Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cavallino

Teams Guilty On 2 Counts But

Recommended Posts


For all those who think the FIA wants to kill the sport, isnt this the best decision you could have hoped for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm... this is actually not a good thing..

4 Sep Italy Monza

11 Sep Belgium Spa-Francorchamps

25 Sep Brazil Interlagos

9 Oct Japan Suzuka

16 Oct China Shanghai

I'd rather they'd said "No Penalties before November" to ensure that the racing season was allowed to finish without interruption.

Oh well, at least we're likely to have a french GP.

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its september 14, and if they hand it out then you can be reasonably sure it wont affect the remaining races of this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm... this is actually not a good thing..

4 Sep          Italy          Monza

11 Sep        Belgium      Spa-Francorchamps

25 Sep        Brazil          Interlagos

9 Oct          Japan          Suzuka

16 Oct        China          Shanghai

I'd rather they'd said "No Penalties before November" to ensure that the racing season was allowed to finish without interruption. 

Oh well, at least we're likely to have a french GP.

T

Its like a suspended sentence.

Even though I was baying for blood, this is the best outcome for F1 that could have been reasonably expected.

Lets go racing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all those who think the FIA wants to kill the sport, isnt this the best decision you could have hoped for?

Maybe , but all they are doing now is to wait and see how the championship will be and if they see that Mclaren or Renault is walking away with it then suddenly they might get a race ban just to let the other teams keep up. I must be honest I don't see why the teams should be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll on French GP. I was expecting bad news today ... at least it's postponed to September B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm? im now very suss about what exactly is going to happen. I see Ferrari winning the WCC now..... something is going to happen anyway, something stupid, in a sport of silly little games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a stupid ruling. They can decide whatever and deduct the points they wish - therefore making the next 7 races could be farces.

Another nail in the coffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds too reasonable to be true right, you expected something bad from mad max

from grandprix.com

World Council decision

The seven teams are guilty of failing to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the United States Grand Prix but with strong mitigating circumstances.

They where guilty of wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race having regard to their right to use the pitlane on each lap. They where 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. They where not guilty of failing to inform the stewards of their intention not to start for the same reason.

The World Motorsport Council has decided to adjourn discussion of any penalty until an extraordinary meeting of the WMSC on Sept 14th. The WMSC will also examine what steps have been taken by the seven Michelin teams and their supplier to compensate the Formula 1 fans and repair the damage to the reputation of the Indianapolis Motor Sped at and the image of Formula 1; what steps have been taken by the Michelin teams to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Very very surprising, I think they are pretty safe now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm... this is actually not a good thing..

4 Sep          Italy          Monza

11 Sep        Belgium      Spa-Francorchamps

25 Sep        Brazil          Interlagos

9 Oct          Japan          Suzuka

16 Oct        China          Shanghai

I'd rather they'd said "No Penalties before November" to ensure that the racing season was allowed to finish without interruption. 

Oh well, at least we're likely to have a french GP.

T

well i'm hoping to attend spa, so at least the bar will definitely be fronting up at that race. with any luck max won't be present at this special council on sept 14. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm? im now very suss about what exactly is going to happen. I see Ferrari winning the WCC now..... something is going to happen anyway, something stupid, in a sport of silly little games.

yes, very fishy indeed. especially considering that grandprix.com were reporting on rumours outside that there was going to be a big announcement. i suspect that max was reigned in, and this is some sort of concession that will ensure there's no funny games for awhile. then what happens on sept 14 is anybody's guess. why couldn't they televise the hearing!? we need transparency!

i look forward to further reports emerging, and will sleep well in the knowledge that for now bar are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a stupid ruling. They can decide whatever and deduct the points they wish - therefore making the next 7 races could be farces.
go read some news please, eg

(BBC SPORT)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport...one/4631523.stm

He hinted that the teams would face financial penalties rather than points deductions or race bans.

"I cannot speak for the world council, but personally speaking I would be very reluctant to do anything with points unless what the person had done affected their sporting performance," Mosley said.

"It would not be appropriate to deduct points or ban people from a race. We do have the ability to impose a fine and can do what we want with the money.

all indications are that the penalties will be minor, and if michelin compensates fans, and nothing like this happens again, they may be negligible.

They have been found NOT guilty on the major counts including for not racing at reduced speed. and guilty on 2, with one with 'strong mitigating circumstances'

This is good for the sport, though michelin get away with it.

Stoddy was not allowed in :lol::lol::lol:

Lets get on with the racing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all indications are that the penalties will be minor, and if michelin compensates fans, and nothing like this happens again, they may be negligible.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure if tis is good or bad. What I can see is that if any teams or anything goes wrong before this sept date, then the FIA will be ready to pounce. And whos to say the penalty in september wont be points deductions, to hand over to ferrari the WCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all the news thanks and waited for it to come through so don't tell me to go read some news and my view is my view - it is bad for the sport to drag it out and the point is that they CAN deduct points at the end if they wish - ie there is nothing to stop them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read all the news thanks and waited for it to come through so don't tell me to go read some news and my view is my view - it is bad for the sport to drag it out and the point is that they CAN deduct points at the end if they wish - ie there is nothing to stop them.

I know, this is why i feel the punishment should have happened now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FIA says that in the World Council two of the members stood down during the events related to Indianapolis. Jean Todt of Ferrari and Nazir Hoosein, the Indian who represents China on the World Council, because he had been one of the FIA Stewards at Indianapolis.

There we go, folks. Another example of how Ferrari and the FIA are corrupt, and are determined to screw all non-Ferrari teams. Blatant abuse of the position of F1 manufacturer's association rep on the council to punish the Michelin 7.

Sorry, I had to do that after the ranting and raving of certain individuals on this board when they discovered that Jean Todt sat on the WMSC for F1 affairs, and automatically made the assumption that he was going to try to abuse his position.

Actually, this sounds like it was a meeting in which people tried their best to do what was fair.. This September decision is odd, and I wish they'd just fined people now, but I suspect this is basically over.

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team response:

BAR-Honda, BMW Williams, Renault F1, Sauber Petronas, Team McLaren Mercedes and Toyota Motorsport GmbH - but not Red Bull Racing - have reacted to the announcement from the FIA World Council.

The teams say that they 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 finding that they failed to ensure that they were in possession of suitable tyres," the teams said in a statement, "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.

"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 10 Formula 1 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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Submissions on behalf of 6 Formula One 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

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read all the news thanks and waited for it to come through so don't tell me to go read some news and my view is my view - it is bad for the sport to drag it out and the point is that they CAN deduct points at the end if they wish - ie there is nothing to stop them.
They can decide what they want anytime, they could have banned BAR for the season, the point is there are full indications this will not happen.

a rant not just against you but all the FIA critics and people who club FIA and Ferrari together and have been predicting that this verdict will gift ferrari the championship.

[rant]

seriously what did you expect today, that they will come out and say that it was all the FIA's fault and Ferrari will be removed from the championship?

This is the best possible ruling that anyone could have expected. it means

1) this season will go ahead as normal and absolutely no sanctions will be imposed on any of the teams

2) if michelin pay up and obviously a repeat of indy does not happen there is a strong possibility absolutely nothing will happen.

3) NOTHING happens to BAR, they are very lucky there IMO.

4) No points or race bans will happen. Anyone who keeps saying that is stupid, what do you think the FIA will do, ban all teams for the last few races or the first few of next year?

It is unfortunate that michelin will get away with it, but as the FIA said it was not possible to impose direct sanctions on them.

5) Nothing that happened today was biased towards ferrari in anyway. yes that point needs to be made.

6) The teams were found NOT guilty for ALL the major counts, do you think it is remotely possible for them to impose severe penalties for these offences?

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.

Why should the FIA make the suggestions - it was down to you - the teams to come up with a fair solution - we could not think of anything else apart from the chicane is not good enough. The goalposts will not be moved even if it makes it more exciting for the fans in some way. You had every bloody option under the sun, change tyres, drive slower, go through the pitlane.

it is not a matter of dragging the verdict, in effect the WMC has come out and said that if the teams and Michelin make a genuine effort to right the wrongs, matters may be laid to rest. What could be a fairer verdict?

Aren't max mosley's comments the fairest ones he's made in a long time? Can't you see this is the only possible status quo, unless you want the sport to cease existence?

Whats the problem with michelin tyres being expected, if they are going to work fine what is the problem?

Didn't mosley say its unfair to impose penalties before the teams have had time to set things right? Isn't that the most sensible thing he has ever said? What more could you possibly ask for revolutions do not happen overnight.

[/rant]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...