The F1 story unfolds
sportsillustrated.com, in their article F1 drivers were desperate to race quote an interview with Frank Williams:
Indianapolis promoter Tony George and Formula One commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone had both agreed to the chicane in a meeting with teams on Saturday night but FIA president Max Mosley had vetoed it."Bernie called (FIA race director) Charlie (Whiting) on Saturday night and said get on with it," said Williams, who pointed out several precedents including the 1994 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps.
He said it was to be expected that the FIA would blame the teams, with all seven summoned to a World Motor Sport Council meeting on June 29 for acts prejudicial to the interest of the competition.
However, he pointed out that the teams did not make the tyres and said Michelin had informed them late in the day of the problems.
That sounds like dynamite to me - and Frank Williams isn't known for lying or mis-quoting.
Bernie must be steaming. The Guardian says Ecclestone could face £7.4m lawsuit. Normally it would be Bernie and the track owner exposed financially, but the FIA is about to feel it too with at least one lawsuit so far against the FIA (reported by indystar.com)
01:46 PM, 21 Jun 2005 by Mark Aufflick Permalink
Confusion galore
Too much time talking about it flipped them in my mind. You are of course completely correct, and I have fixed my article accordingly.
It's all getting very confusing!
In "The madness continues", grandprix.com starts to lay out the basis under which teams might start dropping out. Michelin banned for safety reasons, Michelin teams have chassis designed around Michelin teams that won't necessarily be safe with Bridgestone tyres.
Such maneuvering by the FIA would make it look like the teams had been forced out for safety reasons, thus nullifying their ability to stage a protest by pulling out.
Of course F1 would end up dismembered, but at least the FIA would be able to sleep at night saying "it's not our fault".
Too harsh? Perhaps...
by Mark Aufflick on 06/22/05
Conspiracy
I have a big problem with the way Bernie has managed to take over F1. I can't help but feel that GPWC or the death of F1 is the only natural result of such madness. At a more micro level, there was nothing wrong with the tyre and engine policy and the only problem with the qualifying policy was that qualifiers should have had incentives to go out earlier in the session. eg 16 laps in total but only 8 after the half hour point.
It was me (Semi) who commented above.
by Unregistered Visitor on 06/23/05
One tyre rule ok?? ...
I have to disagree there. I would rather see a single control tyre, but allow tyre changes at pit stops. This would be an effective cost reducer (as opposed to the current regulations - all of which have apparently increased costs*) without reducing safety or standard racing strategy. *I think it was Frank Williams who pointed out that in the middle of this year they were effectively developing 3 engines simultaneously instead of the usual 1. That's not cost effective. 1 Race tyres are fundamentally different to all other racing codes I can think of, and have required an enourmous amount of development and testing (witness Ferrari's complaints about tyre testing). That's not cost effective either. The teams still need to maintain a carefully selected range of scrubbed tyres and lug them around in various compounds etc. It's probably just cheaper to bring a load of new tyres.
by Mark Aufflick on 06/24/05
Q&A with Max Mosley
FIA President gives his view of the US GP [f1live.com]
Max's answers do appear to have merit.
Looks like the whole story comes down to who you trust and believe...
by Mark Aufflick on 06/24/05
Bridgestone?
Please eliminate this comment whetrher I am right or wrong, but don't you mean Michelin?
by Unregistered Visitor on 06/21/05