Soldato
Air-conditioning is broken - too hot to think 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2005 French Grand Prix
- Thread starter Flibster
- Start date
More options
Thread starter's posts
Soldato
Poor show ;/
Can' wait for the outcome of the hotel meeting
Can' wait for the outcome of the hotel meeting
Soldato
Please explainFlibster said:^^^ That was a quick edit.
Simon/~Flibster
Soldato
I read #78 as without Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi i.e. pretty much the GPWC
Full FIA WMSC Ruling:
WORLD MOTOR SPORT COUNCIL
HEARING OF THE MICHELIN FORMULA ONE TEAMS
DECISION
29.06.2005
Following today’s hearing in Paris the FIA World Motor Sport Council has found the seven Michelin teams:
- guilty of failing to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix; but with strong, mitigating circumstances;
- guilty of wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race, having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap;
- not guilty of refusing to race subject to a speed restriction, having regard to the absence of any detailed plan for this;
- not guilty of combining to make a demonstration for the reason that they had hoped to race until the last minute;
- not guilty of failing to inform the Stewards of their intention not to start (Article 131) for the same reason.
The World Motor Sport Council has decided to adjourn discussion of any penalty to an extraordinary meeting of the WMSC to be held on 14 September 2005, when the WMSC will also examine:
- what steps have been taken by the seven Michelin teams and/or their tyre supplier to compensate the Formula One fans and repair the damage to the reputation of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and to the image of Formula One;
- what steps have been taken by the Michelin teams to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
And the Teams response...
Following today's decision by the World Motor sport council, six of the F1 teams - BAR, WilliamsF1, Renault, Sauber, McLaren and Toyota have issued the following statement:
The six Formula One Michelin teams identified above are very disappointed by the decision of the World Motor Sport Council to find them guilty of two of the five charges brought against them by the FIA in relation to the 2005 U.S. Grand Prix at Indianapolis.
1) In relation to the finding that they failed to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres, the Teams point out that they reasonably relied on Michelin, an approved FIA tyre supplier and a highly reputable manufacturer of tyres worldwide, to provide suitable tyres for that race. As Michelin have already acknowledged, they were responsible for the supply of unsuitable tyres for the Indianapolis circuit. The FIA's decision accepts that there were "strong mitigating circumstances" for the Teams. In truth, those circumstances provided a complete answer to the charge, given that the Teams cannot be held responsible for what occurred.
2) In relation to the finding that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race having regard to their right to use the pit lane on each lap, the Teams respond as follows. The charges suggested only one means by which the Teams could safely have raced (the use of a speed restriction). On that charge, the Teams were found not guilty. The Teams cannot understand how they can be found guilty by reference to another proposed solution, which was not part of the charges brought against them, which was not suggested by the FIA at Indianapolis, which was considered unsafe and which, in any event, would not have achieved a satisfactory race for the fans.
The Teams therefore will be lodging an appeal against each of these findings.
The Teams explained to the World Motor Sport Council that, in the light of the clear and written advice from Michelin that it was unsafe to race at Indianapolis on the tyres supplied by that company, the Teams had no choice but to decline to race. Any other decision would have been irresponsible. Nineteen of the current Formula One drivers have expressed their agreement with the decision of the Teams.
The Teams much regret that the American public were unable to enjoy a race involving all ten Formula One teams, and would like to express their thanks to the many fans who have communicated their support for the stance taken by the Teams and by Michelin on grounds of safety.
The Teams are pleased that Michelin have agreed to compensate fans who attended the race.
The Teams very much look forward to the next Grand Prix on Sunday.
Soldato
Nineteen of the current Formula One drivers have expressed their agreement with the decision of the Teams.
So, who's the 20th driver?
Deathwish said:So, who's the 20th driver?
KR probably, apparently he had to 'physically restrained' from going out to race...how u do that when he is in the car is beyond me
Full submission on behalf of 6 of the teams.
Before the FIA World Motor Sport Council, Submissions on behalf of 6 Formula One Teams, Paris - 29 June 2005.
Introduction
1 These submissions are made on behalf of the following Formula One Teams :
(1) BAR Honda GP Limited
(2) McLaren Racing Limited
(3) Renault F1 Team Ltd
(4) Sauber Motorsport AG
(5) Toyota Motorsport GMBH
(6) Williams Grand Prix Engineering Ltd
2 The Teams deny the charges brought against them by the FIA in relation to their decisions not to race at the Indianapolis Grand Prix on Sunday 19 June 2005.
3 The Teams have had a limited amount of time for the preparation of this document, so what follows is based on our preliminary analysis to date.
4 The Teams are confident of the strength of their Defence to the charges as set out below. But they respectfully suggest to the Council that the Council should today institute a comprehensive review of what happened in Indianapolis and why. That would be the most effective method of investigating the facts. It would also promote the interests of Formula One that motor sport be seen to institute a full inquiry into the events. It is especially important to avoid a rush to judgment given that all relevant persons face class action litigation. A partial or hasty judgment would damage the interests of Formula One and all those involved in it, and simply give ammunition to the plaintiffs in the US litigation.
The relevant rules
5 Article 151 of the International Sporting Code states:
"Breach of rules
Any of the following offences in addition to any offences specifically referred to previously shall be deemed to be a breach of these rules :
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally".
6 Article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations states:
"The starting grid will be published two hours before the race. Any competitor whose car(s) is (are) unable to start for any reason whatsoever (or who has good reason to believe that their car(s) will not be ready to start) must inform the stewards accordingly at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, no later than 45 minutes before the start of the race. If one or more cars are withdrawn the grid will be closed up accordingly. The final starting grid will be published 45 minutes before the start of the race".
The charges
7 The FIA contends that in breach of Article 151c), each Team
"committed one or more acts prejudicial to the interests of a competition, namely the 2005 United States Grand Prix and/or to the interests of motor sport generally in that you
- failed to ensure that you had a supply of suitable tyres for the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to allow your cars to start the race and/or
- wrongfully refused to allow your cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as you had available and/or
- combined 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".
8 The FIA further contends that in breach of Article 131, each Team
"failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race".
The Teams' answer to the charges
9 The first charge is that the Teams failed to ensure that they had a supply of suitable tyres for the race. The Teams respond:
(1) The Teams were supplied with tyres by Michelin, an approved tyre company recognised under Regulation 73 of the Sporting Regulations.
(2) The Teams rely on the expertise of Michelin in relation to the quality, durability and safety of their tyres. As Mr Max Mosley (the President of the FIA) wrote to Michelin on 1 June 2005: "Formula One is therefore totally dependent on the tyre suppliers to ensure that no risks are taken in the pursuit of performance".
(3) It is reasonable for the Teams to rely on the expertise of Michelin, a reputable company with a long-established and excellent record.
(4) The Teams had no way of knowing in advance that a safety problem would occur with the Michelin tyres. Indeed, if they had so known, they would (of course) have acted appropriately.
(5) There is nothing in any of the relevant Regulations which imposes a strict liability on the Teams to ensure that their chosen tyre supplier in fact supplies safe tyres, or tyres with guaranteed reliability. Any such provision would be unworkable. None of the Teams instructed Michelin to do other than produce tyres suitable for the track. Therefore none of the Teams committed "any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally".
(6) Michelin (as they have properly acknowledged) made a mistake in bringing to Indianapolis two sets of tyres (see Article 73b) of the Sporting Regulations) each of which was unsuitable for the circuit. There is no question of this being because any of the Teams was seeking to obtain a competitive advantage. Michelin simply made a mistake. The Teams had no reason to anticipate that such a mistake would be made.
10 The second charge is that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race. The Teams respond:
(1) The Teams were unable to compete because of the safety risk.
(2) The FIA and the Teams were advised by Michelin on Saturday 18 June that
"in the sole interest of safety ... we do not have total assurance that all tyres that qualified the cars can be used unless the vehicle speed in turn 13 can be reduced.
Michelin very much regrets the situation, but has taken this decision after very careful consideration and in the best interests of safety at the event".
(3) On 19 June, Michelin advised the FIA and the Teams that "having collected the results of our in depth analysis from France and the USA, we confirmed that with the tyres on which we have qualified we are not able to sufficiently guarantee the total safety of the drivers.
As a result we reached the conclusion that we will not compete with these tyres in the current configuration of the circuit.
We therefore reiterate our request to have a significant reduction of vehicle speed in turn 12/13".
Michelin also issued a Press Release on 19 June stating :
"Given the combination of oval exit speed of the F1 cars and the subsequent down forces experienced by the tyres Michelin is not able to guarantee that such incidents would not reoccur during race conditions, and therefore Michelin is not able to guarantee the total safety of the drivers.
As a result Michelin, in total agreement with our partner teams, has asked the FIA that a chicane, allowing the reduction of car speed, be installed at the entrance to the oval".
(4) Particularly in the light of the second paragraph of the Michelin letter at (3) above, refusing Michelin's consent to the use of their tyres on safety grounds without a change "in the current configuration of the circuit", the position is as follows. If the Teams had raced, and a tyre had burst, with fatal consequences to a driver or a member of the public or others at the event, there would have been criminal charges of the utmost gravity, as well as substantial civil litigation, brought against the Teams and their Principals, as well as against the FIA and others. The Teams believe that it would have been irresponsible for them to race in these circumstances.
(5) It cannot be a breach of Article 151c) for the Teams to treat safety (and compliance with criminal and civil obligations) as their priority. This was a case, under Article 68 of the International Sporting Code, of force majeure (that is, an irresistible and unforeseeable course of events excusing what would otherwise be non-compliance with an obligation).
11 The third charge is that the Teams wrongfully refused to allow their cars to race, subject to a speed restriction at one corner which was safe for such tyres as they had available. The Teams respond:
(1) The Teams and their drivers considered that it would be very dangerous to have different cars driving at radically different speeds through Turn 13, where there is one good racing line. There would have been a very high risk of a serious accident.
(2) There would also have been a very high risk of a serious accident because of the need for some drivers radically to slow down before Turn 13, and then radically accelerate immediately afterwards. The risk of an accident would have been exacerbated by the inevitable differences of approach between those drivers as to when they should brake and to what extent, and when they should accelerate.
(3) In any event, it was not technically possible for all of the Teams to fit and use a speed limiter in the time available. The Teams could not guarantee to a sufficient degree of certainty to satisfy legal obligations that their drivers (who are, by definition, competitive) would fully comply with artificial speed restrictions at a defined point during a race.
(4) Michelin objected on safety grounds to the race proceeding with a voluntary speed limit at Turn 13. They confirmed that they did not consider the tyres safe to race on the circuit. See paragraph 10(3) above.
(5) For the Teams to decline to race was not a decision taken lightly. The Teams were of course anxious to race if this could be done safely. That is their raison d'etre, and it is very much in their commercial interests. Not to race is obviously damaging to the Teams' relationships with their sponsors, and to their prospects of attracting potential sponsors. On the morning of Sunday 19 June, after discussing possible solutions with Michelin, the Teams made a proposal for a safe way of reducing speed. They proposed the introduction of a chicane at Turn 13. The use of a chicane is a well-established method of reducing speed during a Grand Prix, familiar to drivers. A chicane (built out of tyres) was added to the Barcelona Circuit in 1994 after the Teams arrived for practice and before the race commenced. (Other changes to race tracks have occurred very late in the day during other Grand Prix). The proposal to introduce a chicane on the morning of Sunday 19 June was agreed by 9 of the 10 Teams and their drivers (only Ferrari failed to give approval : Jean Todt has stated publicly that Ferrari were not consulted) and by Mr Bernie Ecclestone (Chief Executive of Formula One Management, the commercial rights holder) and by Mr Tony George (Chief Executive of the race track).
(6) The Report of the FIA Observer suggests that a chicane could not be introduced for reasons of "safety and fairness". Even if that is correct, it does not assist the FIA to establish the charges against the Teams. It would still have remained unsafe to race. Therefore, it would follow, the race should have been postponed. But in fact the objections to the use of a chicane are not well-founded :
(a) As to safety, this was not mentioned in the letter of 19 June to Michelin and to the Teams from the race director, Mr Charlie Whiting. The letter stated:
"Finally, it has been suggested that a chicane should be laid out in Turn 13. I am sure you will appreciate that this is out of the question. To change the course in order to help some of the teams with a performance problem caused by their failure to bring suitable equipment to the race would be a breach of the rules and grossly unfair to those teams which have come to Indianapolis with the correct tyres".
None of the 9 Teams (or their drivers) who expressed a view about the chicane considered that it posed a safety problem. Mr Ecclestone and Mr George were satisfied that a chicane could safely be added.
(b) As to fairness, the Teams made a number of proposals to protect the interests of the 3 teams who use Bridgestone tyres. The proposals included that the Teams using Michelin tyres could obtain no championship points, and/or that they would start at the back of the grid.
12 The fourth charge is that the Teams combined to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race. The Teams respond:
(1) There was no question of the Teams making any demonstration.
(2) In the confusion, uncertainty and negotiation immediately prior to the race, the Teams joined the grid because they hoped, until the very last moment, that a solution would be found. They were concerned that if they had remained in the garage when the pit lane closed, and had not proceeded to the grid, and were the race then to have been suspended so a chicane could be installed, or any other solution adopted satisfactory both to the FIA and to Michelin, they would not have been able to participate in the race. (A problem with tyres was resolved on the grid during the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix).
(3) The Teams were encouraged by Mr Ecclestone to go to the grid in the hope that a solution would be found which enabled them to race safely.
(4) The Teams have each invested substantial amounts of money, and an important part of their image, in Formula One. They receive substantial revenues from sponsors because of their involvement in Formula One. They have no interest whatsoever in making a demonstration to undermine the competition. Until the last minute, the Teams hoped that they could race, and they did everything possible to ensure that the safety concerns were overcome.
13 The fifth charge is that each Team "failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race".
The Teams respond that as explained in paragraph 12 above, the Teams very much hoped, until the last moment, that a solution would be found which enabled them to race safely. The FIA was fully informed during the morning of Sunday 19 June of the safety problems which, in the view of the Teams, needed to be overcome.
Conclusion
14 For the reasons set out above, the Teams respectfully submit
(1) The Council should institute a comprehensive review of what happened in Indianapolis.
(2) In the alternative, the charges against the Teams should be dismissed. As Mr Ecclestone stated in a television interview on 19 June, just before the start of the race, "The incident's not the fault of the teams".
David Pannick QC
With the teams wanting fewer races next year...
The World Council has reserved 20 dates in 2006:
12 March
19 March
02 April
16 April
30 April
14 May
28 May
04 June
18 June
25 June
02 July
16 July
30 July
06 August
27 August
10 September
17 September
01 October
15 October
22 October
Looks to be between every 1-3 weeks.
The World Council has reserved 20 dates in 2006:
12 March
19 March
02 April
16 April
30 April
14 May
28 May
04 June
18 June
25 June
02 July
16 July
30 July
06 August
27 August
10 September
17 September
01 October
15 October
22 October
Looks to be between every 1-3 weeks.
French Grand Prix on ITV1 and ITV2
Live qualifying 1: Saturday 2 July 1130-1310 (ITV1)
Live race: Sunday 3 July 1200-1500 (ITV1)
Highlights: Sunday 3 July 2340-0040 (ITV1)
Highlights: Tuesday 5 July 0045-0145 (ITV2)
Full race replay: Wednesday 6 July 0115-0350 (ITV1)
Live qualifying 1: Saturday 2 July 1130-1310 (ITV1)
Live race: Sunday 3 July 1200-1500 (ITV1)
Highlights: Sunday 3 July 2340-0040 (ITV1)
Highlights: Tuesday 5 July 0045-0145 (ITV2)
Full race replay: Wednesday 6 July 0115-0350 (ITV1)
Just recieved this via email...
Press Conference with Max Mosley - 29 June 2005
"The hearing of the teams took place this morning. They were represented by counsel, with one exception, which was Red Bull. As you will recall, there were five charges against the teams.
The first of these was failing to ensure they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 United States Grand Prix, and they were found guilty of that, but with strongly mitigating circumstances.
The second thing was they were accused of wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race, and they were found guilty of that on the grounds that they could have used the pitlane, it would have been very slow but they could do that.
The third charge was refusing to race subject to a speed restriction, and they were found not guilty because there was no clear plan in place as to how that would be done. They were also found not guilty of combining to make a demonstration because they satisfied the World Council that it was genuinely their intention to race when they went out of the pits and onto the starting grid, and finally they were found not guilty of failing to inform the stewards for exactly the same reason, that they did intend to race. So guilty on two and not guilty on three of the charges.
The World Motor Sport Council decided to adjourn discussion of any penalty to an extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council on September 14, 2005, when it will also examine what steps have been taken by the seven Michelin teams and/or their tyre supplier to compensate the Formula One fans and repair the damage to the reputation of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and to the image of Formula One. Also what steps have been taken by the Michelin teams to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Those two questions will be examined in September and depending on where we have got to on those two points will make the final decision on a penalty, if a penalty is imposed by the World Council.
The difficulty that we have is that the FIA has no direct relationship with the Michelin tyre. We have no contractual relationship with them, we are therefore not in a position to impose a penalty on Michelin. Had we been in a position to do that, they would have been summoned to the World Council and, judging from what we heard from the teams, they would have found themselves in a very difficult position.
You have seen the various exchanges of correspondence, you have seen the letter that was sent this morning to Mr. Edouard Michelin and you will have seen how they said in their letters that they had no knowledge of the forces on their tyres. And if I were not able to show that in a Michelin letter then you would think that I had invented it, because it is an extraordinary statement for them to make. They also said that they could not guarantee their tyres wouldn’t burst if used under extreme conditions and that is of course exactly what Formula One is. I think it doesn’t need me to launch into an attack on Michelin after what we have seen of them and what they can do and their responses over the last ten days. The facts speak for themselves. It is a disastrous performance and that company should be deeply ashamed. I don’t intend to go into the detail but I certainly can if asked to do so.
So that is what has been decided."
Question Time
Q: Was it a decision taken by all the members of the World Council?
MM: This decision was unanimous for the World Council. Of course, not every member of the World Council could participate in the discussion because, for example, Jean Todt, of Ferrari, who is a member of the World Council, absented himself before we started the discussion on the Indianapolis speedway. Equally Nasir Hussain was the chief steward at Indianapolis, so he played no part, and then Bernie Ecclestone played a very restricted part because he, too, was also involved. Otherwise everyone was there and it was unanimous.
Q: Isn’t Michelin honourable to decide for safety and not to race?
MM: Michelin’s job at Indianapolis was to turn up with a racing tyre. That inevitably is something on the limit that may not work on all the cars, but to they also have to turn up with a second tyre, which is allowed by the regulations, that would be completely reliable in all circumstances. They didn’t do that, by their own admission they turned up with two tyres with the same construction but with different compounds. That meant that if there was a problem with the construction, which there turned out to be, they would find themselves in Indianapolis with no usable tyres.
They then flew in a tyre from France, the so-called Barcelona tyre, but that had the same construction as well and showed the same problem in testing. So they completely failed to take the most basic precaution, which is to make sure they had a safety net. And in the circumstances to do anything other than race down the pitlane would have been dangerous.
Arguably, by all of their own admissions, even the chicane would have been questionable because they were asking for a chicane at the same time that they said they couldn’t find the root cause of the problem.
If they didn’t know what was a problem, how did they know that the chicane would be safe? Also, one of the failures was in turn five, and that is another high-speed corner. One of the two Toyota failures was in turn five, we could have had other failures in turn five and they themselves admitted that this was a possibility. So on every count, what they have done is completely extraordinary and it really does require explanation. And for them to sit there and say ‘for reasons of safety we told the drivers not to race’ completely begs the question that avoids the whole discussion, which is why did they turn up there with no proper tyres?
The whole purpose of the regulation that allows two different tyres is to give you the possibility of having a safety-net tyre, which is inevitably going to be slower, but that is the sacrifice you make. They didn’t do it, and they have done enormous damage to Formula One.
Q: How encouraged are you by the statement made by Michelin overnight, in which they have offered compensation to the fans?
MM: It is a big step forward and it is something we have been strongly urging them to do for more than a week. We put out a statement on Wednesday saying that Michelin should compensate the fans and that the fans should get free tickets next year, and they have gone some way towards doing that. By delaying as long as they have they have done damage. It was one of those situations where we needed a reaction within two days, not ten days.
Q: Max, your decision to defer any penalty, would it be fair to say that you have given into the teams in respect to them possibly not running in this weekend’s Magny Cours race?
MM: No, there was never any question of them not running. There was one eccentric gentleman who mentioned that, but no serious team would have considered that, that was never an issue, and they certainly would not have done that after what happened at Indianapolis. It would simply be cutting off the nose to spite the face. That was never a question.
What came out very clearly today was that the teams were saying ‘we did all we could, we wanted to be there racing but Michelin told us that unless there was a chicane, we could not race’. Well, that was, of course, very annoying from our point of view, because it wasn’t an option. The pitlane wouldn’t be ideal, but at least it was a safe option. So, the teams had strong mitigating circumstances because they didn’t play any part in this failure to bring the right tyres and they obviously didn’t know that this was going to happen. On the other hand, they are the ones who are answerable to us, we can say to them ‘it is up to you to turn up with the right equipment, you should make the necessary arrangements with your suppliers’. Today it’s tyres, tomorrow it might be spark plugs or anything else.
Q: What does this do to the image of Formula One? You say it has damaged it, but can you expand on that?
MM: I am not an expert on these things, but I think it is fairly evident that what happened in Indianapolis did great damage to Formula One worldwide but particularly in the United States, and that needs to be put right. Because the sooner people start to behave properly, for example to refund the tickets and to offer free tickets next year, the better the situation becomes. I think we won’t know for another two or three months really what damage has been done.
Q: You mentioned you have no contractual relationship with Michelin, so no ability to do anything to them. So would your only option be to file a suit against them, and if so would that be in the United States, in Indianapolis?
How would you go about it?
MM: We can’t impose a penalty on Michelin because they have no more relationship with us than any other team supplier, we just don’t have any power over them in that sense. We are able to indirectly put pressure on them through their teams and this is one of the things we are doing at the moment.
Q: You said they didn’t know what was wrong with the tyres and so the chicane could not be a good idea, but a speed restriction is the same, you don’t know what is the solution.
MM: Absolutely, you can argue that. Michelin was saying a chicane was acceptable. If a chicane was acceptable, then logic dictates that a speed restriction was acceptable, but the teams had a defence to that because nobody said what it was, where it was, which part of the track precisely and how you separate the fast cars and the slower cars, so that is why they were acquitted on that point. As far as running in the pitlane is concerned, whatever the risks of the chicane they would have been much smaller using the pitlane, but obviously it would demonstrate each lap that the teams were uncompetitive. There were two fundamental problems with the chicane, to be clear. One was that the circuit would not have been properly inspected, homologated, probably the insurance would have been invalid and there may have been safety issues. So that was point one. That alone would be enough.
Point two was that, from a sporting point of view, it was completely unfair, because what we would be doing is changing the whole nature of the circuit to suit a group of competitors who had the wrong equipment to the detriment of a group of competitors who had the right equipment. You cannot do that if you are trying to run a sport, and to illustrate that, you just have to think. What would have happened if it had been the other way around and Ferrari or one of the other Bridgestone teams had gone to Charlie Whiting and said ‘ you need to install a chicane because our tyres won’t work around the banking’? It wouldn’t have even been listened to. If it is true for one group, it has to be true for the others. We have to try to maintain a level playing field.
Q: The World Motor Sport Council is not going to make a decision for another two-and-a-half months or so. I just wanted to know why that period was chosen? Is it a cooling-off period, or is there more evidence to be heard?
MM: It is several things. The first is that the number one priority, from our point of view, from the moment the race took on the form it did, was to secure compensation for the fans in the States and, if we can, somehow, to make it up to the people watching on television, but the main people were the people who bought tickets. So that was our number one priority and that is what we have been trying to do, trying to get that sorted out. Apart from that, there is the whole question of how this is allowed to continue in the United States and it is very important that Formula One should maintain its position and not lose a Grand Prix in the United States. That is very much in the hands of the teams and, in particular, their tyre company. That means, in turn, that if we give them a bit of time, we will know in September what has been done and what hasn’t been done. If a great deal has been done, the World Council will undoubtedly take a very lenient view. If, on the other hand, nothing has been done, it could be very different. But it did seem fairly reasonable to give everyone the time to sort the problem out.
Q: The financial damage is all about commercial deals and the Federation is not part of the commercial deals. Can you explain the way you will control the way they will repay?
MM: We won’t be involved in the commercial side of it. We are not saying exact sums, how it has to be done, we are saying it has to be sorted out, come back in September, tell us what you have done, then we will consider the penalty in the light of that. It seemed to be the most rational way of approaching it.
Q: Max, when you define what you will do, could it be taking off points, because it would make the whole championship very strange, or would it be a money fine? If it goes into the points it could have a different affect on the championship.
MM: I cannot speak for the World Council, always remember it is not me, it is 26 people including me. But, personally speaking, I would be very reluctant to do anything with points unless what the person had done affected their sporting performance. It doesn’t seem to be this would be a case where it would be be appropriate to deduct points and come to that, not an appropriate case for banning people from a race. On the other hand, we do have the ability to impose a fine and, as far as I know but I have to check this legally, we can do what we wish with the money. So, ultimately, we could impose a series of enormous fines and use that money as best we could to compensate people. But this is really not the business of the FIA, our business is to run the sport, so what we have said is, if you sort all this out we will take a lenient view, if you don’t sort it out we may not take a lenient view.
Q: Apologies if I have misunderstood the suspended ban hanging over BAR, but this is a clear ‘guilty of wrongfully refusing their cars to start the race’ so, aside from what they do to make up the image, does that trigger their suspended ban?
MM: We considered that question carefully and we invited their counsel l representative to make submissions on that point and the view of the World Council was that the two things were so different it would not be fair to impose the ban that was suspended. We really would only impose that ban if there was a repetition of an offence similar to the one for which the ban was imposed, and this seems to be quite different.
Q: You are not able to regulate Michelin, but we have spoken a lot about them and they might feel that they are being made scapegoats.
MM: They are not the scapegoats. They are responsible. They admitted themselves that they are responsible. They have not denied that they turned up at Indianapolis with the wrong tyres and because they got the wrong tyres their teams could not race on the circuit they had agreed to race on, and to try to describe them as a scapegoat would completely go against the English language, it is simply not true. They were responsible for what happened and the teams technically share the responsibility in that it is up to them to get the right equipment and to have the right contracts with their suppliers, which arguably they failed to do. But this is a completely new element in Formula One, we have never had anything like this before, and as you noticed the second part of the thing that is outstanding until September is what they intend to do to make sure it never happens again, and the sort of thing you could imagine is that they have clear terms in their contracts, for example with a tyre company, requiring that company to bring a tyre that would be safe in all circumstances, even if it is not quick.
Q: Given that Michelin will compensate fans who were there and they are buying 20,000 tickets for next year, what do you expect the teams to do by way of compensation?
MM: What we are really hoping the Michelin teams will do is make sure that what the Michelin tyre company has suggested they do is actually done, and also the teams, everyone, will be looking to Michelin for indemnities against any actions that are brought in the United States.
Q: So, if any action is taken, that Michelin should deal with it, rather than the teams?
MM: That would be our position. Michelin or the teams. The trouble is we can only talk to the teams, we cannot really talk to Michelin, but the teams in turn can talk to Michelin. It is up to them to get it sorted out.
Q: From your view, do you think the World Council will decide from next year or the year after that, rather than 2008, that there will be only one tyre manufacturer in Formula One?
MM: This is conceivable, but that would not be the World Council, it would be a decision taken on grounds of safety, and as has become apparent, because we released the correspondence this morning, after Mr Michelin’s letter was released, we have asked Michelin for details of all the failures they have had in the last two years. This is because there is a suggestion from several Formula One engineers that there have been several other sidewall failures in the past. We do not know if that is true, we have to investigate, but if it turns out that this is not just a one-off problem and that it has happened on several occasions, and if it turns out that there have been failures of a similar kind during private testing, with tyres of this construction, then it may well be that the technical department might conclude these tyres are dangerous and they should not be allowed to run in Formula One. Now not to pre-judge that, that must be looked at very carefully and we would have to have independent experts because we don’t have experts on tyre technology, we would have to get someone independent to look at that on a neutral basis. But it would not be a decision in the first instance for the World Council.
Q: Max, just reading the verdict here, do you feel that a part of what should have happened today was a very clear verdict and statement of blame and punishment and what we have got is a mixture of the two and the American public, who like things in black and white, will look at this and say, well, nothing has happened today.
MM: I couldn’t agree that nothing has happened. We have agreed two things have to happen. It has to be sorted out with the fans and we have to have proposals to make sure it never happens again. That couldn’t be done today, not by any stretch, but it should be done by September. It would be unfair to impose a severe penalty today on the evidence that we had. On the other hand, if nothing happens, it would be entirely fair to impose a heavy penalty. As we didn’t have the information to decide on which of those two courses to take, the only thing to do was to postpone it to a future meeting. In the meantime we will have a great deal more technical knowledge and a great deal more information.
Flibster said:It's 19 drivers including the michelin 3rd drivers and the 2 minardi drivers...
So...
3 Mclaren
2 Renault
3 Red Bull
2 Williams
2 Minardi
3 Toyota
2 Sauber
2 BAR
19 Drivers...
How good am I to you guys - just been sent this from France...
The attached statement has been signed by the following drivers (in alphabetical order):
Christijan Albers
Fernando Alonso
Jenson Button
David Coulthard
Pedro de la Rosa
Giancarlo Fisichella
Patrick Friesacher
Nick Heidfeld
Christian Klien
Felipe Massa
Juan Pablo Montoya
Kimi Raikkonen
Takuma Sato
Ralf Schumacher
Jarno Trulli
Jacques Villeneuve
Mark Webber
Alexander Wurz
Ricardo Zonta
Introduction
1. We the undersigned drivers make this statement in order to assist the World Motor Sport Council in its consideration of the events at the Indianapolis Grand Prix on Sunday 19th June 2005.
2. We wish in particular to respond to the suggestion that we could have raced with a speed limit (which was never defined) somehow imposed through Turn 13 on cars with Michelin tyres, or that we should have raced but the cars with Michelin tyres should have slowed down voluntarily through this Turn.
3. This suggestion would have been an unprecedented restriction in an F1 race and would have been completely contrary to the competitive essence of Formula One or any motor race that we have ever participated in. It would have been unworkable, unpoliceable and above all, unsafe.
Safety
4. Not all cars would have been subject to the speed restriction. At least 6 cars would have been going through Turn 13 as fast as possible i.e. over 320 km per hour. The other cars - if they all complied - would have had to slow suddenly going into the Turn, travel at a much slower speed through the Turn and then accelerate back to racing speed.
5. This would have meant a huge speed differential between cars at the approach of Turn 13, during Turn 13 and exiting Turn 13. Having cars travelling at dramatically different speeds at the same point on the race track would have been completely chaotic and highly dangerous.
6. There is one good racing line through Turn 13. All of us would have tried to take that line. If a car subject to the restriction had to slow down approaching Turn 13 on the racing line, a car behind it not subject to the restriction would have had to take avoiding action and try to overtake on the Turn off the racing line. this would have put both drivers at considerable risk.
7. Given the competitive nature of a race, the speed restriction would have become a focal point for overtaking. For instance two cars both subject to the speed restriction racing each other going into or coming out of Turn 13 would inevitably have each tried to gain advantage by braking later or accelerating earlier. With other cars racing through the Turn at higher speeds this too would have been chaotic and very unsafe.
8. Given the nature of a race there would also have been a clear incentive for drivers to maintain speeds above the restricted speeds, particularly if they were close in the race. This would have risked damaging the Michelin tyres which would have created yet further risks.
Practicality
9. The Teams would have been unable to fit a speed limiter which would have operated (a)round Turn 13 in the time available. It would have been left to the Drivers to attempt to accomplish the speed restriction by themselves whilst still trying to race each other. Quite apart from the safety issues explained above, none of think that it would have been possible for a Driver to do this.
10. Unlike the pit lane (which has an obvious and clearly marked entrance and exit) there was no clear physical marker on the race track for where any speed limit should begin and end at Turn 13. In a pit lane, we race to and from well-defined lines, and we are aware precisely when to brake and when to accelerate so as to maintain race speed before and after the pit. In Turn 13, we would and could not have known when and where to break and when and where to accelerate to achieve the speed restriction through the Turn. Each Driver would have had to make a judgement which would have been different on each lap depending on what was happening in the race. It would have been quite impossible for any of us to know each time whether or not we had maintained the speed restriction.
11. We also believe it would have been impossible for the Stewards or anyone else to tell at Turn 13 precisely when any car had slowed, and whether it complied with the speed limit throughout the restricted areas.
12. For these reasons, we have no doubt that a speed restriction imposed at Turn 13 would have been impossible to comply with and impossible to police.
The day of the Grand Prix
13. On the morning of the Grand Prix, all of the Drivers attended a Drivers’ briefing with representatives from the Teams. We were told of the Michelin tyre problem. Even though we all wanted to race, we accepted that the Michelin Teams could not go against the safety advice from Michelin and take the risk of serious and potentially fatal accidents.
14. We were also told of the proposal for a chicane at Turn 13. Chicanes have been successfully introduced in races in the past. We believe that a chicane would have been a perfectly workable solution at Indianapolis. Accordingly none of us objected at the meeting.
15. Many of us were also consulted by our Teams about the FIA proposal for a speed restriction. Those who were consulted explained to their Teams that a speed restriction would not work because it would be dangerous and impractical (for the reasons set out above). The Teams in turn explained this to the FIA officials.
Conclusion
16. All of us wanted to have a proper race at Indianapolis, which is one of motor racing’s most sacred venues, and to showcase Formula One to the American public. We are extremely disappointed that we were unable to do this.
Signed, 23 June 2005
Christijan Albers, Fernando Alonso, Jenson Button, David Coulthard, Pedro de la Rosa, Giancarlo Fisichella, Patrick Friesacher, Nick Heidfeld, Christian Klien, Felipe Massa, Juan Pablo Montoya, Kimi Raikkonen, Takuma Sato, Ralf Schumacher, Jarno Trulli, Jacques Villeneuve, Mark Webber, Alexander Wurz and Ricardo Zonta.
Soldato
Thanks for keeping us up to date Flibster.
