Max Moseley Interview

Interesting and enlightening.....

Q&A with Max Mosley

Wed 22 Jun, 11:18 PM


What follows is a press release from the FIA in which Max Mosley answers questions on the events on the US Grand Prix, during before and after...


What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only six 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?




"Okay, 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."

 

It is hard to disagree with most, if not all, of what he said.

 

A very level headed and logical stance. The entire blame for this cockup falls on Michelin, for their incompetence. I am *so* happy they didn't compromise the rules just to let an inferior tyre manufacturer get their unfair way.

 

Remember, the questions he's answering are his own, they are not from a reporter.....but I still agree with his position. The teams are completely in the wrong as far as I can see.

If the tires were safe for 10 laps in practice and were safe to qualify, they were safe to race, but would require 7 stops to change the left rear....making it impossible to win. It's wasn't about safety, they felt it was a waste of there time to race as is and tried to force the rules to be changed. They tried to justify the pullout with safety conserns. It was unsafe for them to run the race the way they need to to win, not unsafe to race.

castrate em.

 

100% Agree.

 

I completely agree with everything Mosely said. I also agree with you about the tire being able to last the distance or at least to compete with each other, because thanks to another poster the practice laps were in excess of 20 laps for most of the teams running on Michelins as well as some drivers exceeded 30 laps. Only 3 drivers (i think) did 10 or less laps and only 2 or 3 had an issue with tires. One of the Williams drivers was interviewed during the race and stated that they did not have a problem during practice or qualifing.

 

I for one would love to go back to watch a F1 race at Indy. For free or discounted admission would be great too.

 

Who's Max Moseley?

i thought Bernie Baby ran the show/fiasco.

 

Mosley views this entire fiasco with clarity.

I have heard so many people berate him for this or that (and maybe it's deserved) but his take on this seems very rational.

 

I have to agree ... but it was still very hard on the fans.

I have to also say after reading Stoddart's comments and others that Todt again has shown himself to be very inflexible ... wouldn't want to debate anything with that man.

Over all I think F1 did itself a lot of harm to fringe fans (ie. not die hards) and I do have to say that again Ferrari came out looking like the bad guys.

Whether you like it or not I think Ferrari public relations would have come out better from the Indy experience if they had not raced, they would then have been on the fans side. Thus again Ferrari showed they really do not care how they win, just that they do ... and fringe fans will not understand that. Die hard racers would accept selling their parents for a win ...

Pete

 

I disagree. As Max said,

And that has been said since the begining. That Ferrari was not in that last meeting, since it had NOTHING do to with them or Minardi, who decided to go, or Jordan, who showed up on the grid first.

No. Ferrari showed that they are there to race and not to try and get into a pissing match with the FIA or with anyone else. They got the short end of a short ass stick. They had no choice but to race. Imagine if they did not race? Who then would the fans be more upset at? The FIA, Miss-a-win or Ferrari? Ferrari. They could have raced 100%, so they did. And they just happened to win. Yea. Big deal. I would have much rather seen Kimi win. The fans came for a race and they got 1/5 of a race. As someone who was at the first F1 race at Indy, I would have been pissed too, but I would have been more happy to see at least one front runner run, with two backmarkers then just two backmarkers or even worse, no one.

My 2 pence

 

Max's comment regarding Ferrari was very interesting and goes along with Todt's comments about not being consulted. I don't understand why people were doubting Todt's comment back in the beginning of all this mess. I think the situation should have been announced to the spectators as to what was occuring and not leaving people in the dark - and the announcer should have been someone who knows F1 and not the yahoo announcing for IMS.

I agree with the prior comment that Ferrari was there to race - they fulfilled their comittment to F1. I have much admiration for Enzo Ferrari, I could just see him down there in the pits!

Carol

 

Well said.

 

I was there with the FCA, had on my Ferrari shirt and hat, was pulling for Ferrari, watched Ferrari race, watched Ferrari place 1st and 2nd, got to see MS and even got an autograph from Jean Todt.

Am I entitled to a refund too or did I have too much fun to qualify for one?

 

Tommy,

What you saw was a Bridgestone tire test where MS came out the fastest runner over the test.

Rob


As for what Max had to say i agree with him for once. The funny thing is i was talking to a reporter for one of the European morotsport magazines at the airport on Monday and the was squarly pointing the blame at Max. I just wonder what his views are now after this release.

One interesting side note on the plane from Indy i had the opportunity to talk with Porsche Super cup driver Thomas Messer. we taslked about his feelings on the whole M ichelin tire gate and he said that the way contracts are written with Michelin and the teams or series that if Michelin tells them not to race if they ignore Michelin they can be refused tires for the rest of the season!!!! I find this to be total BS in my book.

Michelin should have run in the race even though they would be changing tires, received full details on car set up and Telemetry streams of the cars and then took a hard look at the tires to find out what the problems are and learn from them. Michelin had tire problems last year and this year, yet now they have no data to go off of from this year to make a tire that works for next year (If there is a 2006 USGP).

 

I bet even after this info...people will still blame Ferrari and the FIA.

People get a clue!

now, about that refund.

 

Damn the facts, people still expect both Mosely and Todt to take the fall for this debacle.

 

Well done Max, for once....

 

what the hell is wrong with all you people? michelin made a mistake, its done and over with, and you're still sitting there calling them an inferior tire maker, when in all reality, they arent. i hope you realize that a lot of the ferraris you drive and love come with michelin tires from the factory. they messed up once, and the points and sales money they will lose from it should be punishment enough. oh, and one more thing, i hope max mosely resigns from the fia sometime in the near future, he is ruining it...

 

This is hardly done and over with. The dust is very far from being settled over the actions that took place. Next Weds is the meeting with the 7 teams and the FIA. And in this case they very much were an inferior tire maker. BTW have you read their response to the FIA letter sent at the beginning of June ? Their not 100% confident of their tires for Spa as well.

 

I never said that ... and there is no way in heck I am going to believe that Todt was never consulted. That is naive.

They had team boss/members meeting after meeting and Todt decided not to show ... thus he was being inflexible. Yes he was right by the rules, but I am discussing sportsmanship, which is (if you study it) about bending the rules to show you care more about the game than yourself.

Paul was there and many others have verified his view of the events. Max was NOT there and thus he is only stating what he was informed.

Again yes Ferrari were right, but if they had joined in then the spectators would have seen a mock race and there would be less abuse being thrown at F1. What should have happened was some sort of race to take place and then behind closed doors a proper solution sorted out with punishment to Michelin or whoever.

This was like watching a domestic where one party involved the whole neighbourhood in their personal dispute.
Pete
ps: And no I am definitely NOT saying Ferrari should be punished after the event ... but the FIA need to come up with a more professional way to deal with these situations, if they ever occur again.

 

How could anybody expect Todt to allow for something to make it easier for the other teams to beat Ferrari when he doesn't have to? That has to be the craziest thing I have ever heard in a contest. Was he crying to the other teams to slow down when Bridgestone was (still) having big problems earlier and Ferrari couldn't keep up? If he had, would they have agreed to slow up a bit? Should they have been obligated too? Hellno.

Everything will be back to normal again in France. Bridgestone will be back to struggling and KIMI will be on fire out there again and since there is an extra race or two this year anyway, it will all work out in the end.

Of course, if Ferrari/MS pull it off again this year (and I hope they do) we will all be right back here again debating this Indy weekend all over again.

 

I think the FIA need to define a minimum number of cars (actually) starting a race to get full points. This is to ensure that we see a race.

Also read up on sportsmanship ... when a tennis player concedes that he thought the ball was in and the umpire said it was out, effectively the tennis player is not helping his OWN cause, that is what sportsmanship is all about ... not anything to do with winning. Stupid maybe , but most admire it.

Anyway I agree theoretically with all that has been said, I'm just disappointed that Todt did not even attend these meetings ... I respect people that listen to others. After they talk cr@p then you can shoot them down, but you have to listen first . Oh and BTW apparently MS and RB did attend these meetings ... so they atleast were prepared to listen.

Todt is also the fool that forced RB to let MS win at Austria, which was very, very wrong and not at all sporting. Thus my respect for Todt is not as high as it once was.
Pete

 

The thing thatFerrari must do now - and they are very capable - is to win the season and score enough points in a way that it makes this Indy race a mute point. That will be the only way to put this to bed once and for all.

They can if they work hard enough. They have the drivers, the cars and the team to do so. They have been the champions since all the way back into the last century