US GP - Letter from the FIA to Teams
Discussion
Sent to Michelin and Michelin runners in the US GP.
>> Edited by danhay on Tuesday 21st June 23:04
FIA said:Source is another car website, but it sounds genuine and is the sort of response I would have expected.
Dear Sir,
Article 151c of the International Sporting Code
You are hereby requested to appear at the forthcoming meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council which is to be held in Paris on 29 June 2005 (FIA – 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris, meeting room “Salle du Comite” at 09:30 hrs to answer charges that, in breach of the above, you 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 all 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.
And that you failed to notify the stewards of your intention not to race in breach of article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
A full dossier will be sent to you within 48 hours
At this hearing you may assisted by the council of your choice .
Should you wish to send us any comments in writing before this meeting we will make sure that they are circulated to the members of the World Motor Sport Council.
Yours faithfully
FIA
21-06-05
>> Edited by danhay on Tuesday 21st June 23:04
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter dated 21/06/05.
Unfortunately, neither myself, nor any other representative from my team (or any other Michelin team) will be able to attend your meeting as we all have far more important things to be doing such as finding out what caused the DANGEROUS FAILURES OF TYRES before the next race in order to avoid a repeat situation.
Therefore, may I suggest that you hold the meeting on your own and thrash out your own decisions / rules as per normal without the need for other opinions.
If you would prefer, we could turn up for tea and biscuits at the beginning, then leave just before item one on the agenda is discussed.
Yours faithfully,
A Michelin supplied team.
Thank you for your letter dated 21/06/05.
Unfortunately, neither myself, nor any other representative from my team (or any other Michelin team) will be able to attend your meeting as we all have far more important things to be doing such as finding out what caused the DANGEROUS FAILURES OF TYRES before the next race in order to avoid a repeat situation.
Therefore, may I suggest that you hold the meeting on your own and thrash out your own decisions / rules as per normal without the need for other opinions.
If you would prefer, we could turn up for tea and biscuits at the beginning, then leave just before item one on the agenda is discussed.
Yours faithfully,
A Michelin supplied team.
Good point flemke.
The potentially interesting twist would be if every manufacturer withdrew from next season and got their deposit back, then placed an entry in Champ cars. In three years they could have a sponsor and fan friendly championship that went to the same parts of the world as F1 of the 80s, i.e. North America, South America, Japan and Europe. And it isn't impossible either.....
The potentially interesting twist would be if every manufacturer withdrew from next season and got their deposit back, then placed an entry in Champ cars. In three years they could have a sponsor and fan friendly championship that went to the same parts of the world as F1 of the 80s, i.e. North America, South America, Japan and Europe. And it isn't impossible either.....
Agree entirely with above thoughts. Rather than accepting the farce and trying to move on for 'damage limitation' purposes, they instead deem it worthwhile to continue with their barrage of charges.
Quite what they hope to achieve with this, no matter what the outcome, I do not know.
A break away series seems now more likely than ever. Perhaps this is a good thing?
Quite what they hope to achieve with this, no matter what the outcome, I do not know.
A break away series seems now more likely than ever. Perhaps this is a good thing?
Assuming that the majority of F1 teams decide to set up their own GPWC series, realistically how quickly could they do it?
Presumably they are contracted to stay in the current F1 series for the near future and will have to accept any sanctions imposed by the FIA. Without seeing the Concorde agreement it is impossible to know what the teams have agreed to but I suspect that the contracts will include a clause whereby the teams agree to abide by the FIA rules and to accept the sanctions imposed subject to any agreed appeals process.
But what happens if they do decide that enough is enough. How quickly could they set up a rival series? Can they find sufficent suitable circuits upon which to race? Can they negotiate airtime agreements with all of the global television companies? And most importantly, how will their sponsors react?
Presumably they are contracted to stay in the current F1 series for the near future and will have to accept any sanctions imposed by the FIA. Without seeing the Concorde agreement it is impossible to know what the teams have agreed to but I suspect that the contracts will include a clause whereby the teams agree to abide by the FIA rules and to accept the sanctions imposed subject to any agreed appeals process.
But what happens if they do decide that enough is enough. How quickly could they set up a rival series? Can they find sufficent suitable circuits upon which to race? Can they negotiate airtime agreements with all of the global television companies? And most importantly, how will their sponsors react?
Lovely. It seems quite clear from the long discussions on here, in every bar, and by every watercooler in the western world that its the activites of the FIA that have brought the sport into disrepute...
I can see why Max would want to use the situation as a stick to beat the break-away teams, but it seems so likely to precipitate polarisation of F1 that it can hardly be worth the risk.
If GP racing goes the way of top-line single seater racing in the US it'll be a great shame.
SS7
I can see why Max would want to use the situation as a stick to beat the break-away teams, but it seems so likely to precipitate polarisation of F1 that it can hardly be worth the risk.
If GP racing goes the way of top-line single seater racing in the US it'll be a great shame.
SS7
david_s said:They floated the idea of the GPWC three years ago and have been working fairly assiduously on it for the last year. The Concorde Agreement expires before the start of the '08 season.
Assuming that the majority of F1 teams decide to set up their own GPWC series, realistically how quickly could they do it?
Presumably they are contracted to stay in the current F1 series for the near future and will have to accept any sanctions imposed by the FIA. Without seeing the Concorde agreement it is impossible to know what the teams have agreed to but I suspect that the contracts will include a clause whereby the teams agree to abide by the FIA rules and to accept the sanctions imposed subject to any agreed appeals process.
But what happens if they do decide that enough is enough. How quickly could they set up a rival series? Can they find sufficent suitable circuits upon which to race? Can they negotiate airtime agreements with all of the global television companies? And most importantly, how will their sponsors react?
Bernie has contracts with all the current GP circuits. Some of those contracts, however, are said to be non-exclusive for the circuits. There are of course numerous other circuits that would be available.
Then there is the question of to what extent Bernie is obliged to operate in conjunction with the FIA. Being the ultimate pragmatist, he quite possibly could break away from the FIA himself, unless he is barred by contract from doing so. If there were such a barrier, it likely would be to an extant company (Formula One Marketing, or whatever) and not to a potential company operated by BE.
It is interesting to speculate on how much of a claim to damages the FIA could ever make. The FIA isn't exactly the United Nations or the World Court; it's just a collection of national auto clubs. Also, it has no particular commercial value, insofar as it (allegedly) provides a public service. If anyone were guilty of harming the FIA (for example, by having replaced some of its functions via a rival organisation), what would the economic loss be?
If the teams that pulled out of the US GP get a fine and dressing down at the meeting the best thing they could do is simply withdraw from the French GP...
The FIA would be under immense pressure to change its thinking and Bernie would suddenly start to sweat as he couldn't magically produce 14 cars to promote a proper race.
If the manufacturers and people like Ron Dennis and Frank Williams all stick together F1 might just come out of this with more equal balance of power, rather than the shambles it currently is.
The FIA would be under immense pressure to change its thinking and Bernie would suddenly start to sweat as he couldn't magically produce 14 cars to promote a proper race.
If the manufacturers and people like Ron Dennis and Frank Williams all stick together F1 might just come out of this with more equal balance of power, rather than the shambles it currently is.
racefan_uk said:I cannot believe that the teams' sponsors would ever accept that. The nonsense at Indy could not have been expected; the Michelin teams' action was commercially acceptable. A pre-arranged strike to make a point (however satisfying that might be to genuine race fans) would be another matter entirely to the sponsors.
If the teams that pulled out of the US GP get a fine and dressing down at the meeting the best thing they could do is simply withdraw from the French GP...
The FIA would be under immense pressure to change its thinking and Bernie would suddenly start to sweat as he couldn't magically produce 14 cars to promote a proper race.
If the manufacturers and people like Ron Dennis and Frank Williams all stick together F1 might just come out of this with more equal balance of power, rather than the shambles it currently is.
This is especially true now the tobacco sponsorships have just ended and many of the teams are scrambling around to secure permanent replacement funding.
Sponsorship, of course, is a huge huge part of Formula One, and the needs of the sponsors must not be forgotten in all of this (by the teams, needless to say, not by us!).
If sponsors are confronted with periods of uncertainty and times of doubt in the exposure of their names or products, it could add a whole new twist to this newly created problem.
If sponsors are confronted with periods of uncertainty and times of doubt in the exposure of their names or products, it could add a whole new twist to this newly created problem.
david s,
I don't think that we're disagreeing here.
I wsa trying to say that I was not sure that the FIA itself is in a position to claim economic damages, because, being an NGO, it has little current or potential economic value that could be damaged. The concept of "bringing the sport into disrepute" is just typical Mosleyite posturing. The sport belongs to no one, and therefore no one is in a position to claim economic damages even if a court were convinced that the teams - as opposed to Little Oswald - had brought it into disrepute.
I was also raising the question of whether BE is precluded from cutting a deal with the teams for a new, non-FIA series.
I accept that the GPWC may have been conceived as a bluff. At this point, however, it does appear that at least some of the manufacturers are considering it seriously. Bernie, Max and Ferrari may well have blundered when they agreed their "masterstroke" - the secret new Concorde Agreement. It obviously galvanised the manufacturers, and even brought Honda and Toyota closer to the fold.
Max Mosley appears to fancy himself as something of an aristocrat. To my knowledge he has had little if any experience in the real world of work. He seems to have this idea that the "suits" at major corporations come and go like just like the serfs who labour on the manor, and that he is both cleverer than they and in a position to out-wait them - after all, would that not be the natural order of things? Mosley has asserted many times that the manufacturers do not have the staying power to make a permanent commitment to motorsport - this is his salient argument for why the GPWC would never work.
This argument contains threads of truth but fails to understand the determination of some guys who are at least as smart as he is, and who are not accustomed to being bullied, to prove their point.
I wouldn't dare to speculate on how this will turn out. It is plain to see that Mosley is increasingly out of touch.
I don't think that we're disagreeing here.
I wsa trying to say that I was not sure that the FIA itself is in a position to claim economic damages, because, being an NGO, it has little current or potential economic value that could be damaged. The concept of "bringing the sport into disrepute" is just typical Mosleyite posturing. The sport belongs to no one, and therefore no one is in a position to claim economic damages even if a court were convinced that the teams - as opposed to Little Oswald - had brought it into disrepute.
I was also raising the question of whether BE is precluded from cutting a deal with the teams for a new, non-FIA series.
I accept that the GPWC may have been conceived as a bluff. At this point, however, it does appear that at least some of the manufacturers are considering it seriously. Bernie, Max and Ferrari may well have blundered when they agreed their "masterstroke" - the secret new Concorde Agreement. It obviously galvanised the manufacturers, and even brought Honda and Toyota closer to the fold.
Max Mosley appears to fancy himself as something of an aristocrat. To my knowledge he has had little if any experience in the real world of work. He seems to have this idea that the "suits" at major corporations come and go like just like the serfs who labour on the manor, and that he is both cleverer than they and in a position to out-wait them - after all, would that not be the natural order of things? Mosley has asserted many times that the manufacturers do not have the staying power to make a permanent commitment to motorsport - this is his salient argument for why the GPWC would never work.
This argument contains threads of truth but fails to understand the determination of some guys who are at least as smart as he is, and who are not accustomed to being bullied, to prove their point.
I wouldn't dare to speculate on how this will turn out. It is plain to see that Mosley is increasingly out of touch.
Flemke talks a lot of sense - especially when he steers clear of any talk of Ferrari ;-)
If the teams boycott GPs they will be open to litigation by the promoter. I can't remember the article now in the Concorde Agreement, but it's there.
Bernie ahs been working hard to steer the GPWC into the arms of the Kirch bankers and it was commonly thought that Max was helping him out too.
Now it would appear that Max's dislike of manufacturers and two team principals is not only clouding his (the FIA's) judgement, but also damaging Bernie's carefully laid plans.
There is nothing to stop Bernie siding with GPWC now, especially since he does have most of the key circuits signed up...albeit to "Formula 1"....not "GPWC"....
Or is this all part of a grand plan to push F1 to the front of everyone's minds - viewing figures went through the roof didn't they?...an Indian scored points and a team owned by an increasingly disinterested Russian got their man on the podium....and Max is advocating a single tyre for 2008....rather handy if Bridgestone were thinking about throwing the towel in....
If the teams boycott GPs they will be open to litigation by the promoter. I can't remember the article now in the Concorde Agreement, but it's there.
Bernie ahs been working hard to steer the GPWC into the arms of the Kirch bankers and it was commonly thought that Max was helping him out too.
Now it would appear that Max's dislike of manufacturers and two team principals is not only clouding his (the FIA's) judgement, but also damaging Bernie's carefully laid plans.
There is nothing to stop Bernie siding with GPWC now, especially since he does have most of the key circuits signed up...albeit to "Formula 1"....not "GPWC"....
Or is this all part of a grand plan to push F1 to the front of everyone's minds - viewing figures went through the roof didn't they?...an Indian scored points and a team owned by an increasingly disinterested Russian got their man on the podium....and Max is advocating a single tyre for 2008....rather handy if Bridgestone were thinking about throwing the towel in....
Just read on GP.com the teams could use these as examples against any claims by the FIA.
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Wednesday 22 June 16:38
GP.com said:
A couple of things to consider
The last few days have seen considerable argument being thrown around about what was right and what was wrong in Indianapolis. It is worth considering a couple of precedents which will no doubt feature in the discussions in the next week.
In 1994, for example, in the turmoil that followed the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna, immediate rules changes were introduced on the grounds of safety. Max Mosley has since explained that this was done by threatening to cancel the World Championship. There were several accidents when the modified cars were tested, notably when Pedro Lamy suffered serious injuries when the rear wing of his car collapsed when he was testing at Silverstone. Ligier reported two rear wing failures in testing at Lurcy-Levis. the FIA argued that if cars were build properly they would not fail. However, in Barcelona the World Championship leaders Mild Seven Benetton announced that it could not guarantee the safety of its cars. The FIA responded by saying that in that situation the team could not be allowed to race.
There followed a series of meetings before a solution was found.
"Some say Mosley has been forced to back down and that the FIA has been driven out of F1," we wrote at the time. "Others say he has won. The reality is simple. Formula 1 has won. The Saturday papers will say "F1 Peace Pact" rather than "F1 at War". An achievement in crisis management. Everyone seems happy. Everyone thinks he has won."
A tyre chicane was built at the back of the circuit.
The second precedent which will no doubt be mentioned was in Brazil in 2003 when it emerged that neither Bridgestone nor Michelin had suitable tyres for the conditions at Interlagos. At the time the FIA had ruled that tyre manufacturers could only take one type of wet tyre to a race. Both tyre companies decided to take only intermediate tyres to Brazil. When it rained heavily before the race, the tyres were not suitable for the conditions and the race was delayed until the rain eased a little and was then started behind a Safety Car. This was the sensible thing to do and no-one complained.
"Given the wet weather conditions commonly experienced in Brazil, it is perhaps surprising that the teams decided to bring intermediate, rather than wet weather tyres," an FIA statement said at the time, but no action was taken.
What is not clear is why this situation is any different from what happened at Indianapolis when unsuitable tyres created a problem which required a flexible solution. In the case of Brazil there were regulations to cover the time and the Safety Car start but in Indianapolis there were no regulations to cover Michelin's problem.
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Wednesday 22 June 16:38
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff