US GP

First lawsuits are being filed.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/SPORTS0103/50620006

Don't agree with this one, but thought that the fact itself could be of interest.

No matter who you blame, Ferrari gained some major ground in the rankings because of this. Ferrari jumped up 18 points to tie with McLaren-Mercedes, and Schumi is just 3 points behind Raikkonen.

I feel bad for the spectators, but I applaud the FIA for sticking to their own rules.

"Formula One is a sporting contest. It must operate to clear rules. These cannot be negotiated each time a competitor brings the wrong equipment to a race. " (FIA)

Nobody would make a full NBA Team play with four players because the other team is missing people.

The Bridgestone teams shouldn't be made to suffer because of Michelin's incompetance.

First lawsuits are being filed.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/SPORTS0103/50620006

Don't agree with this one, but thought that the fact itself could be of interest.

How can you not agree with the lawsuit? I lost over $1500 and three days of work to see that "race". I agree 100% with that fan and will be contacting his lawyer to support the lawsuit tomorrow after work. :smile:

How can you not agree with the lawsuit? I lost over $1500 and three days of work to see that "race". I agree 100% with that fan and will be contacting his lawyer to support the lawsuit tomorrow after work. :smile:

:iagree: A lot of people will have saved up for a long time to see the F1 roadshow, perhaps for the first time, and sadly gotted ripped off. They are the only ones I feel sorry for. They should all get their refunds, and it should come out of Michelin's pocket. :2cents:

I wonder who that asshole sues when he goes to the beach and it's raining? I have no sympathy for that kind of "fan".

Correction - Ferrari wouldn't have agreed to that had they been asked. They weren't. A chicane would have easily become a safety issue for Bridgestone runners (you know that, some others might need to be pointed at that fact), and there is no way that should be allowed. Bridgestone could really have used a couple of chicanes at, let's say, Bahrain and Malaysia.

Oh come on, Todt knew what was going in - it's his job. Choosing to play dumb is a strategy he is employing more and more for some reason. For sure a chicane raises all sorts of other issues, but it has been done as a stop gap before a number of times with mixed results. So while I don't agree with the request, it was a fair enough proposal compared to what transpired.

Show me a single person who has some interest in F1 who isn't.
Exactly - everybody in F1 has their own agenda and is running with it.

Face it Phil, the Michelin teams are just plain evil, they ruined the sport for everyone.....

So true Ray, insiders report the Indy spec Michelin was specialy developed for optimum explosive delamination. Unfortunately Ralf turned out to be harder to kill than their simulations predicted.

Just reading the sporting regulations for F1 here, out of interest.....very interesting....

Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race

Seems the teams which withdrew their cars were obeying this rule since they couldn't ensure the safety of the cars throughout the race?

This one is interesting:
An event may be cancelled if fewer than 12 cars are available for it

Unless 2 of the available cars are Ferrari in which case it will go ahead regardless? (relax Alex, it's a joke)

I'm going to keep reading, this is really interesting....especially when you read the regulations and keep in mind what certain teams/drivers have obviously been allowed to get away with.

So true Ray, insiders report the Indy spec Michelin was specialy developed for optimum explosive delamination. Unfortunately Ralf turned out to be harder to kill than their simulations predicted.

Be careful what you say Phil, next week somebody will be misquoting you as stating that as a fact instead of in jest. :icon16:

Trouble is Ray, no matter how much justification Michelin can find for its actions the FIA are making up the rules (interpreting as they like to call it) as they go along.

Why the FIA are even summoning Michelin to a hearing is beyond me. This realy is a minor issue, a technical problem that prevented a certain number of cars participating in 1/19th of the championship. If Max tries to punish Michelin further, then Michelin should just walk. That'll fuck 'em.

Something else interesting I found in the rules....

On the televised feed on Speed TV, they were showing how Ferrari are using heat boxes to warm tires to a greater level since they don't feel the tire blankets heat the tires enough.
FIA regulations state:
The only permitted type of tyre heating device allowed are blankets which use resistive heating elements

Comments from our Ferrari friends?

Trouble is Ray, no matter how much justification Michelin can find for its actions the FIA are making up the rules (interpreting as they like to call it) as they go along.


Exactly, as noted in my post above about how Ferrari are heating their tires in heat boxes as opposed to just with blankets.

Very interesting. I wonder if only Ferrari do that?

Very interesting. I wonder if only Ferrari do that?

According to Peter Windsor and David Hobbs, they were the only team doing so.

(waiting for Ferrari fans to start discrediting the above mentioned people)

Well that's alright then. If Ferrari are doing it it must be okay, cause they never bend or break the rules. Heaven help McLaren or BAR if they tried the same stunt though. I imagine there is an FIA "clarification" in the works.

Actually thinking about this, the serial villains here must be Sauber. How many times have they withdrawn from races because of some flippant safety concerns? Just because drivers are in comas, wings fall off or tyres explode? The people in the stands paid good money to see carnage so give it to 'em. I mean did Roland Ratzenberger throttle back when parts of his Simtek fell off all those years ago? No way! Downforce, contact patches, who cares for such things. Real men greet the wall with a smile.

Just in case anybody missed it. My last handful of posts in this thread have been entirely sarcastic. But people seem to be missing the point. Namely 14 Michelin shod cars were not safe at Indianapolis last weekend. How could the teams and their tyre supplier go ahead and race knowing drivers and spectators were at risk? If a few thousand people were pissed off but one life was saved then Michelin made the right decision.

If knowing that you still have a beef that a programmed pice of entertainment failed to occur as advertised, then your priorities are seriously fucked up.

How can you not agree with the lawsuit? I lost over $1500 and three days of work to see that "race". I agree 100% with that fan and will be contacting his lawyer to support the lawsuit tomorrow after work. :smile:

You agree with suing IMS? What the hell did the organisers have to do with the events? Guess you didn't read the article. Oh, and you're one of the very few who were at the race whom I have little sympathy for.

I wonder who that asshole sues when he goes to the beach and it's raining?

Which one? :lol:

So while I don't agree with the request, it was a fair enough proposal compared to what transpired.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the chicane would have cured the problem for Michelin (and there are, in fact, suggestions of the opposite) and that it wouldn't have turned out to be even a bigger farce, as hard as it is to imagine.

Face it Phil, the Michelin teams are just plain evil, they ruined the sport for everyone.....

Never once have I said any of the Michelin teams did anything wrong :disappoin


Seems the teams which withdrew their cars were obeying this rule since they couldn't ensure the safety of the cars throughout the race?

Duh!

Unless 2 of the available cars are Ferrari in which case it will go ahead regardless? (relax Alex, it's a joke)

See you haven't lost your sense of humour. You do realise that by doing the warmup lap the 7 teams, rather cynically, fulfilled their obligation to the promoter, so that Tony George could not have any grounds for whatever legal action. Cynical, but they were protecting their interests.

Haven't seen any tyre warming boxes, but I guess if it's against the rules, it's against the rules.

Phil, obviously the 7 teams could not do anything but withdraw from the race, even though it has as much to do with egos as with safety. Remember, it's the same people who let Kimi continue at the European GP with a clear safety issue with the car. I'm not buying the pure safety reasons one bit. There were ways around that, and I still have not heard any reason why, let's say, the teams couldn't change damaged tyres at regular interwals (which to me seems like the only way for the race to have occured as it would penalise Michelin teams for the inferior equipment they brought to the race and at the same time not penalise other runners). Of course that would have been a disadvantage, but that's exactly what paying for mistakes is.

Not sure you want me to start quiting Windsor.

Ahh, I'll do it for the heck of it


From Speed Channel.com

Peter Windsor on Wind Tunnel: "There will be repercussions"
Written by: SPEED Channel staff


Below are select quotes from SPEED Channel Formula 1 analyst Peter Windsor from a Sunday night appearance on ‘Wind Tunnel with Dave Despain.’ Windsor comments on the Formula 1 debacle, where Michelin teams refused to race at the USGP, citing safety issues for its drivers, leaving the lone F1 event in the U.S. with a six-car field.

Wind Tunnel with Dave Despain airs Sunday nights at 9 on SPEED Channel.

WINDSOR: “I think this business about the Michelin tires being unsafe to race has been exaggerated by the teams and, indeed, by Michelin, because as far as I understand it, they were only considered to be unsafe, by Michelin, on one very specific corner. And talking to a lot of the drivers, there were ways of getting around that corner, reducing the amount of load that was going through it – obviously we are talking about Turn 13, the vertical load. So, I think first of all, we need to be very careful about “the tires were unsafe.” I think they were unsafe, but unsafe when used in a specific way. Beyond that, I am as shattered as anyone else. I love Formula One. I’ve been involved for 30 years and to see that happen on the warm-up lap, the formation lap, all those cars coming in like that, I think it was an absolute disgrace. To be honest, our obligation in this sport, or any sport is to the fans and for that to happen is just appalling.”

“I think the Michelin was naïve in thinking that there would be a solution that falls outside the framework of the Formula One regulations … because they suggested a chicane that makes cars go slower through Turn 13, but that was never going to happen in a million years. The FIA, the governing body of the sport – this is the governing body that disqualifies cars for having a brake duct half a millimeter too large – they are never going to put in a chicane in on race morning, around which the cars are not allowed to practice or do anything at all … equally, there was talk about using another batch of tires, but that was never going to happen either.”

“Tell me where the difference is in what happened today and what might happen at any Grand Prix where there is a sudden downpour and one tire company, on intermediate tires, with no grip at all, everybody spins off on the straight and there is only five cars left in the race. That’s happened before and everyone thinks ‘Wow, what a great race.’ They should have been out there racing and if there are problems, you drive around the problems as best you can. Racers are racers.”

“It’s the teams, these massively paid teams and drivers, who have a responsibility to the fans … not one of those Michelin team guys said ‘We made a horrendous mistake today and we take full responsibility. All they did was blame the FIA, blame Bernie, blame Ferrari, blame Bridgestone, blame everyone else, but they never actually blamed themselves. Do you know how many teams from Michelin actually did the pre-USA tire test to select the correct tire for Indianapolis? … Two – Felipe Massa and Anthony Davidson – everyone else was at Silverstone.”

“One of the watersheds of today was that Bernie Ecclestone stared people in the eye, literally eyeball to eyeball before the race, and said you are going to get in that car and race – not to the drivers, but to the team owners … and they stared him back. At the end of the day, in this particular situation, the eyeballing didn’t work for Bernie. It’s the first time I can remember it not working for him and there will be repercussions.”

“F1 is about people getting out there and going motor racing. We race in the rain. We race in the wind. We race in the hail. We race in the hot weather. And we have tire failures and lots of other terrible things, but that’s what Formula One is all about, for good and for bad.”

Here are the charges that the FIA have brought against the teams.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24911

Honestly I'm with ales on this one. I'm not sure what is up with all the conspiracy theories against Ferrari (next thing we'll hear that it was Ferrari who shot JFK and faked the moon landings;)). lets not forget they got shafted worse by the new tire rules since bridgestone could not cope as well as the french.


True I do not like the new tire rules that FIA has in place, but i do agree with them upholding the regulations. The michelin teams should have changed their tires, accepted the penalties and call it a day. But instead they made this huge dramatic circus and shafted all the fans.

Interesting Windsor mentions cars spinning off because they have inappropriate tyres for the wet conditions. He has a very short memory and actually contradicts his own argument! Really, what the Michelin teams should have done is started the race then pulled in the pits en mass after half a dozen laps. Earlier if somebody got killed. Maybe they could have taken out a Bridgestone runner with some flying debris at the same time. That would have been a good thing according to some people. :shakehead

As for Ferrari they were never part of the problem. The only accusation that can be levelled at them is that they failed to be part of a solution. But if you know anything about Ferrari management you’ll know it would be a cold day in hell before Ferrari tried to be magnanimous, and in strict regulatory terms why should they?

As for this Michelin teams should have raced crap. Michelin thought it was unsafe, for fuck's sake. Regardless of all this slow down/pitlane rubbish can YOU guarantee anything different? You either believe them and the right course of action was taken by not racing, or they are a pack of lying bastards and screwed everybody (including their teams and shareholders) for some unknown ulterior motive. I look forward to seeing the accusers provide irrefutable evidence of the latter.

True I do not like the new tire rules that FIA has in place, but i do agree with them upholding the regulations. The michelin teams should have changed their tires, accepted the penalties and call it a day. But instead they made this huge dramatic circus and shafted all the fans.

I'm sure all seven of the teams will wish they would have done that now. I don't think the FIA would come down on them nearly as hard for changing tires after qualifying than if they were to just not race. I hope they come down hard on them and make sure that they don't quit the race ever again. It's kinda hard to see where the FIA could have compromised on this issue without giving Michelin teams the edge over bridestone teams.

Hopefully the FIA takes the appropriate measures to ensure that no team ever does that again.

Hang on guys, would changing their tyres have helped? I don't know, I wonder how you do.

Perhaps a better solution would have been to delay the race, happens all the time on ovals when it rains. Logistical nightmare and not fair to the the Bridgestone teams, but could have given Michelin time to sort something.

It seems that nearly everyone here is declaring themselves an expert on the tire situation.

Funny thing is, years ago I worked in the tire industry and the only thing I know is that if Michelin said their tires were unsafe, they must have been.

It seems that nearly everyone here is declaring themselves an expert on the tire situation.

Funny thing is, years ago I worked in the tire industry and the only thing I know is that if Michelin said their tires were unsafe, they must have been.


but we are not debating that, my point is that they should have changed to a different safe tire and incur the penalties.

Look, I agree with most of your points. You put a weird twist in here and there, but the gist is correct. Not even sure we're arguing. Well, apart from Ferrari being magnanimous - you're singling out one team at least out of 3, but more like out of 10. Nothing new though.

You either believe them ...

I'm quite prepared to believe them if, as I've mentioned, they would just say that the solutions proposed by the FIA were unsafe and consequently they were not able to accept them, however much they would have liked to. That's just it - they haven't. All I've head was "chicane chicane chicane". If they have a valid reason to belive that what Whiting suggested was unacceptable to them (for safety reasons of course), they should come out and calmly say so and explain their reasons and be done with it. Oh, and they need to be convincing too.

Just read somewhere that Michelin brought only one type of tyre to the US GP. If that is indeed true, they've made a bigger blunder than I thought.

Well, apart from Ferrari being magnanimous - you're singling out one team at least out of 3, but more like out of 10. Nothing new though.
How so? 9 out of 10 teams were in there trying to find a solution. Only one team claimed to "know nothing about it". But as I said, I don't blame them for anything here at all.

I'm quite prepared to believe them if, as I've mentioned, they would just say that the solutions proposed by the FIA were unsafe and consequently they were not able to accept them, however much they would have liked to. That's just it - they haven't. All I've head was "chicane chicane chicane". If they have a valid reason to belive that what Whiting suggested was unacceptable to them (for safety reasons of course), they should come out and calmly say so and explain their reasons and be done with it. Oh, and they need to be convincing too.
I thought that was clear? Michelin refused to be effectively penalised over and above their other difficulties. Would you race on a different track to your competitors? Or consent to a speed gun enforced limit? Both sides were engaged in brinkmanship and neither blinked. Michelin had no cards to play but the FIA had plenty as I see it. Not that I’m saying they should have given in to improve the spectacle, but they had the power. Michelin could only look even more foolish. If the FIA had been prepared to give them some honour they could have, instead of rubbing their noses in it.

IF the FIA feels it can run rough shod over others valid safety concerns they should have had the guts to indemnify everybody concerned if another inexplicable failure occurred. Look at the legal ramifications of something like Senna's death under Italian law. Would you want to risk that if you were in a similar position at your work?

Does anybody know of any details concerning tyre problems with Firestones or other US openwheeler tyres after the track was resurfaced? The banking is certainly very unusual now, it is grooved and has a "diamond ground" surface, whatever that may be.

but we are not debating that, my point is that they should have changed to a different safe tire and incur the penalties.

That would have been ideal, only problem is where would these safe tyres have come from on such short notice?

That would have been ideal, only problem is where would these safe tyres have come from on such short notice?


I'm sure michelin has several types of tires for different requirements ready. And I bet they have them in stock ready for deployment, it would be foolish of them otherwise. They were offered this solution by FIA but they refused.

The ferrari team had a choice also and they went with a safer slower tire (Schumacher said so himself). I'm sure the michelin teams had similar choices, i doubt that michelin had only 1 type of tire available.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren’t they? Hardly an open and shut case.

- failing to ensure they had a supply of suitable tyres for the race

I think Michelin have already punished themselves for that one. To find them guilty any sane court would have to establish that the mistake was intentional, which is plainly ludicrous.

- wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race

Because of safety concerns? Great! Does that mean we can have all those rule changes barged through this season ruled illegal because safety is not an issue?

- wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to race subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as were available

Simply exchanging one farce for another, and still no guaranteeing that it would be safe.

- combining with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race

Gotta agree with this one it was a sham gridding up and taking the parade lap if the intention is not to race. On the other hand there were discussions going on right up until the last moment, so perhaps there was still some hope. Commercial considerations are possible too, both with sponsors and under the Concorde agreement. The teams may have needed to do so in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

The FIA is also bringing charges against the teams for failing to notify stewards of their intention not to race, apparently in breach of Article 131 of the Formula One sporting regulations.

So what about all those letters to Charlie Whiting? Should have given somebody a clue. Guess the FIA were clueless.

I'm sure michelin has several types of tires for different requirements ready. And I bet they have them in stock ready for deployment, it would be foolish of them otherwise. They were offered this solution by FIA but they refused..

The ferrari team had a choice also and they went with a safer slower tire (Schumacher said so himself). I'm sure the michelin teams had similar choices, i doubt that michelin had only 1 type of tire available.

The problem was not one of speed or wear, rather of the tyres not lasting and exploding unpredicatably. Michelin had more than one type of tyre available (all teams have two options). Apparenty all of them were suspect. The change that Michelin initially speculated was to a Barcelona spec tyre. But then they decicided those tyres probably would not have been any better. So why would they take the risk?

Designing an manufacturing a new tyre in France and shhipping it to the USA is not a quick or simple process.

Remmber this has become an issue because the track at Indy is essentially brand new this year. It has been resurfaced and is totaly different to last year because of that. The tyre supplier had to guess at what that ment, as they are not allowed to test at the track. Michelin guessed wrong. Considering the number of countries the series visits and the number of changes going on the rules and tracks it is surprising it doesn't happen more often.

How so? 9 out of 10 teams were in there trying to find a solution. Only one team claimed to "know nothing about it". But as I said, I don't blame them for anything here at all.


None of the teams would have, and ever have, shown any desire to give up their advantage to help the competition, not just Ferrari.

I thought that was clear? Michelin refused to be effectively penalised over and above their other difficulties. Would you race on a different track to your competitors? Or consent to a speed gun enforced limit? Both sides were engaged in brinkmanship and neither blinked. Michelin had no cards to play but the FIA had plenty as I see it. Not that I’m saying they should have given in to improve the spectacle, but they had the power. Michelin could only look even more foolish. If the FIA had been prepared to give them some honour they could have, instead of rubbing their noses in it.

Exactly. It's not about safety, it's about refusing to look bad - i.e. not wanting to face the consequences of one's mistakes. It would have been much more honorable to race if there was a slightest chance of that, and since Michelin held no cards, it wasn't up to them to demand anything, and that includes demands not to be made look foolish.

If I was a driver, I would have raced with whatever safe solution I was offered. There'd be 13 more cars in the same situation as I, so there'd still be a race among us. And the drivers really wanted to race, can't help but feel sorry for them. They were not sure of what woul transpire until the last second, and if you noticed, they were warming up their tyres on the grid and through the first part of the warmup lap. DC earned even more respect by what he said on the team radio.

That said, Trulli's Toyota, reportedly, had fuel for just 3 (!) laps - they were never going to race :disappoin

- combining with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race

Gotta agree with this one it was a sham gridding up and taking the parade lap if the intention is not to race. On the other hand there were discussions going on right up until the last moment, so perhaps there was still some hope. Commercial considerations are possible too, both with sponsors and under the Concorde agreement. The teams may have needed to do so in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

Yup. By doing the warmul lap they all "participated" in the event and fulfilled their obligations to FOM and the promoter/organiser (Tony George basically). The drivers, or most of them anyway, didn't know what would happen until the last moment, but I'm more than sure the bosses did.

None of the teams would have, and ever have, shown any desire to give up their advantage to help the competition, not just Ferrari.
Ahem, I think you're wrong there. Jordan and Minardi at least looked like they were trying to find a solution. :dunno:

Exactly. It's not about safety, it's about refusing to look bad - i.e. not wanting to face the consequences of one's mistakes. It would have been much more honorable to race if there was a slightest chance of that, and since Michelin held no cards, it wasn't up to them to demand anything, and that includes demands not to be made look foolish.
Not facing consequences? How is that? They admitted their mistake and withdrew. Anything else would have been a sham and possibly dangerous. They could have put their heads in the sand and pretended everything was fine. Drivers hitting walls - not our fault! Thay would be not facing up to consequences. What is with this demand stuff? Michelin were not demanding, as you say they were in no position to.

If I was a driver, I would have raced with whatever safe solution I was offered. There'd be 13 more cars in the same situation as I, so there'd still be a race among us. And the drivers really wanted to race, can't help but feel sorry for them. They were not sure of what woul transpire until the last second, and if you noticed, they were warming up their tyres on the grid and through the first part of the warmup lap. DC earned even more respect by what he said on the team radio.
Of course the drivers would want to race, and more than likely have raced too hard. That is preciesly why the cooler heads at Michelin could not allow it.

Ahem, I think you're wrong there. Jordan and Minardi at least looked like they were trying to find a solution. :dunno:

I was talking more in general, but even at the US GP I saw 6 cars from 3 teams actually take part.

Michelin were not demanding, as you say they were in no position to.

I agree that they were in no position to, but I disagree that they weren't.

Remmber this has become an issue because the track at Indy is essentially brand new this year. It has been resurfaced and is totaly different to last year because of that. The tyre supplier had to guess at what that ment, as they are not allowed to test at the track. Michelin guessed wrong. Considering the number of countries the series visits and the number of changes going on the rules and tracks it is surprising it doesn't happen more often.

The resurfacing issue is one point where Bridgestone did have a distinct advantage, the Indy 500 gave them insight as to how a tire performed on the new surface.
Michelin didn't have that information available.

Boohoo

I was talking more in general, but even at the US GP I saw 6 cars from 3 teams actually take part.
Well, given that the Michelin teams are in hot water for withdrawing due to unsafe tyres, can you imagine the shit Minardi and Jordan would have been in if they did the same with serviceable tyres? No, they did all they could but in the end were compelled to race. At least they showed some solidarity when they could. Do you mean in general everybody acts in their own interests except for when they don't? :screwy:

I agree that they were in no position to, but I disagree that they weren't.
The letters I've seen from Michelin appear entirely polite and factual to me, with no demands at all really. On the other hand Charlie's final word was a bit curt and rude.

Boohoo

Running out of reasonable arguments?

What exactly is there to argue about?

Do you mean in general everybody acts in their own interests except for when they don't? :screwy:

How exactly didn't they? They went out on track, which was in their interests. Not getting into trouble with the governing body is also an interest.

The letters I've seen from Michelin appear entirely polite and factual to me, with no demands at all really. On the other hand Charlie's final word was a bit curt and rude.

You don't have to be impolite to be demanding, and that's how Michelin and their attitude looked to me.

How exactly didn't they? They went out on track, which was in their interests. Not getting into trouble with the governing body is also an interest.
JORDAN AND MINARDI VOTED FOR A CHICANE ALEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you get the point?

You don't have to be impolite to be demanding, and that's how Michelin and their attitude looked to me.
MIchelin basically wrote,we cannot race unless the speed in turn 13 is reduced. Sounds like two options being presented, not a demand. This is the situation, whatcha want us to do?

Also notice that Whiting's letters were CC'd to Scuderia Ferrari. Did Todt's secretary misplace them? :lol:

JORDAN AND MINARDI VOTED FOR A CHICANE ALEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you get the point?


Of course I do. According to Stoddy-boy they both also promised not to race without a chicane, yet I saw 6 cars on the track.

MIchelin basically wrote,we cannot race unless the speed in turn 13 is reduced. Sounds like two options being presented, not a demand. This is the situation, whatcha want us to do?

Charlie: you can do this, this, or this.

Michelin: nah, that will penalise us for our mistake but will not also penalise the teams that have come prepared. Build us a chicane or we don't race.

Charlie: go and ... :)

Of course I do. According to Stoddy-boy they both also promised not to race without a chicane, yet I saw 6 cars on the track.


And if you heard 'honest' Stoddy after the race, he stated he had no intention of racing, but when the Jordan cars bypassed the pit entrance to continue with the race, he told his cars to do the same as they are his main points rivals.

Funny how Charlie copied Todt with all correspondance, but when asked about it Todt conveniently 'knew nothing about it'.

And if you heard 'honest' Stoddy after the race, he stated he had no intention of racing, but when the Jordan cars bypassed the pit entrance to continue with the race, he told his cars to do the same as they are his main points rivals.

So, what's your point? That Stoddy pursued his own interests? Well, that's my point too.

Funny how Charlie copied Todt with all correspondance, but when asked about it Todt conveniently 'knew nothing about it'.

I'm sure he knew all about it, but his position was that it was not his problem. Not the only position he could have chosen, but ultimately he had every right to choose this one too.

So, what's your point?

The one you missed....

Why are you trying to debate something when I was agreeing with you and elaborated on what was actually said.

C'mon Alex, are you that desperate for an argument? :disappoin

The one you missed....

Why are you trying to debate something when I was agreeing with you and elaborated on what was actually said.

C'mon Alex, are you that desperate for an argument? :disappoin

I apologise for not understanding that from your post.

Here is the press release from Paul Stoddard - Owner and Team Principal of European Minardi, a team that runs on Bridgestone tires. This Australian Millionare, owner of an Airline company (European airlines) is well known in the F1 community for his balls-out approach to racing, and his hate of Formula One politics.

I have to say it gave me lots of insight into what likely happened.

=========================================

"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!"

Thanks for posting that Igor. Of course the doubters will discredit Stoddard as serving his own adgenda, but to me that pretty much sums everything up.

You agree with suing IMS? What the hell did the organisers have to do with the events? Guess you didn't read the article. Oh, and you're one of the very few who were at the race whom I have little sympathy for.

Yes, you are correct, I didn't read it as thoroughly as I should have. I would never think of sueing IMS as they clearly had nothing to do with it. But I do intend to get my money back from the FIA, even if I do lose your sympathy. :rolleyes:



Oh, and great find Igor. That press release really sheds light on things. :)

I know this seems like a rather vague post, but it blows that politics has such a powerful grasp on the most exciting racing venue in the world. It's so "retarded". I think Max Mosley needs get off his high horse and realize that F1 would be nothing without the fans. I know it will never happen, but it seems so childish. It would be nice to see a new racing series that was much like f1 10-15 years ago.

Thanks for posting that Igor. Of course the doubters will discredit Stoddard as serving his own adgenda, but to me that pretty much sums everything up.

I think the fact that Stoddard serves his own agenda has been proven by now, no? His facts could be accurate, but boy does he go out of his way to put an anti-Ferrari and anti-FIA spin on things. Think he's kissed enough ass by now for the big boys to accept him into their club? :disappoin

Yes, you are correct, I didn't read it as thoroughly as I should have. I would never think of sueing IMS as they clearly had nothing to do with it. But I do intend to get my money back from the FIA, even if I do lose your sympathy. :rolleyes:
)

My sympathy for you has nothing to do with you trying to get your money back. In fact, that's something I agree with (probably said somethin about it too on one of the first pages), but I'm afraid your target is misplaced.

Q&A with Mosley.


Official FIA Press Release
THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
QUESTIONS TO MAX MOSLEY
22.06.2005

What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars?
My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that’s just my personal view.

Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?
You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.

Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?
The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.

Why unfair?
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.

Is this why Ferrari objected?
No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.

Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?
No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.

Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?
OK, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.

All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?
There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.

How can you say a chicane would be “potentially dangerous” when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?
A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?

But it’s what the teams wanted.
It’s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.

Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France?
It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig.

Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre – why did they not have a back-up available?
You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.

Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?
Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.

So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?
We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre – but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.

How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?
They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.

But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?
No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits – effectively a drive-through penalty.

How would a driver know what speed he was doing?
His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.

But would this be real racing?
It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.

Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?
Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.

But that would have looked very strange – could you call that a race?
It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.

Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?
No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.

Didn’t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?
I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.

What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?
This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone’s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.

Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?
We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.

Wouldn’t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?
No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.

Didn’t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?
No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.

Finally, what’s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?
We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.
For further information on the FIA, please consult our Internet site:
www.fia.com


So that confirms it - Michelin only brought one type of tyre for the event. Most of the other things are already known.

To those who are blaming the FIA for introducin the (ridiculous) one tyre per race rule.


From Michelin, dated July of 2004:

"Michelin have issued a series of proposals designed to slow Formula 1 cars down.

The French tyre manufacturer has suggested that cars use the same set of tyres for qualifying and the entire race.

Other proposals include a massive reduction in testing and the scrapping of the rule that allows manufacturers to develop different compounds for different teams.

Michelin's ideas come in response to an FIA request for suggestions on how to reduce the performance of F1 cars.

Michelin competitions boss Pierre Dupasquier said: We believe that the FIA's objectives can be met by implementing these proposals.

'Firstly, to be able to provide tyres that last much longer, we will be obliged to use much harder compounds, which in turn will be less 'grippy', thus reducing speeds.

'Secondly, to seriously reduce costs, testing must be limited. This can be complemented by providing fewer tyres, so the amount of testing would be further reduced.

'I'm sure there can be a saving in teams� operational costs of over 50 per cent.

'And finally, these 'hard' tyres will leave less rubber on the track, making the 'dirty' line a thing of the past and therefore encouraging overtaking, something everybody around F1 wants.'

Outgoing FIA president Max Mosley had previously indicated that he felt the only way to reduce tyre performance was to revert to a single supplier.

Michelin have already said that they will pull out of the sport if that happens.

CEO and chairman Edouard Michelin said: 'Our proposals offer a triple benefit: an increase in safety, a reduction in costs and an improvement to the racing spectacle, particularly by having more overtaking.

'These proposals therefore both respond positively to the wishes of the FIA and also allow teams the freedom to choose their tyre supplier; a freedom that is at the very heart of the companies involved in Formula 1.

'Michelin is therefore happy to continue to work with its partners and the F1 Technical Working Group in order to find the best way forward."


For those who said the track came as a surprise to Michelin


From Michelin, 15 June 2005 (the Wednesday before the USGP)

In last season's United States GP, Takuma Sato (BAR-Honda, third) was the highest placed Michelin finisher.

'Indianapolis represents a real challenge because tyres have to cope with sustained heat build-up for more than 20 seconds as cars negotiate the season's longest flat-out section, which incorporates the banking and the pit straight. In addition, they also need to generate sufficient grip to maximise traction on the tight infield, says Pierre Dupasquier, Michelin Motorsport director. 'These two contrasting characteristics oblige teams and suppliers to make compromises in terms of aerodynamic set-up and tyre compounds. The banking imposes a significant strain on the left-hand side of a chassis because it partly compensates for centrifugal forces by increasing vertical loads, which are then transmitted to the tyres.'

'In fact, the banking limits the extent of what we can do when it comes to finalising our tyre compounds. We have to base our selections on this, the most demanding part of the track. Softer compounds wouldn�t survive the banking but tyres that are too hard would struggle on the infield and would soon be chewed up through sliding around excessively. The surface of the banking is very abrasive, and that adds another contrasting factor to our preparations, because the infield is quite the opposite.'

'I always enjoy racing at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. As a venue it holds some great memories and the fans are always so supportive and enthusiastic, says Juan Pablo Montoya. 'It is like a home race for me, with so many Colombians in the crowd. The two contrasting elements of the Speedway + the tight, twisting infield and fast, banked, oval section, where we run at full throttle for about 20 seconds, present us with a unique challenge. There is a very high loading on the tyres around the banked section, which puts an emphasis on durability, but we need to find a compromise because we also have to generate vital low-speed grip for the infield.'


Count how many times they mention the word "banking" and see whether they use the word "abrasive" in connection with "banking".

To those who think the track changed significantly from 2004 to 2005 and that it became more abrasive and that Michelin did not have a chance to assess the track conditions.


Although the new track surface at Indianapolis had been diamond-ground, a spokesperson has informed Pitpass that Firestone used the same spec tyres in the recent Indy 500 as it used in the 2004 event.
Furthermore, the spokesperson informed Pitpass, that during tests it was discovered that wear rates were good and that there were no durability issues. Indeed, the spokesperson was keen to stress that the current surface is a "little less severe"
Apparently, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway has been diamond-ground since 2003, furthermore the recent resurfacing "did not affect the angle of the banking".
"This information was freely available before the recent United States Grand Prix," added the spokesperson, who confirmed that it was even reported in a recent edition of the British magazine, Autosport. "It is every manufacturer's responsibility to check a circuit's surface and layout," said the spokesperson. The only two tracks where this is a problem are Monaco and Melbourne - both street circuits - in which case the tyre manufacturer must rely (mainly) on data from previous events.

Quote city Alex! Where does the first one come from? Were Michelin really the originator of the idea? Worked out well for them if they were! I guess the FIA asked the question so Michelin brainstormed an answer. Are they responsible for othe current evils like the multi race engine rules and qualifying too?

The last two I take it are some kind of joke. Of course there is a banking at Indy :rolleyes: However, there were all sorts of problems with the recent resurfacing in both NASCAR and IRL, it was a cocked up job.

Here's one for you to read.

http://www.motorsport.com/magazine/feature.asp?C=Musings&D=2005-06-21

So that confirms it - Michelin only brought one type of tyre for the event. Most of the other things are already known.

What do you mean by one type of tyre? Did you not read all of your quotes? Or were you confused by the Max-speak?