position on the grid which was the pole position in the previous year or, on a new circuit, has been designated as such by the FIA safety delegate.

131) The starting grid will be published four hours before the race. Any competitor whose car(s) is (are) unable to start for any reason whatsoever (or who has good reason to believe that their car(s) will not be ready to start) must inform the stewards accordingly at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, no later than 45minutes before the start of the race. If one or more cars are withdrawn the grid will be closed up accordingly. The final starting grid will be published 45 minutes before the start of the race.

132) The grid will be in a staggered 1 x 1 formation and the rows on the grid will be separated by 16 metres.

[Jon Horgas]

131) The starting grid will be published four hours before the race. Any competitor whose car(s) is (are) unable to start for any reason whatsoever (or who has good reason to believe that their car(s) will not be ready to start) must inform the stewards accordingly at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, no later than 45minutes before the start of the race. If one or more cars are withdrawn the grid will be closed up accordingly. The final starting grid will be published 45 minutes before the start of the race.

As I understand this, if the FIA had been informed of the teams intentions in writing, they would have had 45 minutes to actually do something like giving them all time to change over to the 'Monza' spec tire. I would not want to be any one of those teams. Seams very clear to me.

[sarrcford]

In the immortal words of Karen Carpenter, we've only just begun.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8853684

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8853471


Rob Poma

[Steve Demeter]

Who Cares.

Remember it is not a sport.

Let's not waste anymore time. We aren't going to change what Bernie, Max, the FIA, Ferari or anyone else does.

Let's agree that the entire thing was a travesty and get on with life.

[1 lapdown]

I was one of those poor soles at the F-1 @ Indy Sunday. NEVER in my 25 years of racing have I been whitness to such a deplorable display of arrogance.

I still can't get over the dissappointment, watching the Michelin shod cars being rolled back into the garages. I took my wife and daughter there to see the best of the best and instead we saw the worst.

I wonder how open wheel racing will suffer as a result of this debacle, forget F-1.... I'm thinking IRL and CART (or whatever they call it now). Will sponsors and TV take them seriously?

[Mark H]

Me. Bernie,Max, the FIA and Ferrari are filing a suite aginst Mich. for messing up our Sun.
The travesty is I could have raced at Lowes this weekend, instead I was tricked into drywall with the lure of F1 on TV.
But hey I will have the trial moved to Calf so I know I will win.

[Keith Robinson]

It is quite clear, from Charlie Whiting's letter, that the Michelin teams could have raced if they had made several pit stops or set up their cars to run at reduced speeds. Some of them could even have scored championship points! They would, of course have been lapped, probably more than once, by both Ferraris.(and maybe a Jordan or two!). The fact that they would rather show such disregard for the fans at the track and the rest of us watching around the world, is beyond my comprehension.

The only positive to come from this sad occassion and to illustrate what a diehard fan I am, I watched every lap. To watch two drivers, Rubens and Michael, race each other, so hard under such conditions was truly amazing. They had to know how the fans were feeling and what kind of reaction might be awaiting them after the race. But look at the lap times, these guys were not cruising and when Michael came out of the pits for the second time he raced Rubens to T1 like the world championship depended on it and it might! Rubens was obviously upset that he hadn't been able to win.

If you watched the way Michael raced the last lap at Monaco and then witnessed that move on Sunday, tell your grandchildren you watched the most competetive driver of all time!!!

[fos]

Sometimes the stewards have it wrong.

Sometimes the organization has it wrong.

The only way to overcome discrepancies is when the participants
(i.e.-DRIVERS) come together in I think what's called an ACCORD.
At least a decent majority.

This is why Minardi and Jordan were about to join the rest of the field
in SOLIDERITY, however appearantly greed got in the way of that plan.

Micheal S. was in the cat-bird seat to sort it out and didn't. I also agree
that he was very impolite to Rubens, or at least, as a team mate, could
have given him his car's width on the track.

Prob-- I'm guessing Epitome. I'll email you seprately, I would have commented
sooner but got busy at work.

Recapping, yes, Michelin screwed up, but my earlier post said it was brave of
them to pony up. Same with the rest of the teams. My speculation (June29
should tell all) is that the FIA would not say what the penalty would be, even
exclusion, to start/change to a different compound. I think a 5sec time add
to all Michelin cars would have been acceptable as an agreement on sat/sun.
I don't think the FIA was willing to deal, that's why Michelin (et all) couldn't
deal. No deal now, then no deal ever. Back to SOLIDERITY.

TTFN
Fos

[Chas Shaffer]

I for one don't blame Michelin one bit. Racing is about pushing the limits. It's about competition. Michelin is pushing the limits of tire technology and currently have a massive advantage over Bridgestone otherwise every major team other than Ferrari wouldn't be using their product. At Indy they missed it and that's all. If they weren't so dominant in F1 the problem wouldn't have been so wide spread. Let's see how many team switch to Bridgestone, I'll bet none. I for one would have been very comfortable with just Massa's test. If there was a problem I would have thought he'd seen it.

I've seen Ferrari suspension fail at Monte Carlo and cost MS the race (stinking Italians), I've seen Kimi loose races due to chassis and engine failures (stinking Brits and Germans), I've seen Montoya DNF race after race due to engine failures while with Williams (again stinking Germans), I've seen BAR Honda's explode in 2 laps (stinking Japenese), I've seen both Menardi's stall on the start (stinking Ausies), I've seen wing mounts fail on both McLaren's (stinking Brits), I've seen both Toyota's blow up within a lap of each other (stinking Japanese and Germans), I've seen Sauber's with brake problems (sinking Swiss) and I've seen lots of Ford Cosworths explode over the years (stinking Americans and Brits).

I hope you see my point, everyone is pushing the limit. If 95% of the field were using any one of the products above in a weekend there could have been a similar result. On this weekend Michelin pushed it too far. They were out of options and something should have been done to save the show. No one wanted to sue the manufacturers above when their equipment failed, why should Michelin be sued for a performance issue. Was Rouch or Hendricks sued when all their engines failed in a race? I've seen it happen. If there had been a safety issue like drivers blacking out similar to CART at Texas I bet a solution would have been found.

Something should have been done to save the show. I don't know what the answer is but a compromise should have been reached. I believe Ferrari has a responsibility to their fans to put on a good show. Had they refused to race in the name of safety then something would have been done to ensure a proper race. Ferrari could have saved the day. They absolutely had the power to affect change. They were the only team who could save the day. There is no way the FIA was going to run a race with 2 Jordans and 2 Menardi's. There was no advantage to be had by the Michelin teams if the track were modified, it would have been the same for everyone. At some point the racing purist have to realize the billion dollar budgets exist because of the fans.

btw... in case you didn't notice, the much hated French are kicking the crap out of the rest of the world in F1, don't forget about Renault. The way I see it the French have the best tire, car and engine. Just look at the points.

[P.W. LeCain]

The way I see it the French have the best tire

I guess you didn't hear about the USGP? It was quite a mess. You should check it out.

[RussMcB]

I haven't heard yet, when it was that all Michelin teams got together and decided that they were going to do that orchestrated move after the parade lap. I can only imagine what it must've been like in that room, to hear someone come up with different ideas (and that one in particular), and the discussion that lead up to the agreement. I'd be interested to hear when that happened. I'm also surprised that a group that large could reach such an agreement and not have it leak out before it happened. Lastly, I wonder what it must have been like for all of those (Michelin) drivers, team owners and members to go through the motions like they were going to race like normal, knowing that it was all a decoy. And what was the point of the decoy?

[LolaT440]

Chas,

The point is FIA recognize everyone is pushing the limits. So in the rules it clearly states you must have a backup tire you are fully confident in. It will likely be lesser performance of course, but they don't want people risking thier lives out there.

The French company did not do this. The teams would then had to have taken a different line and slowed a bit in 13, which they chose not to do.

Instead they wanted everyone to change all the rules to keep them competitive. Then they quit the race.

The fans got cheated out of what they paid for.

[Brian]

Chas wrote:


"I believe Ferrari has a responsibility to their fans to put on a good show. Had they refused to race in the name of safety then something would have been done to ensure a proper race. Ferrari could have saved the day. They absolutely had the power to affect change. They were the only team who could save the day."

While possibly true (and I don't blame Ferrari at all for what they did) Ferrari has at least been completely consistent about their position - Ferrari is out to win at all costs, and Ferrari admits no responsibility to fans, to other teams, to "sporting gestures", to anything beyond competing in accordance to the stated rules and winning. Any change that they have both the will and the power to affect will have benefit to Ferrari and no benefit (beyond incidental) to anyone else. Ferrari doesn't car about fans or shows - Ferrari cares about Ferrari, full stop.

If F1 racing is a sport and NOT a show, then what happened is the only thing that could have happened. If F1 racing is a show and not a sport, then all sorts of rule changes, track changes, chicanes, new tires, rain delays, compromises could have occured. Mosely, Whiting, et-a,l decided that F1 was a sport.

Turning point in F1? You bet, and it will be interesting to see what happens. I think that F1 is/should be a sport, and I would have thought that had any of the compromises discussed taken place it would have killed F1 as a sport and not a show. Now, there's a good chance that F1 as we know it will be killed anyway - will something new rise to take it's place?

Brian

[Dave Welsh]

The following is from Speedtv.com, dated June 21.

"The FIA’s statement of last week outlined that the teams have until the end of July to submit their feedback on the governing body’s propositions. Among the new items F1’s “Group of Nine,” of which Stoddart has emerged as an unofficial spokesman of sorts (the Go9 includes all squads bar Ferrari), intends to present to the FIA are the limitation to a single specification of dry tires per race weekend and the return of tire changes.

The teams also support the FIA’s idea to limit gearboxes to seven standard ratios but dislike the body’s concept of commissioning a separate company to build units for all teams, preferring to keep gearbox development in-house.

"We have a whole set of proposals almost ready to go which are not dissimilar to Max's," Stoddart said, hinting that the Go9 may be willing to find common ground with the FIA and avoid a split of the sport in 2008, when the current Concorde Agreement expires."



Speedtv.com dated June 16

Citing the pressing need to cut costs dramatically, in view of the sport’s loss of two teams (Arrows and Prost) and one manufacturer (Ford) in recent years, the proposition is set to stir intense controversy, as its “retrograde” approach on most technology-related issues is certain to displease many at Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Renault, Toyota and Honda, the sport’s largest manufacturers, which are allied under the GPWC banner and threaten to quit F1 in ‘08.




The Group of 9 are those who back GWPC, the group that wants to start their own Grand Prix series after the current Concorde Agreement expires. Ferrari is the only manufacture that has stated that they will compete in FIA events after the current Concorde Agreement expires.

Given these facts, is there any surprise as to the events at Indy? The Go9 teams agree to pull out and let Ferrari run alone? Was this a message to FIA, and their just announced changes in the rules for their proposed cost cutting measures?

[Keith Carter]

Here's the Minardi press release from F1-Live:

[22/06/05 - 13:17]


"Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix

A personal account of US Grand Prix events[size=1]
[/size]
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.


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!"

[Eric Cruz]

Mark Walthew sent me this link to a firsthand account of the events, casting a somewhat different perspective on the situation. It is a personal account of events surrounding the 2005 US Grand Prix by Minardi team principal Paul Stoddart.

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=189414

Eric

posted it, and Keith beat me by a RCH...

[Keith Carter]

LOL! Sorry Eric. Gotta love the [size=2]FIA[/size]sco remark!

[John Nesbitt]

<snip>
... 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.
</snip>

Now, Paul, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think of Max.

[Alan R Guibord]

Being French like Paul. You guys just don't get it! There is only one way in this world and that's THR FRENCH WAY. As soon as everybody realizes it, the sooner we will stop all the fighting. Drink wine and be happy

[Dave Hopple]

You guys have way too much free time on your hands... errr wait check this out

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...211358247&rd=1


and.... (click on the mp3) interview with Mr. Stoddart where he really speaks out during the "race"

http://www.champcarfanatics.com/foru...ad.php?t=26700


-Dave

[problemchild]

When are these inane sickening comments going to stop?

Jean Todt"s comments are at the Speed site http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17762/

Max's comments http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17766/

It is obvious that this dispute has awakened our passions. Maybe there is hope for open wheel racing in America yet!

[Matt Satchell]

Anyone find it interesting that Mr. Todt did not attend these meetings? It seems like every time one of these issues come up where the teams and the FIA get together at the track, Ferrari does not take place.

[Lee Racing 8]

Wait did something happen at the USGP?

Time to let go and move on from more French mistakes...my new motto is "Blame France".

[P.W. LeCain]

When are these inane sickening comments going to stop?

Which ones? Again, I don't blame Ferrari even a tiny bit. Michelin screwed up, the FIA has serious leadership issues, Ferrari raced as scheduled. End of story.

The reason we're having so much discussion and debate is because of bad leadership. The FIA should have come up with a solution and told the teams to stick to it. To hope that teams with entirely different agendas and problems are going to come to a unanimous decision is ridiculous. Whatever decision was made (Chicane, speed limit, non-points race, no race at all, multiple pit stops, new tires, etc etc etc), it should have been mandated from the top and anyone who didn't like it could go home. The problem is that no decision was made except to let the monkeys run the zoo.

Think about all the possible solutions and pick one. None of them would have been as much of a farce as what we saw. Chicane? Yes, Ferrari would have been pissed and maybe not raced. But 18 other cars would have been there. If you think the FIA is in bed with Ferrari, blame the FIA for it. Not Ferrari. These teams look for any possible advantage and if one of them is kissing ass and getting results, good for them. I call it good business sense on the team side and poor judgement on the sanctioning body side.

[DaveW]

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/17766/

[Dave Welsh]

Matt

No it is not interesting that Ferrari did not attend the meetings.

As pointed out in a previous post, Ferrari is the ONLY manufacturer that supports FIA, the only manufacturer that is not a part of the Group of 9, which is making treats of forming their own racing organization in 2008.

Again, it makes me wonder that the Go9 wasn't behind this stunt, with their displeasure at the recent rules packages (read one tire rule,) and the newly proposed rules package.

[Jon Horgas]

Wait a minute. Ferrari (Fiat) used to be part of the movement too for GPWC. They just signed the new Concord Agreement earlier this year. Then, a couple of weeks ago, Red Bull signed it also. A package was presented to them to sign also. Yes, a monitary package. Point money. Ever been to a sprint car race. They pay some people show money to draw crowds. What is the difference here! Can anyone explain the difference?

Now, here comes a new pile of crap you conspericy theorist are going to pounce on. Red Bull has Ferrari engines next year. Let me guess, you are going to try and hand me some sort of line of bull (boy I like puns) that Ferrari made them sign it if they wanted their engines next year. Oh can I, can I? So, bottom line is that Red Bull, a part of GO9 has signed the Concord Agreement. What do you have to say about this now!

Please no "sickening inane comments".

[dc]

You guys have got to admit, this is one of the best soap operas EVER!

[Jon Horgas]

Is this a record or something with 150+ posts on 1 thread, with close to 6000 views. "Dallas" never had it this good. Hey, was JR at the USGP? HLOL.

[John Merriman]

Dave, thanks for posting the interview with Mosley - I spotted it earlier today on autosport.com and it certainly clears up several misconceptions, rumors, misunderstandings, etc. I think if you read through it carefully, the FIA did the right thing as the sanctioning body - under their agreed rules. While it is nice to think that somehow the idea of "sport" could have overcome the politics or the hardline approach here, I'm afraid F1 is way, way past the "sporting era" of, say, the 70's. The fact remains, Michelin screwed up and the teams running their tires simply could not accept the idea that they should have raced under the rules and made whatever adjustment they needed to in order to avoid a tire failure. One question I have not seen addressed though, is this: without advance testing, how would the tire companies know how to deal with Indy's new pavement surface - a surface which had problems when the Indy cars first ran on it?

[Daryl DeArman]

Red Bull has Ferrari engines next year. Let me guess, you are going to try and hand me some sort of line of bull (boy I like puns) that Ferrari made them sign it if they wanted their engines next year.

I am sure that had nothing to do with it....perhaps satire?