Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Stoddart's official USGP comment....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953

    Stoddart's official USGP comment....

    Taken fro f1.racing-live.com

    [22/06/05 - 13:17]

    Paul Stoddart comments on the US Grand Prix
    A personal account of US Grand Prix events



    Photo F1-Live.com
    Paul Stoddart faces the media at Indianapolis
    What follows is a press release from the MinardiF1 team giving the views of Paul Stoddart.

    "Much has been said about the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, in Indianapolis, and I feel that in the interests of transparency, it would be worthwhile for someone who was actually present, and participated in the discussions leading up to the start of the Grand Prix, to provide a truthful account of what took place, both for the 100,000-plus fans who were present, and for the hundreds of millions of people watching on television around the world.

    While this is a genuine attempt to provide a factual timeline of the relevant events that took place, should any minor detail or sequence be disputed, it will not, in my opinion, affect in any way this account of events that led up to arguably the most damaging spectacle in the recent history of Formula One.

    Background

    For those who have not followed the recent political developments in Formula One, it is fair to say that, for over a year now, the majority of teams have felt at odds with the actions of the FIA and its President, Max Mosley, concerning the regulations, and the way in which those regulations have been introduced, or are proposed to be introduced. Not a weekend has gone by where some, or all, of the teams are not discussing or disputing these regulations. This is so much the case that it is common knowledge the manufacturers have proposed their own series commencing January 1, 2008, and this is supported by at least two of the independent teams. The general perception is that, in many instances, these issues have become personal, and it is my opinion that was a serious contributory factor to the failure to find a solution that would have allowed all 20 cars to compete in Sunday’s United States Grand Prix.

    The Facts

    Friday, June 17
    I noticed that Ricardo Zonta’s Toyota had stopped, but in all honesty, did not pay any attention to the reasons why; however, I actually witnessed Ralf Schumacher’s accident, both on the monitors, and more significantly, I could see what took place from my position on the pit wall. This necessitated a red flag, and in the numerous replays on the monitors, it looked very much like the cause of the accident was a punctured rear tyre.

    Throughout the afternoon, numerous people in the paddock suggested it was a tyre failure and commented that it was similar to the serious accident which befell Ralf Schumacher during the 2004 US Grand Prix. Later that evening was the first time I was aware of a potential problem with the Michelin tyres at this event. In all honesty, I didn’t pay a great deal of attention, as our team is on Bridgestone tyres.

    Saturday, June 18
    On arriving at the circuit, the word throughout the paddock was that there was a potential problem with the rear tyres supplied to all Michelin teams for this event, and it became evident as the first and second sessions were run that most of the affected teams were being very conservative with the amount of on-track running they were doing. In addition, Toyota announced that it had substituted Ricardo Zonta for Ralf Schumacher, who would take no further part in the event. Speculation was rife in the paddock that some Michelin teams might not take part in qualifying. Also, during the practice session, I was informed there would be a Team Principals’ meeting with Bernie Ecclestone at 1430 hrs after qualifying, which I incorrectly assumed would centre around the Michelin issue.

    Qualifying took place, and indeed, all 20 cars qualified for Sunday’s Grand Prix.

    At approximately 1420 hrs, I attended Bernie’s office, and with representatives present from all other teams, including Ferrari, the meeting commenced. Surprisingly, the main topic of conversation was the number of events and calendar for 2006, followed by a suggestion that a meeting be convened at the next Grand Prix to discuss two issues only – firstly, a proposal for a single-tyre supplier in Formula One, and secondly, whether or not it would be desirable to qualify with or without a race fuel load in 2006. Only at the very end of the meeting did the Michelin tyre issue arise, and in fairness, it was not discussed in any great detail. I personally found this strange, but as I have stated, it did not affect Minardi directly, and therefore I had no reason to pursue the matter.

    Throughout Saturday evening, there was considerable speculation in the paddock that the tyre issue was much more serious than at first thought, and people were talking about a fresh shipment of tyres being flown overnight from France, and what penalty the Michelin teams would take should those tyres be used. By the time I left the paddock, people were taking bets on Minardi and Jordan scoring points!

    Later that evening, I checked with our Sporting Director on what developments had occurred, and was told that the issue was indeed very serious, and the possibility existed that the Michelin teams would not take part in the race.

    Sunday, June 19
    I arrived at the circuit at 0815 hrs, only to find the paddock was buzzing with stories suggesting the Michelin teams would be unable to take part in the Grand Prix. I was then handed a copy of correspondence between Michelin, the FIA, and the Michelin teams that revealed the true extent of the problem. By now, journalists were asking if Minardi would agree to a variation of the regulations to allow the Michelin teams to compete, and what penalties I felt would be appropriate.

    A planned Minardi press briefing took place at 0930 hrs, and as it was ending, I was summoned to an urgent meeting, along with Jordan, with Bernie Ecclestone, the two most senior Michelin representatives present at the circuit, IMS President Tony George, Team Principals, and technical representatives from the Michelin teams. At this meeting, Michelin, to its credit, admitted that the tyres available were unable to complete a race distance around the Indianapolis circuit without a change to the track configuration, so as to reduce the speed coming out of the last turn onto the banking. Much background information was provided as to the enormous efforts that Michelin, with support from its teams, had undertaken in the preceding 48 hours to try and resolve the problem, but it was clear that all those efforts had failed to produce a suitable solution that wouldn’t involve support from the non-Michelin teams, and ultimately, the FIA.

    What was requested of the Bridgestone teams was to allow a chicane to be constructed at Turn 13, which would then allow Michelin to advise their teams that, in their opinion, the tyres would be able to complete the race distance. It was made very clear that this was the only viable option available, as previous suggestions from the FIA, such as speed-limiting the Michelin cars through Turn 13, could, and probably would, give rise to a monumental accident. This idea, as well as one concerning the possibility of pit stops every 10 laps, were dismissed, and discussion returned to the only sensible solution – a chicane. During this discussion, a technical representative with specific knowledge of the Indianapolis circuit, together with representatives from IMS, were tasked with preparing the design of a chicane, and Bernie Ecclestone agreed to speak with the one Team Principal not present, Mr Todt, and to inform the FIA President, Max Mosley, who was not present at Indianapolis, of the planned solution to allow the successful running of the US Grand Prix. With only a few hours now remaining to the start of the race, we agreed to reconvene as soon as Bernie had responses from Messrs Todt and Mosley.
    I am the Stig

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    .....caught out by the 10000 character restriction......

    At approximately 1055 hrs, Bernie informed us that not only would Mr Todt not agree, stating that it was not a Ferrari problem, but an FIA and a Michelin problem, but also Mr Mosley had stated that if any attempts were made to alter the circuit, he would cancel the Grand Prix forthwith. These words had a familiar tone to me, as they were similar to those I had heard around midnight on the Friday preceding the 2005 Australian Grand Prix, when I was told by all the senior FIA representatives present that the Australian Grand Prix would be cancelled forthwith if I did not withdraw pending legal action between Minardi and the FIA. Once again, Mr Mosley was not present at that Grand Prix! It is fair to say at this point that the vast majority of people present in the room both felt and stated that Mr Mosley had completely overstepped the mark, had no idea whatsoever of the gravity of the situation, and furthermore, cared even less about the US Grand Prix, its organisers, the fans, and indeed, the hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world who were going to be affected by his intransigence.

    By this time, the nine teams had discussed running a non- championship race, or a race in which the Michelin teams could not score points, and even a race whereby only the Michelin teams used the new chicane, and indeed, every other possible option that would allow 20 cars to participate and put on a show, thereby not causing the enormous damage to Formula One that all those present knew would otherwise occur.

    By now, most present felt the only option was to install the chicane and race, if necessary, without Ferrari, but with 18 cars, in what would undoubtedly be a non-championship race. We discussed with Bernie the effects of the FIA withdrawing its staff, and agreed among ourselves a Race Director, a Safety Car driver, and other essential positions, and all agreed that, under the circumstances, what was of paramount importance was that the race must go ahead. All further agreed that since we would most likely be denied FIA facilities, such as scales and post-race scrutineering, every competitor would instruct his team and drivers to conduct themselves in the spirit of providing an entertaining race for the good of Formula One.

    At this point, we called for all 20 drivers, and indeed, all 20 arrived, at which point we informed them of our plan. While I cannot testify that each and every driver agreed with what we were proposing, what I can say with certainty is that no driver disagreed, and indeed, members of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association discussed overseeing the construction of a suitable chicane. Jean Todt was the only significant team individual not present, and the Ferrari drivers stated this decision was up to Mr Todt.

    I feel it is important to stress that, at this stage, and mindful of the total impossibility – call it force majeure if you wish – of 14 cars being able to compete in the race, the nine teams represented agreed they would not take part in the race unless a solution was found in the interests of Formula One as a global sport, as it was clear to all present that the sport, and not the politics, had to prevail if we were to avoid an impending disaster.

    After a short break, we reconvened without the drivers. When I arrived in Bernie’s office, Flavio Briatore was on the telephone to Mr Mosley, and it was quite clear from the body language of the others gathered in the room that Mr Mosley was having none of our suggestions. At the conclusion of the telephone call, it was obvious that many of those in the room had lost all faith in Mr Mosley and his ability to perform his function as President of the FIA in respect of Formula One matters.

    I’m sure this sentence will be treated with contempt by Mr Mosley, but what must be realised is that there are various reasons that other Team Principals, and the most senior people in Formula One, will not say publicly what they openly feel privately about Mr Mosley, his politics and his governance of the sport. There is a great temptation to go into those reasons in detail, but that is for another day. Suffice to say, those gathered at Indianapolis felt Mr Mosley, and to a lesser degree, the lack of co-operation from Mr Todt, were about to be responsible for the greatest FIAsco in Formula One’s recent history.

    Discussions then took place concerning the other telephone calls with Mr Mosley from, among others, Bernie Ecclestone, Ron Dennis and Tony George, and it was clearly revealed to what extent Mr Mosley was prepared to go in order to achieve his aims. To my total disgust, it was stated that Mosley had informed Mr Martin, the FIA’s most senior representative in the USA, that if any kind of non- championship race was run, or any alteration made to the circuit, the US Grand Prix, and indeed, all FIA-regulated motorsport in the US, would be under threat – again, exactly the same tactic that was used in threatening the Australian Grand Prix and Australian motorsport in March of this year.

    By now, it was evident Mosley had bullied the US Grand Prix promoter into submission, Bernie Ecclestone was powerless to intervene, and all efforts of the Team Principals, with the exception of Jean Todt, had failed to save the 2005 US Grand Prix.

    At this point, the pit lane had opened and a hasty discussion took place concerning whether or not the Michelin teams would go to the grid. A radio had been delivered to me by team personnel at this stage, and I was able to know which cars were going to the grid. It is interesting to note that the Jordan Team Principal was not present at this time, and indeed, it was the Jordans that first proceeded to the grid, followed by the Ferraris. After discussion with Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed the Michelin teams would go to the grid, but were absolutely prevented from participating in the race because of the tyre situation.

    We then proceeded to the grid, at which point I asked Jordan’s Colin Kolles if he intended to stand by the other teams or participate in the race. In no uncertain terms, I was told Jordan would be racing. I was also approached by a Bridgestone representative, who informed me that Bridgestone wished us to race. This left me with one of the most difficult decisions I have had to take during my time in F1, as I did not want to race, but given my current relationship with Mr Mosley, felt certain heavy sanctions would follow if I did not. I made it clear to Bernie Ecclestone, and several Team Principals, that if the Jordans either went off or retired, I would withdraw the Minardi cars from the race.

    It is important for people to realise that Minardi, the seven Michelin teams, Bernie Ecclestone, and the promoters did not agree with Mr Mosley’s tactics. For the reasons previously outlined, it may take some considerable time, if ever, for this to be admitted, but there is no question in my mind that the farce that occurred on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at Indianapolis was the responsibility of the FIA President, Max Mosley, and compounded by the lack of support from Jean Todt.

    For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion, Michelin was responsible enough to admit that the problem was of their creation. When one considers that even the replacement, Barcelona-specification tyres that were shipped to IMS, when tested, apparently exhibited the same characteristics as those that originally failed, this clearly is a case of force majeure, as I do not for a moment believe that Michelin intentionally brought tyres to the event that were unsuitable for competition.

    Far more importantly, however, Mosley refused to accept any of the solutions offered, and that refusal was, I believe, politically motivated. Therefore, I feel he failed in his duty, and that is why I have called for his resignation.

    Much discussion and debate will undoubtedly take place over the coming weeks and months, but I believe this is a truthful and honest account of the facts, and not the fiction, surrounding the responsibility for this FIAsco. People can now make up their own minds!"
    I am the Stig

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,328
    saying at the end (and without further substantiation) that Mosley's considerations and decisions were "politically motivated" takes away all the credibility from this "interesting" statement. The paragraph where he says that he would have withdrawn the Minardi cars should the Jordans have gone off or retired shows that he obviously had the intention to make Ferrari look ridiculous.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg
    Posts
    10,020
    Stoddart is full of crap, but he can play 'the kid that gets picked on all the time by the big boys, but can't do anything about it' routine very well. This whole situation is the best thing that could have ever happened to Minardi. With the recent reliability record caused by the two race engine rule, the chances for them scoring points were very small. At least he has those now, which should free up some cash for Minardi to build something else than rolling chicanes.
    If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.

    (Ted Joans)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Germany -> West Germany -> NRW -> Düsseldorf
    Posts
    3,006
    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Wouter. I think Mr Stoddart is one of the last few men in F1 with a last bof honour in their soul.
    Yes, he let his cars race, but why? Because he have sponsoring at the cars and a team to pay. Nobody of his sponsors would understand why he wuldn't race and he would loose money which he needs more in this team then everywhere else. Same game with Jordan/Midland.
    WRC - That's motorsport!

    "If you can see the tree you are about to hit, it is called 'understeering'. If you can only hear and feel it, it was 'oversteering'."
    Walter Röhrl

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wouter Melissen
    At least he has those now, which should free up some cash for Minardi to build something else than rolling chicanes.
    Unknowingly you just provided the solution to all sundays problems. The Minardis should have been put on Michelins. Chicanes galore
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg
    Posts
    10,020
    Quote Originally Posted by netburner
    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Wouter. I think Mr Stoddart is one of the last few men in F1 with a last bof honour in their soul.
    Yes, he let his cars race, but why? Because he have sponsoring at the cars and a team to pay. Nobody of his sponsors would understand why he wuldn't race and he would loose money which he needs more in this team then everywhere else. Same game with Jordan/Midland.
    I highly question that. He is only snapping at everybody else, and especially Ferrari, to get more money for his own team. Instead of building a proper car, all he does is question others in an attempt to make people feel sorry for him.
    I find it utterly revolting that he tries to blame Ferrari for this debacle, even though nobody at Ferrari ever interfered with the proceedings. It's Michelin, their teams and possibly the FIA that are to blame for this debacle. He profited from it, but now tries to add to his monetary gain some more sympathy from the people by again snapping out at the wrong people.
    If you should see a man walking down a crowded street talking aloud to himself, don't run in the opposite direction, but run towards him, because he's a poet. You have nothing to fear from the poet - but the truth.

    (Ted Joans)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    Stoddart's nuances aside, it provides a new insight into the whole debacle come 2008. Obviously the teams faith in Mosley is decreasing by the hour, may of which are calling for his reignation. On the other hand, Bernie seems to have snuck in trying to keep the peace of all things, all though he stood to lose the most.
    I am the Stig

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,697
    there is no reason to blame the bridgestone runners especially Ferrari. Michelin is the one with the problem so why should Minardi, Jordan or Ferrari have to retire too? They(Michelin runners) didn't say anything when M. Schumacher had to pull out of the Spanish GP because his tyres weren't safe enough, so why are they complaining now about the USGP?
    2011 Honda Civic Si

    ATHEIST and damn proud of it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindesh17
    there is no reason to blame the bridgestone runners especially Ferrari. Michelin is the one with the problem so why should Minardi, Jordan or Ferrari have to retire too? They(Michelin runners) didn't say anything when M. Schumacher had to pull out of the Spanish GP because his tyres weren't safe enough, so why are they complaining now about the USGP?
    The situation in Spain was totally different. The problems for Schumi arose only during the race. At least one of the punctures was believed to be caused by track debris, not a critical design flaw in the tyres. The fact that the other Bridgestone runners ran the race without any tyre problems shows that the problem was either just sheer bad luck for Schumi, or a problem with the way the Ferrari car was wearing the tyres. The Michelin's at the USGP were woefully flawed and could not have raced safely on that track as it was, meaning 14 out of 20 drivers were in hugely unsafe cars.

    The complaint PS is making is that all teams other than Ferrari were willing to make compromises and sacrifices for the sake of providing a genuine spectacle for the fans. Ferrari's guilt lay in the fact they were unable to see the bigger picture and realise the catastrophic consequences of what was happening on Sunday. There was more at stake than just the championship points (indeed the Michelin runners wanted to give up their points just for the sake of putting on a race), the reputation and good will of the whole of Formula 1 was at stake. Ferrari did not do enough to help preserve this reputation.
    uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,160
    On the subject of Stoddy's account, I think it was most interesting when he spoke of the role of Bernie Ecclestone in the negotiations. People who like to demonise Bernie and Max often assume that they are constantly conspiring together to make more money blah blah blah. It is very revealing then to hear that Bernie was well and truly on the side of the 9 teams. He was the one who personally implored Jean Todt to go along with the proposals, and he was the one who first tried to convince Max Mosley to agree to the proposals. It has restored a little of my faith in Bernie. Much as I don't like the guy at least his actions showed that he was totally committed to putting on a race for the fans, which is more than can be said for some others.

    I had kinda assumed that Mosley was actually at the Grand Prix. I figured that for him to have such strong opinions on the matter he must have been there and seen what was unfolding. I also assumed that he would've been a witness to all the various meetings and discussions, and that he would've been briefed by Michelin on the circumstances. That he WASN'T there at all and yet felt it his place to make decisions and threats with such extraordinarily far reaching consequences I think is very alarming. Also, his bringing out the threat of removing all FIA sanctioned motorsport from the US if the teams went ahead was petty, incendiary and entirely counter-productive.
    uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    Unknowingly you just provided the solution to all sundays problems. The Minardis should have been put on Michelins. Chicanes galore
    Genius!!!
    uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Wouter Melissen
    Stoddart is full of crap
    You cannot deny though, that Ferrari avoid co-operating with the other 9 teams at every available opportunity.

    I also doubt that Stoddart's claims that Mosely threatened to ban all FIA events in both the USA and Australia will ever be denied.

    If there was no truth to it I really don't think that the other 8 teams aside from Ferrari would stand silently by while Stoddart uses them to add weight to his "stories".

    Ron Dennis and Frank Williams, for example, certainly don't strike me as the type of people who would put up with Stoddart if he were lying.
    Thanks for all the fish

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    263
    you can't really blame Ferrari though. You can "expect" them to sacrifice for your mistake. It'd be nice if they do, but at least they did not oppose it. They just chose to stay out of it and naturally people blame them because they're the lone bird.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Goshen, IN
    Posts
    3,377
    Well I think that although it is kind of a stretch to blame all that happened on Ferrari and putting them at fault is BS, however I do not think that he is telling a lie. He has obviously told it through his viewpoint with his bias which is inevitable for anyone.

    I do believe though, now more than ever that Mosley is at fault here. Bernie suddenly seems a lot better of a person than I thought he was. He clearly tried to negociate a middle ground that for one reason or another Mosley and Todt would not have. Putting Todt aside again though, it still seems surprising that Mosley did not want to find a solution. He is what made the problem. Why not be a team player Max?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •