Paul Stoddart's account of Indianapolis 2005

Anthony_Ferrari · Jun 22, 2005

From: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24926

Paul Stoddart's account of Indianapolis 2005
22/06/2005

In an attempt to clarify events at Indianapolis last weekend, Minardi boss has issued his own personal account of the weekend:

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 Sundays United States Grand Prix.

The Facts

Friday, June 17

I noticed that Ricardo Zontas Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumachers 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 didnt 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 Sundays Grand Prix.

At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernies 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 wouldnt 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 Bernies 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.

Im 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 Ones 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 FIAs 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 Jordans 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 Mosleys 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!

Paul Stoddart

June 20, 2005
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think there is much more to this than meets the eye and the huge power struggle for F1 will continue for some time. I don't think there is room for F1 and the GPWC so there has to be a winner in the end. We don't want F1 to be fragmented like open-wheel racing in the US is.

mikeivan · Jun 22, 2005

This "clarification" brings new meaning to the term "self serving". This is going nowhere but downhill.

RufMD · Jun 22, 2005

Just what I thought, Todt is a jerk...

Ferrari's win at all cost attitude damaged the sport on Sunday...

asianbond · Jun 22, 2005

He's so full of crap. Ferrari did the right thing. Those who come prepared get to play.

ScuderiaRossa · Jun 22, 2005

What I don't understand is how has Michelin been able to produce a superior tire up until last weekend? Tracks are resurfaced in the off-season all the time, and they raced at Indy last year...

Wouter Melissen · Jun 22, 2005

Minardi is the team benifitting the most from this situation, and the idiot is still complaining. IIRC a point scoring finish will secure free shipping of the equipment to and from overseas races.

Anthony_Ferrari · Jun 22, 2005

Len S said:

What I don't understand is how has Michelin been able to produce a superior tire up until last weekend? Tracks are resurfaced in the off-season all the time, and they raced at Indy last year...
Click to expand...

Advantage Bridgestone?
22/06/2005

During a three-day IRL test session at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in April, a problem was encountered with the new track surface.

As a result of wear problems, tyre supplier, Firestone, withdrew its teams from the test after just two hours, in order that it could fully investigate the problem.

Subsequently, Firestone and its teams returned to the IMS, and the test was successful, problem solved.

It's worth noting that Firestone is sister company to Bridgestone, which did not encounter any problems at the IMS.

We also hear that Bridgestone had another tyre - good for another 0.2s a lap at the IMS - but this wasn't taken to the USA due to "potential durability issues".
Click to expand...

Talking about why Michelin cocked up is missing the issue now though. What this weekend demonstrated is just how deep the divisions are within F1. Paul Stoddard's account is obviously one sided and we all know that he wants Max's job, but even taking that into account we can see that F1 as we know it is doomed.
I can't really see a way forward though. The manufacturers will not be able to run their own series unless they engineer it so they take turns winning. Bernie is no longer as powerful as he once was as he lost his court case so the banks own F1. Max is perceived as weak and a Ferrari lap-dog. Things will get worse before they get better. There is going to be a war. I just wish it was a quick one.

Mark(study) · Jun 22, 2005

asianbond said:

He's so full of crap. Ferrari did the right thing. Those who come prepared get to play.
Click to expand...

So your management style is to hurt the 100,000 fans that showed up? And to a lesser extent the millions that tuned in on TV?

"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 Ones recent history."

Prova85 · Jun 22, 2005

I get a kick out of that fact that everything that ever goes wrong in F1 is somehow pinned on Ferrari. Gimme a break.

But hey they change the rules every year to try to slow Ferrari so why shouldn't throwing a chicane in because the opposition can't run as fast on a circuit 10 minutes before a race be any different ?

t88power · Jun 22, 2005

Mark(study) said:

So your management style is to hurt the 100,000 fans that showed up? And to a lesser extent the millions that tuned in on TV?

"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 Ones recent history."
Click to expand...

LOL... Lets blame the teams that actually came PREPARED and PARTICIPATED in the event, and not the teams that DIDNT race.

dretceterini · Jun 22, 2005

Anthony_Ferrari said:

I can't really see a way forward though. The manufacturers will not be able to run their own series unless they engineer it so they take turns winning.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If a true formula libre series was created, with the only rules to be:

1) The car must fit in a box of width x, height y, and length z
2) Internal combustion engines must be used
3) There is a set maximum displacement

Than it would simply become a money war.

Isn't this what F1 is really supposed to be; a design, engineering and technology battle; costs be damned??

carguy · Jun 22, 2005

I've been reading all the threads concerning this issue....and it's certainly emotionally packed! "Len S" makes an excellent point: Why is Michelin having trouble NOW after 4 previous Indy races?

The previous 4 Indy races were BEFORE the "1 set of tires per race" rule. If this rule didn't exist, I'm sure Michelin cars would have raced on Sunday. Those in the know have said that Michelin takes more risks with the construction of their tires than Bridgestone. This is proven by the fact that the Michelin tires weigh about 5-6 kilos LESS than the Bridgestone tires. This is a HUGE advantage in F1 and this shows in the performance of the cars. I believe this is one of the main reasons Ferrari is having such a difficult time this year.

Also...put yourself in Todt's and Ferrari's position. You and your tire supplier have been struggling all year to be competitive. The Indy track wasn't created overnite....and ALL teams are familiar with it's layout. You and your tire supplier work very hard to get ready for Indy and create a tire that will hold up on THAT track for THAT distance. You have done the research and are prepared. Meanwhile your competitors have not adequately prepared and would like to make changes. Would you really allow that? It is not Ferrari/Bridgstone's fault....why should they allow any changes to the circuit? That would be like taking all your hard work and tossing it out the window....so the lesser prepared teams can race with you. And who knows....they may even beat you...and all because you were a nice guy and allowed changes. I agree that the FIA did the right thing in not allowing any changes to the track.

I think the Michelin teams should have simply slowed for the corner, or set the cars up in a way (less downforce? ) to lessen the chances of failure....and gave it their best shot. Another option would be to equip ALL the cars with Bridgestone tires. Wouldn't that have been a hoot!

There is no way any proposed option would satisfy EVERYBODY. You are always going to have disagreements, it is human nature. But don't blame Todt for his position. He is only looking out for his team.

I was there at the race and was quite upset when I saw what was happening. I believe that about 700 people were arrested that day. I have NEVER in my life seen so many police in one place. They were streaming into the track in cars, motorcycles, and even horseback! Just unbelievable. It is very sad indeed for F1. The FIA needs to do some serious damage control and make some kind of public statement about what they've learned from this and how to prevent it. They need to take aggressive measures to gain back their credibility with the public AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The 1-set-of-tires rule is a foolish one that does nothing to keep costs down, while increasing the danger of tire failure. A set tires is cheap in F1 standards. I also feel that the pit strategies and crews added LOTS of excitement to the races. I want to see it return. I would like to see a compromise of allowing maybe 2 or 3 sets of tires per race, and bring back the anticipation of the pit stop.

Most of all I would like to see all F1 fans hang in there and support FIA provided the FIA will work to improve things and also LISTEN to the fans. Keep F1 racing at the top of the food chain. Keep F1 at the pinacle of racing with incredible technology and performance. F1 should not be cheap and easy.....it has to be challenging. This way you know that teams and manufacturers are serious about racing to commit the vast resources needed. That is why I first started watching F1 in the first place.

Formula 1 · Jun 22, 2005

LOL ! Paul Stoddart what a TOOL.

Turb0flat4 · Jun 22, 2005

...CRAP !!

Paul Retard said:

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, Paul !! Do you really expect us to believe that you'd renege on your word to "stand by" the Michelin teams to compete with the Jordans for the points, and then actually voluntarily give up an assured third and fourth place points scoring position if the Jordans retired ?

BULLSCHIT !! This totally unbelievable quote alone convinced me that dear old Paulie's account is self serving and likely to be divorced from the real facts.

jknight · Jun 22, 2005

Len S said:

What I don't understand is how has Michelin been able to produce a superior tire up until last weekend? Tracks are resurfaced in the off-season all the time, and they raced at Indy last year...
Click to expand...

I posted this in another thread:

I don't know if this has been mentioned on any other threads - it is food for thought . . . . more grippy?? (as perhaps pulling tires off rims?) direction of the racing line?? (what if you are going the opposite direction?)

Carol

Diamond Ground Racing Surface
The Indianapolis Motor Speedway was resurfaced this winter and the speed and grip of the track come May was a big question mark. Early testing showed a severe lack of grip on the slick new surface. To compensate for this and artificially age the track it was diamond ground.

Diamond grinding is a process where several (about 40) diamond-toothed saw blades are strung together on an axel and used to cut strips of very thin, evenly spaced and shallow grooves along the track in the direction of the racing line (Lowes Motor Speedway underwent this resurfacing process this past Winter as well, with rave reviews for the resultant new surface). A diamond ground surface looks like a more precise version of the grooved turns that we sometimes see on public roads here in the Northeast to give drivers more traction in snow and ice. This process allows a resurfaced speedway to be super smooth and fast, without the one-to-two year in period for the surface to wear in and grip to returns. While the ground track has proven far more "grippy," that grip takes drivers and engineers towards the envelope and beyond.

My thought:
So perhaps this specific type of resurfacing, the gravitational pull on the banking and the speeds encountered could cause potential problems to the side walls on the tires thus causing their potential demise and rendering them unsafe. Why is it that Michelin has had no problems at the other "real" F1 tracks?? If Firestone and Bridgestone are related then perhaps Bridgestone was aware of the problems that occured with the IRL cars and Michelin wasn't?

In a week's time there should be answers.

Carol

Prova85 · Jun 22, 2005

Jeff, great points.

I can't believe the Michelins are 5-6 kg lighter than the Bridgestones. That's HUGE especially for a rotating mass. But would certainly explain some of the advantage this year enjoyed by Michelin and why they had problems at Indy whereas Bridgestone didn't.

carguy said:

I've been reading all the threads concerning this issue....and it's certainly emotionally packed! "Len S" makes an excellent point: Why is Michelin having trouble NOW after 4 previous Indy races?

The previous 4 Indy races were BEFORE the "1 set of tires per race" rule. If this rule didn't exist, I'm sure Michelin cars would have raced on Sunday. Those in the know have said that Michelin takes more risks with the construction of their tires than Bridgestone. This is proven by the fact that the Michelin tires weigh about 5-6 kilos LESS than the Bridgestone tires. This is a HUGE advantage in F1 and this shows in the performance of the cars. I believe this is one of the main reasons Ferrari is having such a difficult time this year.

Also...put yourself in Todt's and Ferrari's position. You and your tire supplier have been struggling all year to be competitive. The Indy track wasn't created overnite....and ALL teams are familiar with it's layout. You and your tire supplier work very hard to get ready for Indy and create a tire that will hold up on THAT track for THAT distance. You have done the research and are prepared. Meanwhile your competitors have not adequately prepared and would like to make changes. Would you really allow that? It is not Ferrari/Bridgstone's fault....why should they allow any changes to the circuit? That would be like taking all your hard work and tossing it out the window....so the lesser prepared teams can race with you. And who knows....they may even beat you...and all because you were a nice guy and allowed changes. I agree that the FIA did the right thing in not allowing any changes to the track.

I think the Michelin teams should have simply slowed for the corner, or set the cars up in a way (less downforce? ) to lessen the chances of failure....and gave it their best shot. Another option would be to equip ALL the cars with Bridgestone tires. Wouldn't that have been a hoot!

There is no way any proposed option would satisfy EVERYBODY. You are always going to have disagreements, it is human nature. But don't blame Todt for his position. He is only looking out for his team.

I was there at the race and was quite upset when I saw what was happening. I believe that about 700 people were arrested that day. I have NEVER in my life seen so many police in one place. They were streaming into the track in cars, motorcycles, and even horseback! Just unbelievable. It is very sad indeed for F1. The FIA needs to do some serious damage control and make some kind of public statement about what they've learned from this and how to prevent it. They need to take aggressive measures to gain back their credibility with the public AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The 1-set-of-tires rule is a foolish one that does nothing to keep costs down, while increasing the danger of tire failure. A set tires is cheap in F1 standards. I also feel that the pit strategies and crews added LOTS of excitement to the races. I want to see it return. I would like to see a compromise of allowing maybe 2 or 3 sets of tires per race, and bring back the anticipation of the pit stop.

Most of all I would like to see all F1 fans hang in there and support FIA provided the FIA will work to improve things and also LISTEN to the fans. Keep F1 racing at the top of the food chain. Keep F1 at the pinacle of racing with incredible technology and performance. F1 should not be cheap and easy.....it has to be challenging. This way you know that teams and manufacturers are serious about racing to commit the vast resources needed. That is why I first started watching F1 in the first place.
Click to expand...

Bryanp · Jun 22, 2005

"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."

This is a complete mis-use of the term "force majeure." Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. The terms includes both acts of nature (e.g., floods and hurricanes) and acts of people (e.g., riots, strikes and wars)."

Michelin's failure to do its homeswork, proper testing, etc. in order to develop a tire that would last more than 10 laps was neither unanticipated nor uncontrollable. This is not a case of force majeure.

cshargh · Jun 22, 2005

RufMD said:

Just what I thought, Todt is a jerk...

Ferrari's win at all cost attitude damaged the sport on Sunday...
Click to expand...

WOW! I must have been reading something else. How is it that Ferrari can be blamed at all?!? It's not their choice, and they are ready to compete.

Why should they get bullied to succumb to a different set of rules, just because they are in the minority?

If the Bridgestone tires were "unsafe" would the Michelin teams agree to changing the curcuit to Ferrari could run? I don't think so !!!

tuttebenne · Jun 22, 2005

cshargh said:

If the Bridgestone tires were "unsafe" would the Michelin teams agree to changing the curcuit to Ferrari could run? I don't think so !!!
Click to expand...

Amen Brother. This point is being missed by soooo many people. If Bridgestone had not had a satisfactory tire, the race would have gone on, not much would be said about it, and there would have been glee in Micheland.

bretm · Jun 22, 2005

I guess somebody still has his panties in a knot because of Australia. Hurray, PS's chance to get back at Max and Co... Could PS be more of a ******bag? He scores his points to get free shipping, saves face with Bridgestone, and now wants to be buddy buddy with the 7 defectors. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

No one likes a turncoat, neither side. Can PS really be that dense? I mean he clearly wants to move up to F1 impresario, but does he really think that being a total rat is gonna get him respected enough to make it there?

Jagbuff · Jun 22, 2005

Finally someone who was ATTENDED the meetings speaks out...and as USUAL everyone is challenging the guy's integrity because it puts Ferrari's management (and to a certain extent their drivers) in a poor light. Todt is weasel - he skirted the issue by not showing up to the meetings... The race was done for but he still wanted to make a point regardless of the impact to the fans... remember who is the only big team that has re upped on their F1 agreements?

Prova85 · Jun 22, 2005

Jagbuff said:

Finally someone who was ATTENDED the meetings speaks out...and as USUAL everyone is challenging the guy's integrity because it puts Ferrari's management (and to a certain extent their drivers) in a poor light. Todt is weasel - he skirted the issue by not showing up to the meetings... The race was done for but he still wanted to make a point regardless of the impact to the fans... remember who is the only big team that has re upped on their F1 agreements?
Click to expand...

Oh ya Stoddart... wasn't he the guy that cried to the FIA that he couldn't field cars that conform to the 2005 regs and had to start the year with 2004 spec cars just before the 1st race in Melbourne ? Then when the FIA refused he somehow within just hours managed to put two 2005 cars on the grid. Now that's integrity for ya. And you question why he's being questioned ???

asianbond · Jun 22, 2005

Mark, let's make one thing clear, the F1 series is not a one race event like a boxing match.

It is a series and USGP is only one of the stop. The outcome has tremendous ramifications for each team. How can you abandon all rules for one event which would basically affect the results from the 17 other races. Ferrari did nothing wrong and the FIA follow the rules. Everyone is asking to bend the rules, that is not fair to Ferrari since it gives undeserve advantage to the other teams.

Pleasing the fans is a secondary concern. By pleasing the US fans and allowing for tainted results it will harm F1's franchise to the rest of the fans in the world which outnumbner US fans by a great number.

Whether one or hundred thousand fans show up they will still run a regular race. IF they wanted to please the fans, after the offical race the other teams could had run their own unsanction event.

dasMafia · Jun 22, 2005

this is an impressive account, and if you take a few moments to see through the myopia you can see what a lot of people including the crew at www.autoextremist.com have been saying all along.

Bernie, Max, and the FIA are the problem. trying to pin the blame for the damage done to the sport on the tire company is asinine, they ARE at fault for bringing tires not up to snuff... fine, no arguements from anyone.

the problem lies with the FIAs preference that 2/3 of the field not start the race than to seek meaningful compromise, while Ferrari is complicit in that action at this time, the FIAs refusal to force compromise (which is surely within its purview) and allow one team to dictate its actions is basically heresy.

read the account of what occurred again, and think about it outside of the tiny little world of ferrari. I can't blame ferrari for what they did, but they hopefully took into consideration the impact on the US market of their most successful racing forum...

dogue · Jun 22, 2005

...Michelin, working with its partner teams, devised several solutions which would have allowed all teams to compete in the race. These solutions included airlifting in replacement tires from Spain which arrived in Indy early Sunday morning. However, FIA regulations would not allow the new tires to be used in the race...

Michelin North America
Consumer Relations Department
Click to expand...

Not exactly true as the FIA offered them to use the replacement tires and accept the penalty for coming unprepared.

...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...

Paul Stoddart

June 20, 2005
Click to expand...

It is interesting how Paul Stoddard was witness to a test of tires that did not arrive until Sunday morning, and Michelin says they were not allowed to use the replacement tires. But we all know that one of the suggestions from the FIA was to use them and accept the penalty.

Conversations

Alerts

Paul Stoddart's account of Indianapolis 2005

Anthony_Ferrari Formula 3

mikeivan Rookie

RufMD F1 Rookie
Owner

asianbond Formula 3

ScuderiaRossa Formula 3
Silver Subscribed

Wouter Melissen Formula Junior

Anthony_Ferrari Formula 3

Mark(study) F1 Veteran

Prova85 Formula 3

t88power Formula 3

dretceterini F1 Veteran

carguy F1 Rookie

Formula 1 Formula 3

Turb0flat4 Formula 3

jknight F1 Veteran

Prova85 Formula 3

Bryanp F1 Rookie

cshargh Karting

tuttebenne F1 Rookie

bretm F1 Rookie

Jagbuff Formula 3

Prova85 Formula 3

asianbond Formula 3

dasMafia Formula Junior

dogue Formula Junior

Share This Page

Paul Stoddart's account of Indianapolis 2005

Anthony_Ferrari Formula 3

mikeivan Rookie

RufMD F1 Rookie Owner

asianbond Formula 3

ScuderiaRossa Formula 3 Silver Subscribed

Wouter Melissen Formula Junior

Anthony_Ferrari Formula 3

Mark(study) F1 Veteran

Prova85 Formula 3

t88power Formula 3

dretceterini F1 Veteran

carguy F1 Rookie

Formula 1 Formula 3

Turb0flat4 Formula 3

jknight F1 Veteran

Prova85 Formula 3

Bryanp F1 Rookie

cshargh Karting

tuttebenne F1 Rookie

bretm F1 Rookie

Jagbuff Formula 3

Prova85 Formula 3

asianbond Formula 3

dasMafia Formula Junior

dogue Formula Junior

Share This Page

RufMD F1 Rookie
Owner

ScuderiaRossa Formula 3
Silver Subscribed