Month: June 2005


  • Jason Torres’s wife, Susan Torres, is brain-dead, but he and her parents hope that her body can be sustained long enough for her fetus to be delivered and survive.

    Photo Credit: By Sarah L. Voisin — The Washington Post

    washingtonpost.com
    Inside Stricken Mother, a Race Between Life and Death
    Cancer That Felled Woman Now Threatens Fetus

    By Stephanie McCrummen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, June 17, 2005; A01

    Since his wife’s brain stopped functioning weeks ago, since she was hooked to a ventilator and her cancer began spreading down to her neck, to her back and to the lymph nodes under her arms, Jason Torres said he’s noticed relatively little physical change except one: Her belly keeps growing.

    “She’s becoming more noticeably pregnant,” he said with quiet awe yesterday, sitting near the marbled cafeteria at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington.

    It is the place where he has spent the better part of his days lately in some emotional purgatory: grieving the loss of his 26-year-old wife, Susan Torres, who he believes is dead, “barring divine intervention,” and yet hoping still to save the 5-month-old fetus she is carrying by keeping her body alive, at least for five more weeks.

    “It’s a race against time whether the child will reach viability . . . before the cancer spreads,” said Torres, 26, of Arlington. “We have a small hope that maybe. Maybe.”

    They were hoping for a girl.

    For all anyone knew, Susan Torres was in perfect health when she found out in February that she was pregnant, and the couple greeted the news of a second child with the usual mixture of terror and joy. Susan was found to have melanoma when she was 17 — a malformed freckle on her arm was removed — but doctors then had given her the all clear.

    In late April, though, Torres said his wife began to complain of feeling mildly ill with nausea and headaches that gradually worsened. Torres saw her obstetrician and perhaps two other doctors, her husband said, all of whom said she seemed fine. With the symptoms persisting, Torres took his wife to the emergency room, where doctors said she was simply dehydrated.

    So they went home. It was early Saturday by then, May 7, and Susan Torres went to sleep. Later on, she told her husband that she wanted something greasy to eat. He made steak and cheese subs, and propped her up in bed for dinner. She apologized for being so much trouble.

    “I said, ‘Ah, that’s all right,’ ” Jason Torres recalled. “And that was the end of the conversation.”

    Moments later, his wife stopped breathing. Torres called 911 and performed CPR until the ambulance came. At the hospital, doctors did a CAT scan and told him that his wife had no brain function, that she had a cancerous growth at the back of her head and that it had metastasized and bled, causing pressure on her brain.

    “That’s when they said we wouldn’t normally proceed at this moment,” Torres said, but because she’s young and because she’s pregnant, the doctors said, “we’ll try.”

    The surgery that night relieved some of the pressure; her body seemed to stabilize. Three days later, doctors approached Jason Torres with a choice. “In their dry way of speaking, they said the event of the 7th was a fatal event” for Susan, he said, “and that we could try to continue for 10 weeks and save the child, or just stop now.”

    Torres conferred with Susan’s parents, who had flown in from Texas, and they agreed to keep Susan on a ventilator and provide nutrition and hydration in the hope that the fetus might make it to 25 weeks — about mid-July — at which point the baby would have a chance of surviving outside the womb.

    According to a report several years ago by the University of Connecticut Health Center, there have been 11 similar cases reported in the United States since the late 1970s. Most were successful, the report said, with pregnancies prolonged in brain-dead women 10 weeks on average. Torres said he realizes that it’s a long shot, but his wife, a microbiologist with the National Institutes of Health, was a strong-willed and competitive soul, and he is certain that she would want it this way.

    And so Susan Torres lies in a hospital bed in Arlington, both her belly, and her cancer it seems, growing a little bit every day.

    Although doctors at the hospital declined to comment on her condition, Jason Torres said they have told him that the cancer has not reached his wife’s vital organs yet. But they told him that her particular sort of cancer, melanoma, has the ability to penetrate the placenta and attack the child. So if Susan makes it until July, there will be another question: whether to deliver the baby prematurely, with all the risks that entails, or try to keep going longer and risk the baby getting cancer.

    If the case brings to mind that of Terri Schiavo, Torres said yesterday, there are really no similarities, because he and Susan’s family are in agreement over her treatment and because they have, as best as they can, accepted that if it weren’t for the baby, she would be gone.

    “I don’t want to accept it,” Jason Torres said, referring to his wife’s death, “but, yeah, I don’t think it would be unethical to stop [the ventilator] now. But given the chance to save the life of the child, we’ve got to give it a try.”

    For now, Torres is on leave from his job in publishing, his days spent shuffling insurance claim forms and shuttling between the hospital and home, caring for his wife and for their 2-year-old son, Peter, who, when he asks, is told that his mom is just asleep at the hospital. Jason Torres sleeps there, too, most nights, at his wife’s side, realizing, he said, that there is only a limited time to sit with her and hold her hand.

    He speaks with some detachment about the baby but allows himself to smile when he says that on the sonogram, the child seemed feisty. He tries to remain realistic, yet sometimes allows himself to consider names: His wife liked Cecilia Ann; he is leaning toward Susan or Michelle, his wife’s middle name.

    There will be a huge bill, he knows, because health insurance does not cover the full cost of her treatment. For about 110 to 130 days in the hospital, Torres figures his cost will be $300,000 to $400,000, which is why he and his family decided to approach the news media with what would otherwise have remained private.

    The Torreses are Catholic, and there was an article several weeks ago in the Arlington Catholic Herald, followed by one in Wednesday’s Washington Times and USA Today, and by yesterday afternoon, a cluster of microphones and television cameras was waiting outside the hospital as the story of Susan Torres began to spread across cable news.

    “I’m realistic about the problems,” Jason Torres said, “that the planets have to align for the child to survive. We have a small hope that maybe we can pull something out of the ashes of this situation.”

    Staff writer David Brown contributed to this report

  • June 24, 2005

    Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development


    By LINDA GREENHOUSE


    WASHINGTON, June 23 – The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in one of its most closely watched property rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government’s power of eminent domain.


    The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the City of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development, a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian “riverwalk” along the Thames River.


    The project, to be leased and built by private developers, is intended to derive maximum benefit for the city from a $350 million research center built nearby by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.


    New London, deemed a “distressed municipality” by the state 15 years ago, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920.


    The owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, including one woman who was born in her house 87 years ago and has lived there since, had resisted the plan and refused the city’s offer of compensation.


    After the city condemned the properties in November 2000, the homeowners went to state court to argue that the taking would be unconstitutional. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain in a ruling last year.


    In affirming that decision, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to take private property for public use. The question was the definition of “public use.”


    The homeowners, represented by a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, which has conducted a national litigation campaign against what it calls eminent domain abuse, argued that taking property to enable private economic development, even development that would provide a public benefit by enhancing the tax base, could never be a “public use.”


    In its view, the only transfers of property that qualified were those that gave actual ownership or use to the public, like for a highway or a public utility.


    But the majority concluded on Thursday that public use was properly defined more broadly as “public purpose.” Justice Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906.


    “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,” Justice Stevens said, adding, “Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.”


    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor objected that “the words ‘for public use’ do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.”


    Justice O’Connor said, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.”


    Justice Stevens, examining the New London plan in light of the majority’s general analysis, said the plan “unquestionably serves a public purpose,” even though it was intended to increase jobs and tax revenue rather than remove blight.


    He described the plan as “carefully formulated” and comprehensive. Sounding a federalism note, Justice Stevens said that state legislatures and courts were best at “discerning local public needs” and that the judgment of the New London officials was “entitled to our deference.”


    Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter joined the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Justice Kennedy also wrote a separate concurring opinion to emphasize that while there was no suggestion in this instance that the plan was intended to favor any individual developer, “a court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see it if has merit.”


    Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. She wrote that rather than adhering to its precedents, the court had strayed from them by endorsing economic development as an appropriate public use.


    “Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property?” Justice O’Connor asked.


    She added: “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory.”


    Both Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas, who also filed his own dissent, said the decision’s burden would fall on the less powerful and wealthy.


    “The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more,” Justice O’Connor said. “The founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”


    Justice Thomas, who called the decision “far reaching and dangerous,” cited several studies showing that those displaced by urban renewal and “slum clearance” over the years tended to be lower-income minority residents.


    “The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution,” he said.


    In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens said, “The necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain power to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.”


    The court did not “minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail,” he said, despite the fact that the homeowners will receive “just compensation.”


    Justice Stevens said that states remained free to place restrictions on their own use of eminent domain power through their own constitutions and laws, as many have; California, for example, has a law restricting to blighted areas the use of eminent domain for economic development.


    Scott G. Bullock, the lawyer who argued the case for the New London homeowners, said in an interview that his organization, the Institute for Justice, would accept the court’s invitation and “continue the fight in the state supreme courts.” As a result of the decision, he said, “we are going to see more eminent domain abuse and a growing grass-roots rebellion against this type of government action.”


    Allan B. Taylor, a partner in the Hartford law firm Day, Berry & Howard who filed a brief on New London’s behalf for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and organizations of cities in 31 other states, said an opposite outcome in this case would have ushered in an “extraordinary revolution.”


    If the court had not upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court, he said in an interview, “it would greatly limit what cities and towns all over the country could do.” Mr. Taylor said he read the opinion not as a green light for the wholesale use of eminent domain, but as “a green light for continuing to do careful and responsible planning.”


    The decision was a clear defeat for the long-term effort by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia to limit government control over private property. Although a series of decisions from the mid-1980′s through the early 90′s had appeared to indicate a major shift in the court’s traditional deference to government land-use policies, that effort has stalled in recent cases.


    By the same token, the decision was the latest success for Justice Stevens, the 85-year-old senior associate justice, who appears to be having one of the most productive terms in his 30 years on the Supreme Court.


    The New London case was among the final decisions the court was expected to make in this term. The court indicated that Monday would be the final day of the term.





     


  • Gov’t, Masters of Your Domain
    By Eric Umansky
    Posted Friday, June 24, 2005, at 12:40 AM PT


    Everybody leads with the Supreme Court ruling 5-4 that local governments can force people to sell their property, even if it’s going to be used for private redevelopment and the area isn’t blighted.


    The eminent-domain case revolved around the proposed redevelopment of a run-down—but not officially blighted—area of the well-worn town of New London, Conn.


    As the New York Times focuses on, the case mostly revolved around the Fifth Amendment clause that eminent domain can be invoked only if the property is taken for “public use.” The majority of justices decided that even if the land is privately developed, with its planned “riverwalk” and retail and office space, that’s still “public use.” (The Washington Post wraps up the case in a run-on, but damn useful, first sentence.)


    “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,” wrote Justice Stevens for the majority, “Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.” Stevens, who was joined by the three other liberal-leaning justices along with Justice Kennedy, pointed out that states can still make laws restricting localities’ property-pilfering powers.


    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the dissent, wasn’t exactly mollified: “The specter of condemnation [now] hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” Joining O’Connor in the dissent were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas.


    For all the end-is-nigh headlines (see top of page), the Wall Street Journal‘s news coverage suggests that few people are going to be forced to sell their homes to, say, Wal-Mart or anybody else. The court’s opinion is “not a license to steal,” said one law prof. “The court makes clear that there are standards and that the public-use requirement is a real requirement.”


    An NYT editorial calls the court’s decision a “welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest.” The Post strikes a classic centrist pose (considered and conflicted), calling the result of the ruling “quite unjust” but the decision itself “correct.” The WSJ has no doubts, calling the decision a “judicial encroachment on our liberties.”


    The NYT off-leads details about how doctors at Guantanamo Bay helped interrogators get acquainted with detainees’ weaknesses. “Their purpose was to help us break them,” said one former interrogator. A Pentagon spokesman said the doctors breached no ethical codes since, ahem, they weren’t acting as doctors but “behavioral scientists.” The story is partly based on a just-released New England Journal of Medicine piece. Meanwhile, though the Times glides by it, there has been a smattering of coverage on doctors at Gitmo feeling the team spirit.


    The Times‘ Gitmo piece also mentions that U.N. human rights investigators are complaining that after three years of requests the U.S. still hasn’t let them visit detainees at the base.


    Finally, in another piece, the NYT notices that Vice President Cheney also chimed in on Gitmo last night. “They’re living in the tropics,” he said. “They’re well fed. They’ve got everything they could possibly want.”


    Everybody fronts the minor fireworks in yesterday’s Senate hearings on Iraq. The Journal and NYT focus on the U.S. commander in the Mideast issuing a muted smackdown of Vice President Cheney’s recent assertion that the Iraq insurgency is in “its last throes.” Gen. John Abizaid said, “In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I’d say it was the same as it was. There’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.”


    The Los Angeles Times and WP focus, less interestingly, on the heat SecDef Rumsfeld took at the hearings. The Post dubs it “some of the toughest questioning of the Pentagon leader since the war in Iraq began.” Sen. Ted Kennedy, less than surprisingly, invoked both the Q-word and the R-word. But Rumsfeld also faced a bit of trouble the other side. “I’m here to tell you, sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question,” said Republican Lindsey Graham. “I think we have a chronic problem on our hands.” Meanwhile, USA Today picks up an angle nobody else headlines—perhaps because it isn’t really news: “RUMSFELD REJECTS IRAQ TIMETABLE.”


    Another four near-simultaneous bombs exploded Thursday morning in Baghdad, killing 17 and hitting two Shiite mosques. A Page One feature in the Post checks in on how residents of Baghdad are coping. “So many problems are happening in the city,” said one grocer. “Where do I start—water, electricity, security, unemployment or health?”


    The NYT says Iraq’s anti-corruption office is investigating loads of complaints about the previous interim government. Warrants have been issued for two former ministers. Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi insists the investigation is just politics—though most on the anti-graft force were also there during his term.


    The LAT fronts and others tease the House canceling a committee’s proposed cuts to public broadcasting.


    Most of the papers reefer a judge sentencing 80-year-old Ku Klux Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen to 60 years for the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers.


    TP Sports
    Spurs, W.

    Eric Umansky writes “Today’s Papers” for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.











  • In 55 N.J. towns, planners watch as the light turns green



    Friday, June 24, 2005
    BY ALEXANDER LANE
    Star-Ledger Staff

    http://www.nj.com/


     


    To a growing number of New Jerseyans, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was a very personal defeat.


    They are those whose towns have instructed them to hand their property over to private developers, for the greater good.


    Many are struggling small business owners in the grittier parts of town — not the sort who normally make time to follow Supreme Court decisions.


    But they were waiting for this one.


    “It’s sort of shocking to read what these judges have come up with on that there New London (Connecticut),” said Sal Quagliariello, an 83-year-old Edison man fighting an attempt to turn his bus company into a Walgreens. “It seems like money has got the best of the laws.”


    By the same token, planners all over the state sighed with relief at the decision. Many New Jersey towns — at least 55 since 2003 — are counting on their condemnation power.


    Without it, they say, they would never be able to accommodate the grand designs they have hatched with developers.


    “You can’t assemble large tracts of land without the power of eminent domain,” said Christopher Paladino, president of the New Brunswick Development Corp., a quasi-public agency that has redeveloped much of the city’s downtown. “It’s not practical.”


    The court decided by a 5-4 margin that the city of New London could use its power of eminent domain to condemn perfectly good homes and businesses and turn the property over to a developer. The prospect of a more vibrant city and a bigger tax base satisfied the constitutional requirement that land seizures be for a “public use,” the majority said.


    New Jersey’s Constitution is more restrictive than Connecticut’s, and allows towns to seize only “blighted” property for redevelopment. But the state Legislature defines that term broadly, and a growing number of towns are getting aggressive with their condemnation power.


    That has created a growing cast of sympathetic figures — little guys clinging to land they’ve owned for lifetimes, or even generations, trying to fight off powerful politicians and the big-time developers connected to them.


    “We were counting on this case to help us out,” said Jerry Fernandez, who, together with his brother Michael, owns the Spanish Pavillion in Harrison.


    His grandfather, Antonio Martinez, started the restaurant decades ago. Now Harrison has designated the area a redevelopment zone — opening the door to a condemnation proceeding at any time.


    That has left the Fernandezes in limbo — thriving, but reluctant to expand, and afraid competitors will creep up on them as their business stagnates.


    “We’re just waiting for eminent domain to come down the road,” Fernandez said. “Here I am, 30 years, been paying taxes, never been late, now here comes a developer who’s politically connected, and they’re coming in and going to build office buildings. And I can almost bet they’re going to get tax abatements to do it.”


    Similar sentiments were almost certainly shared by property owners in Somerville, Newark, Bloomfield, Piscataway, Orange, Franklin, South Amboy, Long Branch, Highland Park, Rahway and other towns seeking to realize redevelopment projects that may require the use of condemnation.


    Fans of the New London decision said undue emphasis on individual tales of woe can obscure the bigger picture.


    A decision against New London “would have killed a lot of very serious and very good redevelopment efforts” in New Jersey, said William Kearns, general counsel for the New Jersey League of Municipalities.


    The league, along with 30 similar organizations in other states, filed a friend-of-the court brief augmenting New London’s argument.


    George Hawkins, head of the nonprofit planning group New Jersey Future, characterized eminent domain as an anti-suburban-sprawl tool, allowing cities and built-out older towns to compete for development dollars with more rural suburbs that have green space to offer. To the list of urban landmarks that have come from condemnation, he added the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark, Jersey City’s Gold Coast, the Inner Harbor in Baltimore and the River Walk in San Antonio.


    Bloomfield is preparing to take properties around its train station to build a parking garage, a shopping center, retail space and condominiums. Orange passed a plan in April to build market-rate brownstones on a stretch of East Main Street now home to various businesses and wood-frame houses.


    Newark may use eminent domain to take homes and businesses for new condominiums on Mulberry Street.


    Yesterday’s decision opened the door for states to allow towns to take land that is not even blighted. But it is unlikely New Jersey will take such a step, Hawkins and other observers said.


    “That won’t happen,” said Edward McManimon III, a Newark lawyer who frequently represents towns in redevelopment projects. It would require amending New Jersey’s Constitution, he said.


    Hawkins acknowledged that local officials often operate under a “cloud of suspicion” when it comes to developer money.


    Quagliariello sued the town of Edison to fight his condemnation, asserting his business was in no way blighted. He won that case, and the town relented. But now the developer –Piscataway-based Edgewood Properties, owned by Jack Morris, a business partner of the influential former state Sen. John Lynch — is suing for the right to fight that court decision himself.


    Attempts to reach Morris yesterday were unsuccessful.


    Quagliariello’s lawyer, John Reilly, said the case demonstrated that developers, not municipalities as a whole, are the true beneficiaries of redevelopment projects.


    “It really indicates that the private interest is driving this,” Reilly said.



    Staff writers Suleman Din and Joe Thttp://www.nj.com/ yrrell contributed to this report.




    © 2005  The Star Ledger

    © 2005 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.


  • Illustration by The New York Times

    June 24, 2005
    An Army of Soulless 1′s and 0′s
    By STEPHEN LABATON

    WASHINGTON, June 23 – For thousands of Internet users, the offer seemed all too alluring: revealing pictures of Jennifer Lopez, available at a mere click of the mouse.

    But the pictures never appeared. The offer was a ruse, and the click downloaded software code that turned the user’s computer into a launching pad for Internet warfare.

    On the instructions of a remote master, the software could deploy an army of commandeered computers – known as zombies – that simultaneously bombarded a target Web site with so many requests for pages that it would be impossible for others to gain access to the site.

    And all for the sake of selling a few more sports jerseys.

    The facts of the case, as given by law enforcement officials, may seem trivial: a small-time Internet merchant enlisting a fellow teenager, in exchange for some sneakers and a watch, to disable the sites of two rivals in the athletic jersey trade. But the method was far from rare.

    Experts say hundreds of thousands of computers each week are being added to the ranks of zombies, infected with software that makes them susceptible to remote deployment for a variety of illicit purposes, from overwhelming a Web site with traffic – a so-called denial-of-service attack – to cracking complicated security codes. In most instances, the user of a zombie computer is never aware that it has been commandeered.

    The networks of zombie computers are used for a variety of purposes, from attacking Web sites of companies and government agencies to generating huge batches of spam e-mail. In some cases, experts say, the spam messages are used by fraud artists, known as phishers, to try to trick computer users into giving confidential information, like bank-account passwords and Social Security numbers.

    Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say their inquiries on the zombie networks are exposing serious vulnerabilities in the Internet that could be exploited more widely by saboteurs to bring down Web sites or online messaging systems. One case under investigation, officials say, may involve as many as 300,000 zombie computers.

    While the use of zombie computers to launch attacks is not new, such episodes are on the rise, and investigators say they are devoting more resources to such cases. Many investigations remain confidential, they say, because companies are hesitant to acknowledge they have been targets, fearful of undermining their customers’ confidence.

    In one recent case, a small British online payment processing company, Protx, was shut down after being bombarded in a zombie attack and warned that problems would continue unless a $10,000 payment was made, the company said. It is not known whether the authorities ever arrested anyone in that case.

    Zombie attacks have tried to block access to Web sites including those of Microsoft, Al Jazeera and the White House. In October 2002, a huge but ultimately unsuccessful attack was mounted against the domain-name servers that manage Internet traffic. The attackers were never caught.

    Federal officials say the case involving the athletic jerseys was solved after some college computers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were found to be infected with software code traced to a user whose Internet name was pherk. That hacker, a high school student in New Jersey, told investigators that he was acting at the behest of a merchant – the owner of www.jerseydomain.com.

    The merchant, an 18-year-old Michigan college student, could face trial later this year in a federal court in Newark. The case offers a rare glimpse both into the use of zombie computers and into the way that law enforcement officials are trying to combat the problem.

    More than 170,000 computers every day are being added to the ranks of zombies, according to Dmitri Alperovitch, a research engineer at CipherTrust, a company based in Georgia that sells products to make e-mail and messaging safer.

    “What this points out is that even though critical infrastructure is fairly well secured, the real vulnerability of the Internet are those home users that are individually vulnerable and don’t have the knowledge to protect themselves,” Mr. Alperovitch said. “They pose a threat to all the rest of us.”

    Mr. Alperovitch said that CipherTrust had detected a sharp rise in zombie computers in recent months, from a daily average of 143,000 newly commandeered computers in March to 157,000 in April to 172,000 last month.

    He said that the increase was attributable to two trends: the rising number of computers in Asia, particularly China, which do not use software to protect against zombies and the worldwide proliferation of high-speed Internet connections.

    Aside from the use of tools like CipherTrust’s within businesses, experts say consumers can largely make their computers off limits to zombie activity by using up-to-date antivirus and antispam software.

    One factor helping those seeking to create zombie networks, known as botnets, is the increasing use of high-speed Internet connections in the home. Aside from being able to handle (and generate) more traffic, such households are more inclined to leave computers running – the computers recruited as zombies need to be on when called by the master.

    Eric H. Jaso, an assistant United States attorney in Newark who is prosecuting the New Jersey case, said the zombie cases often wind up damaging more than just the target.

    “The effects of these attacks on the Internet itself are far ranging and highly damaging to innocent parties,” he said. “The ripple effect is that when one server is attacked, other servers are affected and damaged. Web sites crash. Backup systems become unavailable often to entities like hospitals and banks that are part of the critical infrastructure of the country.”

    The overall damage in the New Jersey case is estimated by the authorities at $2 million.

    That investigation began last July 7, when an online sports-apparel merchant, Gary Chiacco, told federal authorities that traffic to his site, jersey-joe.com, had been disrupted for several days, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost sales. When customers tried to gain access to the site, they would be greeted with an error message.

    The attacks continued through the fall of last year and became so severe that they affected service to other customers of the Web-site hosting company used by Jersey Joe.

    The host company ultimately told Jersey Joe to go elsewhere, as did two other companies that it then tried to use and that suffered problems from the zombie attacks.

    Federal and state investigators say the case was cracked through a combination of luck and sleuthing. While the F.B.I. continued to monitor the attacks on Jersey Joe, student computers at colleges in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were found to be infected with the software that converted them into zombies.

    Hackers “find computers on colleges to be particularly attractive because they have a larger bandwidth and are able to send more packets of data,” said Kenneth R. Sharpe, a deputy attorney general in New Jersey involved in prosecuting the case.

    A close examination of those computers disclosed the software had been trying to communicate with a user named pherk. Investigators traced the name and an Internet computer address to a 17-year-old high school student from Edison, N.J., named Jasmine Singh.

    Confronted by law-enforcement authorities, Mr. Singh acknowledged his involvement and said it was at the behest of an 18-year-old businessman, Jason Arabo, whom he had met through a mutual friend. Mr. Arabo ran a sports jersey business from his home, selling online at www.customleader.com and www.jerseydomain.com.

    Investigators determined that Mr. Singh had spread the rogue software through file-sharing networks like Kazaa, using the Jennifer Lopez come-on, and instructed the zombie computers to attack two of Mr. Arabo’s competitors – Jersey Joe and another online shirt company, Distant Replays of Atlanta. His compensation, he said, was three pairs of sneakers and a watch.

    The F.B.I. then set up a sting operation against Mr. Arabo. According to court papers, an undercover investigator held a series of instant-messaging chats with Mr. Arabo on America Online in December. Mr. Arabo told the undercover agent that he had previously recruited Mr. Singh and that those attacks had not done enough harm to keep his rivals offline, the court papers assert.

    According to the court papers, Mr. Arabo asked the agent to mount denial-of-service attacks against rivals in exchange for sports apparel and watches. In later chats that month, he asked the agent to “take down” Jersey Joe’s server and redirect its Internet traffic to a pornographic site, the court papers say, and repeatedly asked the agent to “hit them hard.”

    Mr. Arabo, a student at a community college in a Detroit suburb, was arrested in March and charged in a federal criminal complaint with conspiracy to use malicious programs to damage computers used in interstate commerce. He remains free on $50,000 bail and the condition that he stay off computers and the Internet. (The jerseydomain.com site now carries the notice “Under New Management.”) He faces a maximum sentence of five years.

    His lawyer, Stacey Biancamano, did not respond to several messages seeking comment.

    For his part, Mr. Singh pleaded guilty last month in New Jersey Superior Court to charges of computer theft. Under a plea agreement, he faces a maximum sentence of five years at a youth correction center when he is sentenced in August, but the state prosecutor’s office says it will not object to probation.

    Mr. Sharpe, the New Jersey prosecutor in the case, said that Mr. Singh had boasted to his high school friends about his ability to create the zombie networks. “It was an ego thing,” Mr. Sharpe said. “Hacking in its purest form is not about compensation or about wrecking a Web site. Hacking in its pure form is to show what you can do.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top









  • More than 12-hours after the farce that passed for the 2005 United States Grand Prix – the event that made grand pricks of all motorsport fans, not to mention sponsors, broadcasters, race organizers et al… – I am still seething with anger, angry that my beloved sport should be reduced to this.


    I have been saying for many years that those within ‘Planet Paddock’ have lost touch with the real world. Despite their professed love of the sport, cocooned within their motorhomes, private jets and state-of-the-art factories, these people have lost all idea of what is happening in the real world.


    At a time when Geldof and friends are demanding that poverty be made history, it should be remembered that the annual budget for many F1 teams would ease the financial burden of even the hardest hit African nation. Yet still they are not satisfied.


    As someone who has followed this sport for almost 40 years – the first Grand Prix I attended was back in 1966 – I am utterly disgusted that my sport, our sport, should be treated with such utter contempt.


    The thing that really angers me, is not what actually happened on Sunday afternoon at the so-called ‘home of motor racing’, but the cynical way in which ‘the protest’ was executed.


    The sight of men – many of them wealthy beyond their wildest dreams – huddled together in small groups on the grid, nodding at one another, patting each other on the back, knowing fool well what was about to happen, fills me with contempt. Who are these dreadful self-obsessed egotists that they feel they can act in such a way?


    There was absolutely no need for this to happen, and certainly it didn’t have to be the eleventh hour affair that it was. A group of spoiled multi-millionaires decided to take their squabble on to a world stage, showing utter disregard for the feelings of millions around the world, and have, in turn, done irrevocable damage to motorsport.


    But this Talking Point isn’t merely about how I feel my sport, and fellow fans, have been betrayed, I want to hear your views, not merely on yesterday’s events, but also what you believe brought us to this point. I cannot remember such a similar incident in any other sport, so why Formula One?


    I want to hear your views on what we have witnessed in the last 24-hours, and what F1 needs to do to prevent further damage.


    Finally, may I just say, that personally – I stress personally – the root cause of yesterday’s problem, other than the fact that team bosses, and many others involved in F1, lost touch with reality many, many years ago, lies with Michelin’s failure to produce the correct (safe) tyre for the event. Having failed to do this, they, and the teams that they supply, wanted to have the rules changed. In all honesty, had it been Bridgestone – and thereby Ferrari – that had got it wrong, are we to believe that Michelin and its partner teams would have acted accordingly? I think not.


    Chris Balfe
    Editor


    To send your thoughts, click here


    Note: Please include your full name – without a valid name we will not publish your entry.


    Seb Harvey


    Yesterday I was an F1 fan… Today I’m not.


    It amused me that ITV still found 60 minutes of highlights to show in the evening, when the only on-track action was Schumacher (in Schumacher style) pushing his own team-mate off the track to win a race… I think
    that shows the desperation of both Schumacher and Ferrari to win a race.


    If Schumacher wins the championship this season, the final nail would have been hammered.


    Michelin were the start of the problems, that is clear, but the issue is not about the tires, it is about how these so-called leaders of the support failed in the most simple of leadership skills… Crisis management.


    One thing is for certain… The breakaway series seems one step closer to reality. Maybe in 2008, I will become a fan once more.


    G. Grundle


    I too, am bitterly disappointed in the Farce that was the US Grand-Prix but we can hardly blame the team managers or the drivers when the fault lies with Michelin. They had failures last year and were lucky that drivers weren’t killed when their tyres failed. They’ve had a year in which to look at the problem to make sure it wouldn’t happen again and yet they turn up with tyres, which, on the face of it, were as bad or worse than last year. What were they thinking? That “maybe” they’ll be OK? When one considers the amount of money that is spent on development there can be no excuses.


    F1 has been sunk in the US by a company that could have done a lot better!


    Alex King


    I have grown up with my dad watching F1. He was a Formula Atlantic champion back in 82 and he was always my hero. His heros were the drivers in F1- Villeneuve, Hunt and Fangio. I always remembered getting up early for the races and my first Grand Prix at Silverstone in 1999 was something I will always remember fondly. I attended the USGP on its first year filled with sheer excitement that the amazing world of F1 was going to be shown to my American friends.


    Waking up this Sunday morning and wishing him father’s day, then watching this race had me thinking. It had me thinking about all the racing I too have done because of my love of Formula One. Is this self serving childish behavior a symbol for the silly banal politics in corporate motorsports? I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t know that if I will be able to follow F1 anymore after seeing that behavior towards the people that MAKE the sport what it is – the fans. I sit at my computer here in the dark, reloading the Pitpass website to see if this was all a sick joke but unfortunately that isn’t so. Formula 1 has solidified itself as being a lame duck full of empty entertainment.


    In addition, I feel sorry for those drivers who weren’t able to do their job – the one thing that they love to do. We watch the sport to be in awe of their ability to hurdle themselves around a track and now do we see that it isn’t about ‘sport’ at all? It’s about something else and I see that in Jean Todt’s little smirk, Charlie Whitings arrogant words in his press release, the blatant disappointment in Fernando Alonso‘s face, and I share those fans pure disgust and frustration that something we love so fondly becomes an illegitimate sport. It is a sad day when the fans are forgotten thus modern Formula One finally is defined as what it is. Like you, I don’t know what we do, because as we now KNOW the FIA doesn’t care at all about us.


    Kenny Grima – Malta


    Hi, I am so astonished after yesterday’s race happenings – if you can call that a race. I cannot believe that FIA has managed to do that in the country that F1 mostly needs. How long has it been since we fans have sounded our voices on the FIA site? Not even 2 weeks ago. And how do you expect FIA to answer us back – or even pay us back for our contribution, us the guy on the street who keeps the show going. By disrupting a grand prix. No, I cannot even believe that this happened. Dont they know the power we guys have on
    them. And thats how they pay us back.


    Dear Mosley and colleagues, dont mess up with OUR sport!


    (May I just say, that personally – I stess personally – the root cause of yesterday’s problem, other than the fact that team bosses, and many others involved in F1, lost touch with reality many years ago, lies with Michelin’s failure to produce the correct (safe) tyre for the event. Having failed to do this, they, and the teams that they supply, wanted to have the rules changed. In all honesty, had it been Bridgestone – and thereby Ferrari – that had got it wrong, are we to beleive that Michelin and its partner teams would have helped out? I think not.


    Perry van Wesel


    This is a total drama for the sport. It may have lost hunderds and hunderds of fans over the world now and it did itself great harm in the USA. 6 cars started in a race where actually 20 cars should have started. Why did this happen? Simply because of the rules of the FIA and the mistake of Michelin. It’s hard to say who is really guilty. You could say it’s Michelin because they didn’t have the right tire. You could say the FIA because of the rules they made. But Michelin just has to follow the rules, while the FIA is trying to cut back on the costs. So what then? What to do to prevent a drama like this again?

    Simply go back to one tire-supplier. And force that tire-supplier to make at least one tire, that can hold everything. Even it means that the F1-cars go at the turtle-speed. What about the request Michelin did for a chicane? I was thinking why would that help? Ofcourse that’s the point where the tire is the most under pressure. But if it means it goes there because people are on..no, over the limit of the tire and the FIA will put a chicane there. Can Michelin promise that the tire doesn’t go on another place on the circuit. Cause 10 laps trough Turn 13 and then a blowen tire? Only 10 laps! This means that even with the chicane the pressure on the tires for the duration of the race must be heavily. Meaning a tire still can go. So it’s a good thing the FIA didn’t answer on the request of Michelin.

    Is it fault that the Michelin-teams came in? Yes, because they still could have done the first laps. No, because it’s too risky. I think personal risk is a very high weighted issue here. Ofcourse the F1-cars are strong, but imagine if some debris kills some of the viewers or someone in the pits? Then it would have been a disaster. Or what if Raikkonen was overtaking Alonso in that corner and the tire blew? And he crashes together with Alonso, imagine the impact what happens with two cars after you saw what Ralf’s car did. And don’t forget if someone is hurt here even if it’s only a scratch or so in America they can sue people for that. So, I think Michelin rather takes this risk then a risk of expensive lawsuit.

    Altough it wasn’t a very nice or exciting race, we also shouldn’t forget we have been watching to a historical race. Not only from the point of view that Monteiro (first Portuguese on the podium) and Kartikeyan (first Indier in the points) made history, but also that this race will be remembered till far far in history of motor-sport. Just because only 6 cars started. It’s not good, but it’s a piece of history we have witnessed.

    I think some of the things already should be changed before the next Grand Prix in France. Maybe then already back to one tire-supplier. Maybe we have a same something like this? Let’s hope not. But what if Michelin has problems on this circuit, what about circuits like Spa-Francochamps, Monza and Suzuka? Will we have same sort of races there? I am at least sure of one thing. The USA GP is not the end of this “tire”-problem, it’s the beginning.


    Alan Wilkshire – London UK


    The word “farce” is often over used, but seems entirely appropriate here.

    There was more excitement in finger-pointing than racing on Sunday. As the dust settles the fingers will be searching for the “ultimate blame”, the people/organisation that the situation can be pinned on and acion taken against. Whether this involves a refund to the fans at the US GP will be interesting to see.

    Top of the list is Michelin. Without doubt the cause of the situation, their inexperience with banked tracks and the new surface produced an unusable tyre. Deeply embarrassing it was, nonetheless, an honest mistake, not manufactured to gain advantage.


    The drivers (Michelin teams) had no choice considering the instructions from Michelin – they had to obey the safety instructions, they are passengers in this debacle.

    So, faced with a situation Michelin caused we have Saturday and Sunday to resolve it and produce something from the meeting. This is where the sport as whole failed, and although they will all blame each other and Michelin, this is where the real problem lies.

    The teams, unable to agree on anything with the one-eyed leadership in Ferrari (and as it turned out Jordan) could not produce the pressure for a chicane that seemed the only logical solution to getting all teams racing. Michelin Teams were prepared to accept penalties in terms of grid slots and points and as the issue was safety at this point they did at least offer a potentially workable solution that would have meant a race.
    The FIA stuck doggedly to the rule book – in part, no doubt, to be fair to the Bridgestone teams who had safe and legal tyres. Their suggestions of speed traps seems half-hearted and unworkable – although what is a chicane if not an effective speed trap? Faced with the withdrawal of so many top teams they chose to show the sport who is boss rather than how well they run it.


    The Michelin teams took to the grid, but I am unsure why? Perhaps it was to fulfill some legal obligation, or in the hope of a last minute settlement,but it was a mistake and sent the wrong message to the fans.
    The Bridgestone teams who had no problems can be forgiven for laughing up their sleaves at Michelin’s problems, but to abandon them completely (with the exception of Minardi) showed they are driven by greed and money. Ferrari knew the race would be worhtless, but it would be 18 points, Jordan could get a podium and points that would ease their situation. Motivations you can understand, but not what the sport needed.

    We were all deprived of a spectacle on Sunday, not so much by Michelin’s tyres, but by the way the sport chose to deal with it. Echoes of historic rivalries within the sport rumbled through the paddock and in the end Ferrari and the FIA came up with the “tough luck” solution. Some may think this a little harsh on the two bodies who were not the cause of the situation, but it was their responsibility to share in the solution for the good of F1. As it was the FIA placed the rule book on the table and walked off and Ferrari took a short-sighted 1-2. With the FIA searching out punters opinions on the future of the sport, and indeed the nature of the way they did it in the form of the questions asked it begs the question what they are really up to? If the future of the sport and spectacle is their aim they would surely not have behaved this way. I know where my finger is pointing. Michelin screwed up, their part is not in doubt, but the FIA and to a lesser degree Ferrari and Jordan, should be hanging their heads this morning. Instead they will probably try and decapitate Michelin’s.


    Gregor Veble – Ljubljana, Slovenia


    The moment the egos of the people responsible for a thing get inflated beyond the thing itself, there is bound to be trouble. Much like the current world economy, F1 needs to become smaller in many aspects if it wants to remain sustainable.


    F1 is supposed to be a sport, and any sport is always part entertainment. In the last few decades or so, many of the world sports also became big businesses. How many remember the actually fairly recent times when, in order to compete in the Olympics, one must not have been a professional athlete? Such a rule seems absurd in the current world climate, but if one steps back and thinks about it, it’s easy to see that, even though money is a great incentive for many athletes to do their best, a huge part of what the word sport stands for is lost because of it.


    In hockey, a whole season of the most competitive league in the world was cancelled because of a dispute over money. When obscene ammounts are available, values such as common benefit and long term prospects become irrelevant distant ideals. People stop realizing they rely on each other if they know what is best for them, and it all becomes about who can get the bigger chunk before any other piranha gets it. In F1 that has been true for ages, but it has never culminated in a spat of this magnitude before.


    In the current circumstances, the FIA did the only thing it could do, which is to strictly adhere to the rulebook, as flawed as it may be. Never in the recent past have the teams shown a will to put aside their differences (read: greed) and come up with a solution which may hurt some of them in a small way but be better for the future, and it seems that was never their intention this past weekend either. Michelin made a mistake, but they decided not to try and find a solution that would penalize them yet still keep the sport going. Instead, through the might of the inflated egos of the majority of the teams behind them, they tried to bully their way into loosing as little advantage as possible. In such a climate, it was easy to see that, coupled with the no lesser
    ego of the team on the opposite side, the FIA had no choice but to follow the rules which were quite clear on the matter. In the end, there is no single party that can be blamed for the fiasco, it is all down to the way F1 has been run for years. There was a legal lock-up because the current rules do not provide an elegant way out of similar issues. With the way all parties involved still tried to use the situation to their advantage, the chance of ammending the rules or any similar solution was impossible.


    F1 will loose as entertainment because of it, and also as a business. But as a sport in its purest sense of the word, while it probably did not gain anything, the crisis might at least allow certain people to look into themselves to realize that F1 is a good business only because it’s a sport first, and entertainment second. With the way things are, though, optimism is probably out of place.


    Tim Carter


    There are two points here: (a) how Michelin managed to produce a defective tyre, and their culpability for this mistake; and (b) how the sport reacted to the mess Michelin’s mistake caused. What failed within Michelin’s design or manufacturing process, who knows. How they should be fined or punished is up to the FIA, but it should be in a manner that penalises them directly (e.g. a fine) rather than through the teams (e.g. docking points or grid places). The teams have suffered enough by having their chances of points in the US removed by their tyre supplier.


    It is, however, the sport’s reaction to the mess that is the howler. When receiving a service that is somehow fowled up, if the provider of that service goes the extra mile to make it up then you often feel better about them at the end than you would have if they had got it right in the first place. Making the effort shows they have high standards, care about customers and want to do a good job – everyone makes mistakes or suffers events out of their control, even the FIA.


    Instead of following this model, Formula 1 showed its true, paralysed colours. Instead of recognising that F1 is an entertainment it was treated as a private competition. In a private competition strict adherence to the rules come what may is acceptable, because the whole purpose of the enterprise is the competition itself. In sport-as-entertainment, however, there is a value greater: the obligation to consider the paymaster, the viewer of the entertainment. The primary object of F1 is to entertain. It is this that should have been at the forefront of everyone’s mind ysterday. If it had been then there would have been a chicane, 20 cars would have run and everyone would have congratulated F1 one on managing a crisis into an opportunity. Bridgestone runners could have even still won points, or been compensated by Michelin in some way for having a wasted trip to the US. Michelin would have saved an element of its now tattered reputation.


    Except, of course, such a hybrid- or complete non-championship race wouldn’t have been a waste of time. All that airtime in the world’s single biggest market for things like tyres, oil and cigarettes, would have been worth the effort as it is the purchasers of such items that pay for the teams’ and the FIA’s extravagent but increasingly pathetic operation.


    Sadly, our sport is run by people who only know regulations, only care about winning and to hell with the consequences. Ultimately, F1 people just aren’t commercial enough to see the wood for the trees. Pass me the chainsaw, I’ll give them a clearing …


    Thomas Chacko


    Thank you for publishing the tyre correspondence. This makes it clear that even if Ferrai had asked for a chicane to be introduced at Turn 13, FIA would not have agreed. Why did the ESPN commentators convey to viewers the impression that it was Ferrari who were the spoilsports?


    Michelin shod runners were given 3 options, which they could have taken. Of course the cars would have slowed down, but isn’t the fact that Bridgestone tyres have been safer that makes their cars slow in Qualifying. Michelin runners can’t have the cake and eat it too, can they?


    Keith Mosher – Westport Ontario, Canada


    Michelin made a mistake with their tire selection, but did the only thing they could in the name of safety


    The FIA followed the rule book in the name of fair competition


    The owners association refused to race in the name of safety.


    Sound like everybody did the right thing.


    I therefore humbly suggest that the F1 season be cancelled until the FIA can be reviewed by God, the teams be reviewed by God and the tire manufacturers be reviewed by God.


    F1 is of interest only for their technology. Go watch NASCAR for racing.


    John Murphy


    The GPWC cannot come soon enough. F1 in it’s present form had largely cannibalized itself through nonsensical rulemaking, politics and unashamed favouritism.


    The survey designed to give voice to the fans is an absolute joke, and now this.


    I’m off to watch Moto GP and the WRC, the true pinnacles of motosport.


    Jonathan Mottram


    I know Michelin should take some of the blame. But I think the majority of the blame should be pointed at Ferrari and the corrupt leadership of F1.


    Put it this way, if 9 cars are agreeing to put in a chicane for the safety of 14 drivers and for the sake of a decent race, and only 1 team refuse. That one team are extremely arrogant and are putting the sport in turmoil.


    Ferrari think they can rule the sport, and due to their selfishness and lack of love for the sport and competitiveness, they have thrown every aspect of decency out of the window and decided to race only so they can cheaply take points off the other teams, which I feel is a very unsportsmanlike manner and it’s pathetic really that Ferrari can’t come down to the levels and come to a compromise. At least the Michelin teams came to a compromise to try and sort out the solution whereas Ferrari refused to sanction any help to try and make a decent race at least.


    Secondly the FIA have really got to sort things out. Max Mosley needs to sort his priorities out. Why couldn’t the FIA come to a conclusion, its simple enough. They could have put in a chicane and then moved the Bridgestone runners to the front, I would have been perfectly happy for this to happen and I’m sure the rest of the world watching would have too.


    On a more political note, the FIA need to change their rules. I’m beginning to notice a pattern, all nine teams are agreeing to solutions where Ferrari are the only team refusing to commit to the various proposals. This tells me that Ferrari are trying to rule the sport and put the competitiveness of F1 in jeopardy. There needs to be a rule change, the FIA should change the rule of all teams agreeing and change the favour of a decision by a majority vote. It would be the logical thing.


    Picture this, the next general election has just happened, 90% of the votes have gone to Conservative and 10% have gone to Labour. Yet Labour are still going to stay in power against the public’s word just because they want to.


    This is exactly what Ferrari are doing. They have dominated the sport over the last half decade and can’t seem to let go of their domination. They should know their time at the top is up and start to come down to the levels of the other teams. They cannot have their own way all the time.


    So in the future a majority vote should be used. If 9 teams agree to race under one set of circumstances, and 1 team refuses. Then get rid of the 1 team, exclude them from the race, and let the other 9 teams race.


    We cannot allow the selfishness and pathetic ness of one team trying to hopelessly steal fake points to help their pathetic season, stop a sport which has been improving race by race this year.


    Nigel Baker


    To be honest, I’m not sure if they could have had a race on those tyres even with a chicane. If the tyres weren’t safe for more than ten laps without a chicance, how did they know the tyres would go the full race distance with them? Michael said that one of the Michelin drivers thought they wouldn’t…


    I understand it was a safety issue, but the FIA did offer three options which would have enabled a race, but Michelin and the teams didn’t want to try, which I think was poor. Sure, the teams would have been lucky to beat the Minardi’s using those options, but they would have been able to put on a show. They failed to take that option.


    The bottom line was that Michelin screwed up, the FIA took a hard line, and the seven teams weren’t prepared to play. I’m very disappointed in all of them for not finding a solution.


    Anthony Lewis


    this is max mosley and charlie whitings fault, its about time somebody with common sense is in charge of the fia, not a puppet like mosley, he will blame michelin but if this happened to ferrari i would like to see what he would have done, if he was running any other business he would have been fired long ago!! its time to clean house and start treating every team equally!!


    Karl Zosel – Belgium


    I was totally disgusted with what I saw yesterday.

    Let’s say one team, Williams, used a setup that, in combination with the banking, was damaging to the tires. During the first pitstop, they notice that the tires are unsafe, and they pull both cars out of the race.
    This would have been totally acceptable. And it has happened before. It would only punish the Williams team and their tire manufacturer for doing a bad job.

    Technically this is exactly what the Michelin teams did yesterday: pull their cars out of the race for safety reasons.Because of the danger of having a really nasty crash they could not afford to wait until the first pitstop. (Would it have made any difference if 14 teams had crashed or pulled in the pits during the first 10 laps of the race?)

    The ONLY difference yesterday was that it was about 14 cars and that you have no race with just 6 cars, whether it’s from the start or from lap 10 onwards. It appeares that the FIA offered a solution. The Michelin teams could use whatever other tires, expecting to be punished, just like the Williams team in the example above. This would have been fair. A 30 second stop and go, or no points for this race… would have been possible. If the Michelin teams had to make extra pitstops to change the left rear tire every 10 laps, they would have lost much time, compared to Ferrari, and that would have punished them as well, for the mistake they (Michelin) made. This was also a solution offered by the FIA.

    It appeares that Michelin didn’t trust any of their tires to go through the banking. Not even for 10 laps. Not even with more tire pressure. That’s why they would not race unless a chicane was installed. Michelin did a very bad job. So bad indeed, that they really couldn’t expect others to solve their problem.

    I think it is only just that the FIA did not change the track. It would have been dangerous as well, doing so without extra practice sessions. They offered enough solutions to have a real race.

    To save the race, the FIA should have allowed all teams to race on Bridgestone tires only. Add an extra practice session on sunday morning, and give the Michelin teams an extra stop and go during the race.
    Of course this would have been a total disgrace for Michelin. This way Michelin would have been severely punished. In my opinion, they are the ones that ruined this race.


    Brian Roberts – UK


    With all the mudslinging going back and forth, its good to see an editor take a stand against theorists.

    Michelin are trying to pass the book for their own shortcomings onto the FIA. Michelin, by monopoly, wanted to change the rules – bu ludicrously they think its the FIA, and Ferrari, and the circuit that are to blame… but not themselves. They are there to race. Not to put on a circus. Bridgestone would have been laughed at all the way out of the circuit if they’d had the same problem.

    All F1 motor races are dangerous. Cars travelling over 200mph are always at risk of losing a rear wing or other bodywork. Accidents will happen, they have, and they always will. They should be avoided at all costs, but Michelin have approached a corner in F1 from which their future in the sport looks certain to crash.

    Thank you for speaking the truth – and thank you F1 for having a new face on the podium.


    Mark Adams – Milton Keynes, UK


    Michelin made a huge mistake. Somehow they managed to miscalculate the sort of tyres needed for the USGP but for sure they didn’t do it deliberately! We all make mistakes and Michelin should be made to face serious consequences, ranging from a fine to being removed as a tyre supplier from next season onwards. But Michelin weren’t punished on Sunday – we were.

    I have always believed, though, that it is not making mistakes but how you react to them that is the true test of character (even, or especially, when those mistakes are made by others but effect you). On this evaluation Michelin and their teams were in the right, the FIA and Ferrari were in the wrong. Once Michelin realised their mistake they put their hands up and did there best to sort it out in the interests of the fans, both at the circuit and those watching on the TV. The teams should be applauded for putting their drivers safety first, I don’t want to see Kimi Raikkonen or Jenson Button dead because their tyres exploded.

    But the FIA and Ferrari (as usual) we’re not interested. All the answers the FIA came up with were a joke – we want to watch a motor race, not cars going into the pits every ten laps or deliberately slowing down through the fastest part of the circuit! (And how is that supposed to be safe anyway?) I don’t know what the answer should have been (chicane, new tyres, whatever) but there should have been an answer and the FIA should have found it, doesn’t anybody their understand the words ‘big picture’? Jean Todt certainly doesn’t – his post race press release states “For Ferrari this is an important win coming as it does in our number one market”. Doesn’t he understand that he didn’t win anything, let alone anything ‘important’?

    So what for the future? The trouble is I love watching F1 (we don’t all want to watch football do we) – I think motorsport at its best is unbeatable so I’m not going to make grandiose statements about not watching anymore. So I guess at the end of the day I’m the mug.


    David Olson


    While I think what is happening at Indy right now is a terrible shame, I see something worse.


    The morons who choose to manifest their disgust at this travesty by endangering the lives of marshals and drivers (all six of them) by throwing things on the track.


    I am angry about this GP, disgusted. But a race fan, a real race fan would never endanger the drivers this way.


    I hang my head in shame.


    Stuart Masson – Adelaide, Australia


    I find it sad and incredibly frustrating that a safety issue was turned into a political football. A compromise could have been reached as early as Friday night, when Michelin first became aware that it had a serious problem on its hands that was going to affect all of its teams.

    The finger-pointing can go on and on, round and round, but at the end of the day it is a pity that the FIA does not appear to have any control over its Number 1 category. Not that the FIA has shown exceptional brilliance in its governance of Formula 1, but I would still rather see the FIA set the rules instead of the manufacturers.

    I am not sure who to be most angry at, because it is hard to see through the smoke and mirrors. Certainly Michelin have made a monumental error, and they will ultimately pay a heavy price in the marketplace (as they should) for being unable to produce a tyre that will safely carry an F1 car for approx. 350km. But it is a pity that the bitter political environment has hamstrung the whole management of the sport, meaning a viable solution was never going to be found.

    The only workable solution (in my humble opinion) would have been for Michelin to put their hands up on Friday and say “Houston, we have a problem”, and for everyone to sort it out then and there, include an additional chicane and make the Michelin cars start at the back of the grid (or other appropriate penalty). Surely it was not a safe solution to be taking about creating a new chicane less than an hour before the start of the race.

    So why were we treated to the whole charade that was played out on the grid??? If there was no chicane, the cars were not going to race, so why bother gridding up? I imagine that it would be to fulfill legal obligations to TV and the promoter, which is surely a cynicism of the highest (or rather, the lowest) order.

    I am also unhappy at attempts to pin blame on Ferrari for the whole debacle. This is incorrect and unfair, and those making such accusations should know better. Unfortunately, this has been grabbed by the general media, who are almost universally ignorant to the machinations of the sport, who have spread these fallicies to the world.

    Will I still watch Formula 1? Yes, but then that is because my love for F1 and its history outweighs my distaste for the incumbent stakeholders. Hopefully, some good will come of the weekend in that we will see a final resolution to the power struggle one way or the other. Because anything is better than what we have now.


    PS: Go Pitpass – always telling it like it is! Unlike most other, supposedly significant, websites… :)


    PPS: And thanks for providing Talking Point, to actually ask for the opinion of the fans. Again, unlike most others in this sport…


    Colin Gray


    In what has been an exciting and interesting season to date, I think this situation in the USA race raises some serious questions regarding F1. Of course how on earth did this ludicrous situation arise?! However for me, the real questions are why are Michelin almost being made out to be a victim and Ferrari a villain. I think Michelin should be fined and possibly removed from formula 1. How on earth can you make a tyre so close to the edge of safety, only to find out when it is too late. Then to ask for a circuit to be changed is laughable! However it is a good idea. I think for my countries next football match against Italy (I’m Scottish by the way) we are going to ask for the goals to be widened as our strikers just aren’t quite good enough. My final question is why when a major safety issue arises regardless of where the blame lies, could the rules set by the FIA not be adjusted. It is surely a ridiculous situation whereby a rule to reduce costs (and unofficially) make races more exciting directly conflicts with safety of the sport and that it can not be altered or waived for one race (with some kind of appropriate penalty for instance).


    Finally, the highlight and one high point of the race was the TV coverage catching Coulthard‘s conversation with the pits before coming in. Not only did he show that the drivers were desperate to race but they would risk their own safety in order to do so. If only the teams and FIA management were so enthusiastic and selfless!


    Rod Van Koughnet


    Michelin’s failure to have a serviceable back-up tyre at the USGP was absolutely irresponsible. Michelin’s suggestions for changing the sport to fix their problem had no right to even see the light of day. What fan wants to go to Indy to see the one F1 turn on the banked oval be replaced by a chicane? Ludicrous! I don’t care if it would have solved the problem. I don’t care what Ferrari thinks. Michelin opinions at this point are irrelevant and I have no desire to hear them.


    Once the irresponsibility of Michelin was identified as incontrovertable fact, it became the FIA’s responsibility to the fans, the teams, the sponsors, and the sport as a whole to find a solution to the tune of “the show must go on.” The complete and utter failure of the FIA to do this makes that organization every bit as irresponsible as Michelin, if not even more so. The FIA doesn’t deserve to be the keeper of F1 any longer. I’ve never been keen on the manufacturers break-away series, but I’m having second thoughts now. Yesterday I was regretting not participating in the FIA survey this go-round. Not any more. The FIA’s valuation of the fans has been loudly underscored today. They couldn’t give a toss about “man down the pub,” or any man for that matter.


    The race was aired live at 6am here in New Zealand. Why the *#%^ did I get out of bed for this?!? I’ve been in a bad mood all day. European races are aired here Sunday nights at midnight? Do you think I’ll stay up late for the next race? Yeah, I’m wondering too. I’m passionate about F1. If I take a miss, am I hurting anyone but myself? Great, that makes me feel better. I’m holding out hope that the A1 GP series can make F1 as irrelevant as F1 made the USGP. I’ll miss the no holds barred technology competition though…


    For those who haven’t been to Indy, I gather that it is one of the least expensive F1 venues on the planet for admission. That isn’t the end of the story, however. Fans who attended deserve much more than a ticket refund. Before I moved away from the US, it was my experience that hotels really took advantage of the F1 weekend. Low-end hotels were known to charge $250/night, with a 4 night minimum. Three years running, I drove 12 hours to get there. The third, year, I was a volunteer assigned to Pit/Grid. My friends had the opportunity to do that again this year and I thought of them often as I watched the “race” this morning. While fans had the option to just turn their thumbs down and leave, the volunteers had no such option. They had to stay through the whole ludicrous event. Sure, they got in free, but their hotels and travel were not free. Imagine their feeling of betrayal. It’s one thing to work freely for an exciting event. Who wants to work for free for the FIA now?


    The fans deserve refunds inclusive of travel. The workers deserve at least that. The sponsors deserve a rebate equal to 1/19th of their season’s invoice, plus damages. Speaking of damages, what do you think the BMW board is thinking regarding the purchase of an F1 team now? How many stocks have dropped in value as a result? Do you think any F1 fans in the US are lawyers? I suspect hunting season for class-action lawsuits against F1 has officially opened on 19 June, 2005.


    Huw Alban


    I had a dream last night…..


    The USGP 2005 was the icing on the cake that has been the 2005 season so far !


    Since the start of the championship in Melbourne fans have been treated to race wins and improved form from Renault, Toyota, McLaren, and Red Bull (formerly Jaguar). In addition Williams have been continually prodding at the top runners, and Ferrari have been working hard to catch up. As a spectacle the sport is at it’s best at the moment, and the championship fight shaping up to be the closest ever !


    At Indianapolis, after Michelin bravely admitted to a problem with their tyres, the 10 tens rallied around with the FIA and the circuit promoters and agreed on a small chicane just before turn 13. It was decided that this was the best solution, as it meant that all 20 cars could race giving the fans and the sponsors the spectacle that they pay for. It was also agreed that it provided a solution was a fair one as it produced a level playing field for all competitors as every team would need to adjust their strategy to cope for a slightly different track configuration – it was also make the race slightly more unpredictable which everyone agreed was great for the sport.


    The race got under way under the safety car for the first few laps to ensure that all the drivers were familiar with the new chicane, and then racing proper started. The result was fantastic – Trulli won Toyota’s first race and Michael and Kimi respectively improved their points scoring tally against championship leader Fernando Alonso. The championship fight was getting closer than ever !


    The following day the papers were full of positive comment and glowing reports about a thrilling race, and a glowing future for the sport in the US. Ticket sales for the 2006 USGP were already being predicted as US fans clamoured for more action from the sport. The two weeks up to the French Grand prix were packed with press releases and comment from all the major players in the sport, team bosses, major sponsors, car manufactures, dignatories, sporting ministers, and delighted fans all lauding the way in which the sport pulled together to give the global audience the best race of the season. Ticket sales, merchantising sales, and interest in the sport was at an all time high as media outlets struggled to contain the positive vibes and enthusiasm for this global spectacle. How on earth would Magny-Cours be able to match this……….


    Then I woke up !


    What a wasted opportunity ! The only ones to gain from this this weekend are A1GP, BTCC, Formula 3, Formula Renault, etc etc as fans (and sponsors) defect to sports where common sense plays a slightly bigger factor in the running of the sport.


    Mazahir Plumber – Mumbai, India


    I feel embrassed to call myself a Formula1 fan anymore…

    I never expected something like this to happen in a world calss sport like formula1. On sunday i saw all the smart businessmen(calling themselves racers) turn into a bunch of spoilt brats.


    I wouldn’t want to blame ferrari nor the FIA for the farce (eventhough i support of neither of the two) they did what was within the rules and i think fundamentally it was michelins mistake and i think they got away with it pretty easily under the shadow of ferrari and the FIA not being co-operative.


    Even if all the teams would have agreed to a moified layout of the circuit, would it be safe to have a chicane installed just an hour or even less than that before the race starts? Hence eventhough i support one of the michelin shod teams, i think the alternative by the FIA of ristrecting speeds at turn13 was the only viable option under the given circumstances.


    I think Michelin and the Michelin shod teams were being too self centered, stubborn and unreasonable in their demnads. I’m sure if something like this would have happened to ferrari and the brigestones the rest of the teams would have made an even bigger fuss.


    Now all I can see is a downhill path for formula1… and i hope that the GPWC (which is even more likely to happen now) would have more level headed people running the show and not fight like little babies, and for the fans i think they would rather watch a 40 car A1 GP or GP2 or Renault World Series… than having a 6 car formula1 race run by politicians an selfish businessmen.


    Pat Jeal


    I had the pleasure of watching F1 at back at Brands and pre-modified Silverstone. Just an ordinary spectator. Never “knew” anyone who could fiddle me tickets. Ordinary young enthusiast. Then the restrictions on spectating drove me away, back to my first love, racing motorcycles, and spectating at club bike and car meetings.


    Oh yes, there really was a time when the ordinary guy could meet his GP heroes and see the cars close up. Buy a Hesketh badge off the team while you looked at the car in bits, while James Hunt sat in the shade waiting for practice, signing autographs. Get Mike Hailwood’s autograph as he walked across the paddock before practice at Silverstone. Take some photos. Yes, an ordinary spectator wandering about in the paddock!


    I’m sure we were a pain at times, but if we missed out it didn’t really matter because we weren’t being held away. We could come back in an hour or so. We learned who would chat and who wouldn’t. And when.
    We felt part of the racing.


    All gone.


    Spectators are expected to pay (a hell of lot) to act merely as a back-drop for TV.


    They generally have a struggle to get into the circuit. They certainly have a struggle to leave it. While they’re at the racing they can’t see much and they are obviously allowed in only on sufferance. Can’t see the cars close up or being worked on, can’t meet the drivers, aren’t wanted.


    It’s business. It’s money. So damn proud of itself. And so far up its arse that it can’t see out.


    The increasing contempt for spectators within F1 reached its peak yesterday.


    Now the unwanted masses are told nothing of an impending fiasco. A shrug of the shoulders and “blame Michelin”. Total contempt.


    For goodness sake tell them up front what’s going on and say they’ll get their money back. It’s not as if the money isn’t there. Argue about who pays later. Fat chance.


    Well goodbye F1. I won’t even waste my TV time on you again. I’ll listen on Radio5 while I’m coming back from Cadwell. but I won’t really care if I miss it.


    Over the years you’ve driven away the enthusiasts and now you’ve lost the masses. What do you have left? F**k all. Go play on your own.


    I’ll be back if spectators ever matter, but that probably means never. Or until there’s a new top formula, and one which has different attitudes


    Tom Roberts


    F1 RIP….. Thank you… well said.

    As a student of corporate ethics (M.B.A. and M. Sc.) , I salute Michelin for taking a stand when it was clear that-
    A. Michelin acknowledged there was a problem with their tyres
    B. The tyres were not safe in this situation
    C. A safe solution/compromise could not be assured or accepted.

    I understand there are tons of other factors under consideration and that probably none of the parties is untainted. The fact is, Michelin could have said all appeared ok…or ‘no problem has been found’ and the race would have gone on. Should someone have been seriously injured, the blame may have been attributed to them down the road in the future.

    A BIG FAVOR…. In 30 days, I have another class on business ethics.
    As you receive ‘official releases’ on this, would you please forward them to me? I will have to write a research paper following the class. I anticipate this well be a perfect topic for me to research. Any releases from any of the parties…drivers, teams, manufacturers, Bernie, FIA, etc? Just forward them on to me?

    Damir Bozic – Zagreb


    The “Tyre rule” is dangerous and something that should be changed a.s.a.p. Safety issue on Indianapolis in this regard was brought up immediately after GP Europe. I personally think that expecting from F1 racer to pull out from winning position because his car (including tyres) may break apart in the last lap is not only foolish, but kills sport as it is. Formula one is inherently extremely dangerous sport and it`s essence is in taking the risks that common people would not think of. Having that in mind, I see governing bodies in F1 responsible for imposing such a rules that will differ a sport from Old roman gladiators. By imposing the “Tyre rule” FIA failed to do so.

    On the other hand, rule is the rule. What would F1 championship look like if (from any reason) sporting and technical rules are to be altered from event to event ?

    Michelin made a mistake, but not of such kind that simillar situation could not happen again. What happens if in such a case we had bloody instead of meaningless racing event ?

    Instead of making excuses and stupid demands, I say that Michelin equiped cars should race, drivers should take no more risks than usual, if needed reducing speeds in 12 & 13 and every 10 laps changing tyres. That is what I think real sportsmen should do. And should let governing bodies to mangle with questions if changed tyres imposed real or (just !) possibble threat to the car and life of the driver and spectators. This procedure shoult repeat and last as long as it take FIA to change the rule.

    At the end, I must agree – maybe that is what people in touch with reality would do.

    Naomi Gluckstein


    It was with total disbelief that I watched those cars pull into the pit lane – and with even more disbelief when I read reports after the race which managed to blame Ferrari! Sorry, but did they turn up with duff tyres? Did they pull off to disappoint the fans, Nope; Seriously though, I concur with everything in your article, spoilt kids indeed, tey could have raced and changed tyres every 10-12 lpas, but no, that would give them penalties – well the penalty they will all pay the price, farewell America (as if they ‘ll everhave F1 back)


    Dave Yearsley


    i can understand why they couldnt race because of the tyres ect.. but what i dont undertand is that why didnt they just put a shecain in they had ages to put one in the hole race was a sambles really , also i feel let down because i was really looking foreward to the us grand prix and i thought what a let down really what a let down im ashamed to be a good supported fan obiously im not going to stop watching it. (thats just stupid really if you think about it) also the fans that were their were very upset but thats not fair throwing beer cans at shumi that was unfair basically michaline SORT YOUR SELF OUT!!!!!!!


    Geoff Collins – Pitpass


    It’s been a while since I’ve spoken to my family during an F1 race. I live in Zurich, my parents live in Eastbourne and my brother resides in Brighton (Hove, actually) so we usually discuss what happened a day or two later on the phone. But yesterday, of course, I had plenty of time to make the two phone calls during the event. I think it would still be valid to call it a race, because it did at least look like each of the drivers was racing against their team-mate, but either way, there wasn’t much going on. We had a discussion, alcohol fuelled in my case, about the rights and wrongs of the matter but we were all pretty much agreed that the various people in charge were a bunch of idiots.


    There was one highlight though. For me the entertainment came when ORF (who I will remind you, cover F1 without advert breaks and broadcast on the Astra satellite) switched to cover a football match; Brazil v Mexico. Mexico had just been awarded a penalty, the striker prayed for assistance, walked up and calmly tapped the ball into the back of the net. Job done – or was it? Not quite – the referee was ordering it to be retaken because a member of the Mexican team had moved into the penalty area just before the ball was kicked. At the retake, the striker hammered the ball against the crossbar, and there was great jubilation from the Brazilian team. Until the referee pointed out that this time, a Brazilian had encroached into the box too soon, and we had another retake. Somewhat stressed, the striker had his third attempt and the keeper got a hand to it, deflecting it for a corner. I was quite happy with this. What I’d just witnessed was an independent authority consistently applying the rules. And although they were rules that are often forgotten, rules is rules.


    Which was the FIA’s point this weekend. Their response to the request for a change in the rules, or a change to the circuit was well argued and clear. Charlie Whiting pointed out that Michelin would no doubt be informing their teams as to the maximum safe speed for the tyres in turn 13. Nowhere have I heard any mention what this speed is, or whether it was communicated to the Michelin-shod teams. They were also told that if they were to change tyres for purely safety reasons – i.e. no performance gain, then no penalty would be applied. And although teams are only allowed four sets of tyres, the teams were told that there would not necessarily be a penalty if it was necessary to use more than the normal allocation.


    My inference from this was that the Michelin teams should race, but instruct their drivers not to exceed the maximum speed through turn 13. How much time would they lose by doing that? I don’t know, let’s assume it was two seconds per lap. Three even – and that’s a lot. Toyota and McLaren would still be quicker than Jordan and Minardi, and so a podium place, with the associated points was still up for grabs. One of the intriguing things about the Indianapolis circuit, is that either a low or high downforce set-up can work. So the teams could have opted for high downforce settings and run quickly through the infield, gaining time over the Bridgestone runners, stayed off the throttle until the end of turn 13 and then floored it. All six cars finished yesterday, but I’d wager that the inexperienced drivers in the yellow and black cars wouldn’t have coped so well if they’d had to race against the big boys. It’s reasonable to expect that four points scoring positions would have been up for grabs without compromising safety. And yet they didn’t race.


    Why didn’t they race? Why insist on a compromise solution that was clearly unfair on Ferrari? Especially as Ferrari seem to have suffered more than most as a result of tyres formulated for the new regulations. So why not race? I’d really like to know. I can’t believe they didn’t think of driving slower. Or changing tyres every eight laps. If they (the Michelin teams) can agree not to start the race, then they could have agreed on an eight stop strategy. Think how interesting (or confusing) that would have made the race, and clearly, there would have been no performance advantage so the FIA would have let them do it. These are supposedly intelligent men in charge of the teams – not boys who’ve lost their toys. Surely the slogan on the Minardis’ front wings: “Lost Boys”, could not have been more apposite.


    On the subject of driving slower around Turn 13, do you remember the 2001 race? It rained, and not everybody had the right rain tyres, so there were quite significant speed differentials (Montoya simply driving round the outside of Schumacher springs to mind) on that corner. Simply put, these speed differentials were down to the difference in tyres, and although these were physical limitations of grip, it still boils down to the ability of a driver to extract the maximum from his tyres. And if that’s an artificially imposed limit so be it. Maybe the next time it rains and the Michelins are faster, Jean Todt will request a new chicane to be built during the race. No, of course not. It’s stupid as was the suggestion this weekend. Ferrari’s tyres were selected for the high speed section and they worked. Michelin got it wrong, deal with it.


    As you can see, I’m laying the blame for the F1asco firmly at the feet of the Michelin team managers. And I’m intrigued as to whether the FIA will charge them with bringing the sport into disrepute. There can certainly be no doubt that that was indeed the outcome of the farce. I hope they do, although of course such an action would probably end up benefiting Ferrari, particularly if teams (or drivers) were penalised by the loss of points rather than dollars. Which brings us round to the question of the GPWC, the re-signing of the Concorde agreement and the general FTM (“follow the money, always follow the money”, copyright Mike Lawrence 2002 onwards) discussion. I don’t want to go into that, partially because I don’t have a crystal ball, but mainly because I’m getting tired of it and would really like to get back to watching some racing.


    We should not forget that the problem was caused by Michelin’s inability to bring safe tyres to the event. But it was an honest mistake caused by trying to extract too much performance from the tyres. Incidentally, I thought Charlie Whiting’s statement that article 151c may be invoked, with it’s implications of causing intentional harm to the sport was unnecessary. But while the blame for causing the problem can be apportioned in the direction of Clermont Ferrand, the real problem was in how the crisis was (not) dealt with. The FIA must also take responsibility for creating regulations that have no contingency or back-up. The FIA has now come out and said that the cars should have been driven slower. They should have issued that press release 24 hours earlier. The CEO of a large corporation that so spectacularly upset every single one of its customers would surely resign. Will Max Mosley stand down then? We’ll see, although I suspect we all know
    the answer to that one.


    Michelin have done themselves no favours this weekend, indeed it’s fortunate that it was Bridgestone that had chosen to advertise on what seemed like half of the hoardings at Indy. If there is to be a single tyre supplier next year, it’s now unlikely that we’ll be seeing a French product. I shall still continue to use Michelin’s excellent guide books when it comes to searching out restaurants but I can’t imagine replacing the Bridgestones on my cars with French rubber.


    The Michelin Man that we all know and love is also known by the name Bibendum. This was originally used in a slogan by Michelin early in the twentieth century; Nunc est Bibendum. “Now it’s time to drink” is the literal translation, but today the phrase will have implications of drowning sorrows, rather than the intended happy occasion.


    The modern-day Michelin men will be returning to France today, in search of a tyre that will deliver victory at their home Grand Prix in two weeks time. While Magny Cours isn’t everybody’s favourite circuit, at least the Guide Rouge lists an excellent restaurant there, La Renaissance. If you haven’t already booked a table there you won’t get in, such is the power of a Michelin star, let’s hope their tyres give us no further cause to remember yesterday’s ludicrous farce.


    Duane D’Orazio


    As I sat in my seat at Turn 1 Sunday watching Pints of Foster’s being thrown onto the track, the first thought that came to mind was that this was the ultimate result of Max’s tire regulation decision! He must step down! Could this really be happening? There went another Pint of Foster’s sailing over the fence onto the racing line. Why waste a good Pint of Foster’s on such a pathetic display, on the sport that I love.


    Peter Baylis


    Tickets for Copse C arrived first thing this morning.Why am I not overly excited as usual? Sorry to all fans of the sport but lets face it…it’s over.Ok we’ll have some series of some description but the F1 we all know and love is now officially lost to a small group of super rich,super arrogant,super stupid schoolkids.


    Alpaslan Bak – Istanbul, Turkey


    In my opinion, Michelin’s lack of preparing a decent tyre for the race can not be forgiven. They have been racing on Indy since 2000 and they should have known better. They offered to bring other set of tyres from France and this indicates that they had a more stable tyre in stock. Stating that they could not find a technical reason for tyre failures only shows that they made a very very big mistake on tyre selection. After all, Bridgestone could have made that mistake as well, but they did not. Michael Schumacher said after the race “I know that we left at home tyres that had more performance and less durability.” This prooves that Bridgestone compromised performance over safety which Michelin did not.


    Michelin offered some, so called, solutions to the problem (they created), but not accepted by FIA. There is a rule book and FIA obeyed the rules in that book.


    FIA is not to cover for somebody’s mistake on tyre selection.


    Michelin must step forward and take all the responsibility like a noble man and apologize from everybody, including ordinary men on the street who made this sport a world-wide event.


    I don’t care how much it will cost Michelin to apologise (probably millions of dollars) but they can only clean their names by doing so.


    Sid Chaudhury


    After several hours of languishing in sorrow over the debacle of the US grand prix, this relatively new F1 fan has settled on the following (hopefully more rational) thoughts:


    1) F1 racing is a race of not just the drivers and pitcrews but of technology. In the current system, tires, along with the engine, chassis and virtually everything else in the car are part of this competition. It is the added aspect of technology that makes F1 the ‘pinnacle’ of motorsports. As such, a tire defect by Michelin leading to the retirement of 14 of the 20 cars is a natural result of the competitive nature of F1. An engine failure due to excess tuning towards performance at the expense of reliability can knock a car out of a race; tires (or any other part of the car) are no different.


    2) F1 racing is a sport, and like any sport, it’s ultimate purpose is entertainment for the fans. Without this, the entire business side of F1 would not exist. As such, the FIA has a responsibility to maintain the entertainment for its fans. The FIA was worried that being flexible on the strict tire rules would set a dangerous rule precedent that teams may use unfairly in the future. But by being inflexible they have set a different, more fundamentally damaging precedent: If you host, sponsor or attend a grand prix event, you may not get the race you were promised. F1 is not a cheap sport – its fans pay high ticket/transportation prices to attend, its sponsors pay exorbitant advertisement fees and its host must make many expensive preparations for an event. The prospect of these weighty investments yielding a farcical race in the end is more damaging to F1 than any breach of competitive rules.


    3) Being a fan of a number of the Michelin teams, I was furious that Ferrari would not consider the possibility of adding a chicane to turn 13. However, in light of Point 1, this is neither un-sporting nor disrespectful. One cannot expect a competitor to yield an advantage for the sake of the sportsmanship. How often does a player in a different sport overrule a referee’s judgement on a foul call when it is fairly obviously to all involved to be incorrect, when that player stands to benefit from that call? It is not up to Ferrari to make that call, and furthermore, I would argue that it is improper for Jordan and Minardi to ‘team-up’ with the Michelin teams and request the chicane. Teams should do only what is in their best interest to win under the given set of rules – indeed, it is aiding other teams, at the expense of your own competition, that is not sporting – to do so is politically motivated and non-competitive. The overall quality of the event is solely the responsibility of an impartial governing body.


    In light of the above three points I feel that the FIA should have acted to ensure a compromise to keep the race running, for points, with some severe degree of penalization to the Michelin teams, over the valid objections of Ferrari, because having 70% of the cars retire can easily be considered extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, blaming Michelin is pointless – like all competitors in this sport they pushed their technology to the limit and reached the limit, that is an inevitable consequence of the competition. They owned up to their mistake very early on and alerted the appropriate people and in the end they will be punished by the system. Teams may decide to switch to Bridgestones following this incident, or if a single tire rule is implemented, the entire F1.


    What seems to be repeatedly ignored is the fact that all teams are required to bring a hard and a soft compound tire. Is it suspicious that every Michelin team would ‘forget’ to bring a hard compound tire? The FIA does have a safety system in place in this exact situation – run the less competitive, but safer, hard tires. In the end it is clear that this was a power play, pure and simple. The Michelin teams, along with Minardi, were using this unfortunate situation, in the name of driver safety, to force the FIA to change policies due to a ‘majority’ of the teams’ wishes – solidarity among the GPWC and allied teams against the FIA and Ferrari. The FIA, for its part, refused to yield to the pressure of its political rivals. In the end the GPWC proved there was no legitimate F1 without its teams and the FIA proved that they would not be bullied by the GPWC. And while everyone in the paddock and FIA booth are complimenting are self-consciously measuring the size of their
    balls – it is they, not the fans, who will be the real losers in the end. Fans are consumers – for us this is entertainment. We will, sadly but surely, move on to other types of racing entertainment and the sponsors will follow. With its indomitable brand name in ruins, the question remains, where will F1 go?


    Steve Vincent


    I completely agree with Chris Balfes criticisms of the F1 fiasco in USA this weekend but lose him with the question of ‘what would Michelin have done if the boot was on the other foot?’ i.e. inferring that Michelin would have been completely uncooperative if Bridgestone had the same problem. I think you have fallen into your argument at this point Chris, you seem to be against childishness in the paddock yet this is a very childish response. The fact of the matter is that you can only deal with the crisis at hand and any professional organisation should react to this. A fictitious chance of it happening the other way round should not even be discussed let alone used as an excuse for Ferrari!


    I actually come from a football background and have been working in motor racing for a few years now and must admit that the governing body, the FIA, always amaze me with their ludicrous decision making. The most recent controversial problem in football was the allowing of Liverpool FC to be entered into next years Champions League competition although they had not qualified by the current championships rules. Now, UEFA did what all football fans (except maybe Everton fans!) thought was sensible and broke their own rules and allowed them to enter because IT WAS COMMON SENSE. Something that the FIA should take note from…. its ok to break your own rules if its for the good of the sport, everyone will be on your side if its common sense!


    Instead the FIA hide behind the rulebook and Ferrari take advantage of a screw up just for a few points. The only conclusion in my eyes is that the richest sport in the world is also the most unprofessional and incidents like this expose just how much the corporate business run the whole sport. This isn’t a sport its a business!


    One phrase I have heard a lot since I entered this sport is that motor racing is a professional sport run by amateurs…. how true.


    Mick Ryan


    I really thought we were back to racing for a while there… Michelin, FIA, Ferrari, Eccelstone, Mosely… Honest to God, who really feels the need to untangle the web of Byzantine politics surrounding Formula One? And who truly gives a sh*t about the motives of a bunch of fantastically rich, bought, bickering men if leads to “races” like the one at Indy?


    Season over.


    Sarah Pantry – London


    Until the farce that was the USGP I used to look forward to every race. After the way we were treated yesterday and the total disregard for the fans of F1 I am disgusted with the sport.

    They may as well just have flipped a coin between the team drivers for points and never bothered starting a single engine. Ive seen much more enjoyable sessions with people trying to get a shopping trolley round Tescos than what we were presented with yesterday.

    My tickets to the A1GP at Brands Hatch are already booked. Looks like the A1GP is a lot better organised and has some idea of the fans being important to its success.

    I hope ITV start showing nascar or some motorsport where the ruling body ensures the fans see a race not an extended practise session.


    Cristian Bendfeldt – Guatemala


    After four years of tediousness and seriously asking yourself, I’m I dumb enough to continue watching this thing we call Formula 1? In the back on your mind you are always lurking to find memories of great battles, true sportsmanship, driving control, and the only thing that keeps you posted to the TV live coverage is the though of loosing the chance of having a great race. Something we haven’t enjoyed since 1999. This year the thing we call Formula 1, was slowly moving away for the wrong stuff and giving us….us the viewing and attending CUSTOMERS….. something to be enthusiastic about, closer battles, no more dominance from one team, more guts and control and starting to HEAR AND PAY ATTENTION TO OUR OPINION.


    The FIA’s survey is something long time overdue. Max has hinted some of the results but I’m sure that after the USA FIASCO nothing will matter. PLANET PADDOCK is absolutely divorced from reality and nothing will make them change. Not even the though of taking a huge crap on the largest consumer market in the world. O selfish bastards this will finally hunt you down. But take note corporate Formula 1, you can probably continue selling sponsorships to other equally biased and selfish group of bastards called Corporate Marketing Vice presidents in the world. You can probably continue pampering and kissing ass to all those fat wallets, and wine and dance them, and take them to your astonishing motorhomes during race. But suddenly your TV viewing figures will be so low that not even the possibility of another Ferrari dominance year could have done it. YOU ARE ALL A GROUP OF SELFISH MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PRICKS!


    You owe all of us attending and viewing customers a huge apology. If you are a F1 race promoter, beware of the class of people you are dealing with, these people will not stab you in the back, they will do it face to face. If you work for any of the teams take note that we no longer feel pride in wearing your colors and sharing your dreams. If you are an FIA politician just remember that diapers and politicians are very much alike. You need to change them often and for the very same reason!!!!!


    Sheik Maktoum al Maktoum please keep you eyes open to all the stupid things F1 has done and continue doing. Take care of your customers, keep in touch with them, don’t stand behind an untouchable glass barrier. We need flesh and blood heroes, that we the customer need to be able to get near and touch. Ask your participating teams to create this atmosphere and don’t neglect the viewing and attending customer and you will most definitely have success.


    S Chubb


    Obviously what happened yesterday was a complete farce (massive understatement) and should never be allowed to happen again. But I’d like to know since when has F1 been your sport and regarding your typically pompous article where you stated that you couldn’t be bothered to write up the race report because the Michelin teams couldn’t be bothered to race; well I don’t think you’re going to be putting your life at risk by typing a few words on your PC unless you think the risk of writers cramp is dangerous.


    Its seems obvious to me the initial blame lies squarely at the feet of Michelin. But I feel that the FIA must take a lot of the blame for failing to find a suitable solution in the 48hrs they had to do so. The solution that I gather the FIA proposed, i.e. for the Michelin cars to slow down before the straight in my opinion would have been just as farcical and the same goes for Barrichello‘s idea of the Michelin runners using the pit lane.


    I really can’t blame the teams for pulling out of the race under the circumstances, there is no way they should race if they have serious safety concerns. It seems to me putting in a temporary chicane would have been the best option although this does seem unfair to the Bridgestone runners. It would be absolutely typical if the team to block this was Ferrari because they have a history of putting their interests in front of the sports, also it is the 3rd Ferrari 1-2 that has been booed on the podium, surely a record.


    I don’t think what happened yesterday will have any long term effect on the sport outside of the USA and although it is sad if F1 is finished in the States, elsewhere it has thrived before and it will again, I for one am looking forward to the next Grand Prix.


    Just a last thought, I think it is much better that everyone is pissed off and writing in about the farce yesterday than if the race had taken place and we were writing in after a driver had been killed or seriously injured.


    Tony Palombi – Alberta, Canada


    You spoke rather eloquently. I find it hard to re-iterate your carefully chosen words. Michelin have disgraced everyone involved in yesterday’s disaster. Worst of all, they disgraced themselves.


    I agree, they lost touch with what was reality. After so many years of being pummelled relentlessly (and fairly I might add) by their Japanese counterparts, they acted in the most childish way possible. They adorned the, “if we can’t win, we won’t play” attitude. It is easy in ANY line of work to parallel safety with a lack of results or performance. This is a stance taken by people with what I coin as a lack of testicular fortitude to stand up and accept defeat.


    Bridgestone had their number yesterday and Michelin knew it. If they wanted a chicane installed for safety reasons and didn’t get it, why didn’t they just take an offline path through turn 13 and slow down to 150km/h and simulate a chicane? They wouldn’t because they would have been humiliated by Bridgestone in the final results of the race.


    On the contrary, I am an ever stronger supporter of F1 and all things non-Michelin. For me, I find myself at an even more passionate state than before. Hate can be a powerful motivator. I don’t even hesitate to speculate the the teams didn’t purposely participate in the failure of the tires. Can anyone else see that the 2 catastrophic failures were on JAPANESE manufacturers cars? Bridgestone is also Japanese!!! Coincidences of this proportion are difficult to dismiss in my view.


    P.S. I already punctured the tires on my Michelin shod car. The Bridgestones are being installed as we speak.


    Rob Gordon – Scotland


    Yesterday I was sad, angry and embarassed to be an F1 fan.

    Today I still cant believe what I saw. Did that BS actually happen? Yes we all know whose initial fault it is Michelin and they should pay a very, very heavy penalty. But if there was ever ONE goddam time for F1 to come together and do something for the benefit of the sport as a whole this was it.

    I hold all the teams responsible, the FIA, particularly Mosley and Ecclestone for this mess that had made F1 a mockery around the world, has permanently damaged it in the USA and has completely tainted the best bloody season in years.

    A compromise could have been easily found on saturday, but bloody F1 politics has finally completely shafted the sport. GET REAL if you think the FIA were acting in the best interests of the sport, they took the opportunity to play political hard-ball with the Michelin teams, the vast majority of them GPWC supporters and signed up to the test agreement.

    To budge a little, to see common sense for the good of the sport, to fufill there obligations to the fans at Indy and the millions watchi around the world were a HELL of a lot more eimportant. But oh no political agendas came to the forefront and the fans get f*****d.

    Politics, inflated egos, out of touch old men are killing this sport. Im so sick of the politics crap that is slowly killing F1. Get rid of the morons who `run` this sport and it will be so much heatlhier. There is nothing wrong with the product, the actual racing, its the excess baggage of corrupt and incompetent wanlers around it.

    Michelin – I expect to be thrown out of F1 for 2006. No excuses for you.

    Max Mosley – your EGO is killing F1.

    Bernie Ecclestone – Get out old man. Your so out of touch its pathetic. Lets face it the buck stops with you in F1 and you should resign for this mess, as you should have done a better job to get a resolution.

    Charlie Whiting – Youre a mini Mosley. Piss off.

    Rest of the Team Managers- You all need a damm good slapping with a damm big fish.


    Eddie Morris – Norwich, UK


    Firstly, thanks for a great site – truly independent & to the point – as journalism should be.


    What happened was totally ludicrous. The ‘transparent’ documents from the FIA that you so helpfully published are clearly pointing the blame at the teams. The FIA say that they suggested several other tyre changing/penalty permetations and the possibility of a speed trap on turn 13 but these were turned down.


    I accept that whatever is done would have seriously changed the dynamics of the race but I cannot see why the speedtrap option was not considered more openly. The speed limit has to be adhered to in the pits so a few hundred yards at 120 KmH for everyone surely could not require massive changes in car setup.


    A race run in this way would have allowed competition to have occurred, possibly a more confusing race for those watching but at least a race would have happened.


    However you look at it F1 is a show and the show didn’t go on yesterday. If thousands didn’t turn up to the circuits and millions of people didn’t watch on TV there would be no advertising, no sponsorship and no F1. For the future of F1 the FIA, teams and drivers need to listen to the fans and stop blaming each other. If they keep this head in the sand approach F1 will stop being a watchable sport. It’s not quite RIP F1 but the sport is in a critical condition.


    Dan Turville


    Well what can you say really?

    Firstly I feel that most of the senior figures involved should pull their heads out of their backsides and stop believing their own hype. Once this has been achieved I am sure solutions could be found to most of the current problems in F1.

    How can Michelin turn up to a race without a backup tyre with absolute guaranteed safety if not ultimate performance, especially as the race in question is in the USA?

    How can the FIA state that if the replacement tyre is used the teams would incur a penalty without defining the penalty?

    The Bridgestone teams should not have to compromise as they are not at fault so modifying the track was never really the option but then why did the FIA suggest that Michelin teams just run slowly through parts of the track. Were they actually trying to create a ridiculous environment?

    F1 should now be seen for what it has become, which is not a sport. We should all turn on the television occasionally on a Sunday afternoon, look briefly then point our fingers and just laugh because it certainly cannot be taken seriously!

    In the future I shall enjoy following MotoGP as at least you can see some racing.


    Gerben


    I was there at the race and was disgusted by events happening after the warm up lap. This could have been resolved, the FIA, who claims every year again that rule changes are being made because of safety and cost reduction, showed itself not favorable to its own policy. Mosley and consortium have been ruling the F1 with arrogance and dictatorship for the last few years. At formula1.com, clearly ruled by the FIA, it tried to clear itself from any blame in yet another disgusting twist.


    Michelin doesn’t go free here, but the decision of the FIA was selfish, it should have added water to the wine in order to get the race going. Asking teams to reduce speeds in corners is obviously not an option race fans want and would have compromised the race as well and upset fans. But the FIA doesn’t seem to care about the fans so why should they, and why should we still longer care about F1.


    This will add more oil to the fire for the breakaway teams to have their own competition.


    I guess we’ll wait and see what happens, but many F1 fans are no longer fans. Hopeful their will be a class-action law suit soon in order to reimburse (ex)fans for time and money spent at the US GP Farce.


    Ian “never wasting his money on F1 again” Thomas


    Frankly, I don’t know where to begin. I returned home from Indy just a few minutes ago after a 9 hour drive. It was the second F1 event I attented, and may well be my last.


    I am absolutely gutted by what happened, and while I feel that most of the responsibility for this fiasco falls squarely at the feet of the FIA and Mr. Mosley, I am also amazed that Michelin got it so wrong, and that as usual, Ferrari has found a way to take full advantage of the sport’s continued efforts to destroy itself.


    I simply don’t know how the sport has gotten to this point. Up until now this has been one of the best years of F1 since I started watching in 1998. For the first time in years I’ve watched each race without knowing who would win. I came to Indy expecting to see a race, and instead I was stuck with another Ferrari procession. The worst thing to me, and many of the other s spectators at the track, is that the speedway tried to hide this tyre saga from us. At each session we had commentary over the PA system from Bob Constadorus (please correct the spelling of his name for me) and not once did he mention what was going on. In the buildup to the race, he talked about what a great oppurtunity it was for Toyota and Jarno Trulli to start from pole. He pretended like nothing was wrong. While this was going on, several guys behind me were discussing the Michelin tyre drama with a friend on the phone who was watching Speed Channel’s coverage of the race. I heard crazy rumours about all the teams pulling out after one lap, and I saw pictures of team bosses having heated arguments among themselves. Yet it wasn’t until all the Michelin runners retired that we were officially informed of the situation. I can’t repeat some of the things I heard when a meager six cars passed by our grandstand. However, it was a real pleasure for me to join a huge number of other participants next to the podium as we booed the Ferraris and chanted “Bullshit” over and over again. I’ve no idea why Michael Schumacher thought everyone there was supporting him, because his comments were drowned out by numerous jeers from his so called fans in their over-priced Ferrari merchandise.


    I love watching Formula 1 cars. As angry as I was during the race, it was still thrilling to see, and especially to hear those magnificint machines go around the track. I was trully impressed by the facilities at Indy, and it’s sad that I might never return there. The fact is though, ticket sales will PLUMMET next year. Americans are used to NASCAR and Indy Cars. They may not be as sophisticated and badass as F1 cars, but at least they know how to put on a show without letting their bullshit politics get in the way.


    (Editor’s Note: Bob Constanduros is an important member of the Piptass team, and he kept us fully up to speed as to what was happening throughout the weekend. The fact that Bob had no idea what was to to happen on Sunday, gives some idea as to to how cynical the action of the 7 teams was. Make no mistake, Bob is an F1 fan, through and through)


    Helen Rist – Norway


    If Michelin had brought appropriate tyres in the first place, the race would have run, unaffected. If a tyre company isn’t capable of producing a tyre suitable for an F1 Grand Prix, it should not be permitted to supply F1 cars with tyres.

    Kenneth McLeod


    Typing this email from a hotel room in Indianapolis, and am writing to tell you of my real life experience at the USGP – please use on “Talking point”.

    So, transatlantic flight, hotel bills, taxi’s to the circuit, food, beer, tickets and all that goes with a trip to the Indianapolis Grand Prix. I was one of those at the race, in fact, I’m typing this email from my hotel room in Indianapolis looking forward to my return flight!

    What is being lost in this whole debacle, and the reason I am writing, is that the USGP is brilliant. The on track action yesterday was indeed a disgrace, but I write to tell you that this Grand Prix is easily one of the best kept secrets in our world. The hotels, the food, the track access, the viewing facilities, the ticket prices and the inhabitants of this fine city are first class. They are so dreadfully sorry/apologetic for what occurred yesterday, and of course, they have absolutely no control over what happened. They see this ridiculous situation as a failing on them, and they have been squarely kicked in the nuts from the F1 World. Remember, it was only a matter of weeks ago they had their 220 MPH + cars screaming around the track.

    The term “a bunch of pussies” was used rather extensively where we were. For a sport wishing to crack the North American market, I am sure they could not have done anything worse than what occurred yesterday. The locals are already somewhat bemused/sceptical of the F1 circus, and now, they are not only bemused, they are rightly ashamed to have this “sport” tarnish their fine facility and their reputation as “The racing capital of the world”. More than one person commented (separately from the “bunch of pussies” comments) that they should only have one race at this circuit – and you know what, I was forced to agree with him. (You’ll not be surprised to hear that they weren’t talking about F1 being that only race)

    I will be back to Indy, no doubt at all. I don’t think I’ll bother with the F1 Race though, more likely I’ll come back and witness the 500. I’d love to come back and see 20 cars head into turn 1, but I don’t know that I can trust the galoots who run the show to guarantee me my money back should they decide to dick with the sport for the umpteenth time. What is to happen at the complex at Silverstone? I’d say that’s a pretty dangerous set of corners. And what of Eau Rouge at Spa? Paribollica at Monza? 130R at Suzuka? Are all these paying fans going to get kicked in the nuts too? Will the fools who run the show refund them their expenses?

    Like you Chris, I’ve watched F1 for as long as I can remember, and I cannot recall a time when I was genuinely embarrassed to be an F1 fan. We were chatting with guys from New York, Chicago and Florida and all of them were bemused – I held my head in shame when they all spoke of never returning to Indy again, and I pleaded with them to not hold it against this fine place. Alas, F1 has damaged itself extensively on this continent, and I’d be amazed if it ever recovers.


    Tessa Westlake – Woking, Surrey


    I’m with Martin Brundle in not knowing whether to laugh or cry (and in wanting to go and give the parties involved a good slap)! The main thing about this whole situation is that it could have been sorted out way before the race, and we did not need to have this 11th hour nonsense. Granted, it was a tricky one, and I’m quite glad it wasn’t up to me to sort it out. Once the teams had been told they cannot race on that tyre, what could they do? And while a chicane seemed to be a compromise, why should the Bridgestone runners be disadvantaged by it when the problem wasn’t of their making? (Imagine the fuss there would have been if Ferrari had demanded changes to be made to suit their car!). Similarly, having the Michelin runners slow down at a particular point in the race whle other cars would be at full speed doesn’t seem very satisfactory either. But, while it was a hell of a problem to sort out, surely the collected brains and experience down in the pits could have come up with something. Sadly, I was left with the impression that it wasn’t so much about finding a solution to let everyone race, but more to do with intenal politics and who was going to get away with telling who what to do, and who could gain the most points from the situation with the added bonus of not actually having to do any racing. The fans? Sorry, who?


    I don’t know what the team leaders, the FIA and everyone else thinks they have proved by this little episode. What have they shown to the world? I thought football players were a bunch of egotistical, extremely overpaid chldren. Those “in charge” of Formula One have just outdone them. Please stop messing with our sport. We’ve been more than patient. In fact it was this time last year that I wrote to Pitpass in despair that it was all so dull and threatening to switch off. Yet here I still am, and being treated like this for my trouble. Wow, do I feel like a real fool for thinking things might get better. Just when it was actually getting more interesting again and I could admit to watching F1 without my friends pointing and laughing, those involved work together to make sure it all goes to pot. Maybe the whole thing will be a blessing in disguise, and moves will be made to make sure it never happens again. But if F1 continues with this head in the sand attitude towards the people who basically pay their overinflated salaries, they will wake up one day to empty grandstands. I’m hoping A1 will revive me, and I hope it will provide the excitement, enthusiasm and sportsmanship that F1 seems determined to wipe from its ranks.


    T. Marshall


    I agree with your comments whole heartedly.


    I spent my formative years growing to like F1 in the mid-seventies and through the eighties. The emergence of corporate sponsorship has in this time gone from a trickle to full blown madness I witnessed today at the USA GP. None of what transpired came as a surprise to me and this saddens me. In New Zealand we are not blessed with a GP but do get to host a round of the World Rally Championship. I have been an active spectator of the WRC every year since 1983 and stopped 3 years ago when corporate sponsors started to invade the service park and roped it off so spectators could not access the area.


    In 6 short years I went from having a conversation with Tommi Makinen during a service stop to not even being able to see a rally driver. Corporate boxes and roped off areas for the privileged few now dominate the service park and the fans come last. The FIA has single handily ruined Rallying by making the sport so expensive that corporate sponsorship has taken over. Worse is teams are now leaving the sport.


    Does this all sound familiar? Rallying is Formula One in a microcosm. How can F1 move out of this corporate greed trap it finds itself in without dealing to the root of the problem? Putting aside the issue and politics of an alternative series, costs need to be reeled in.

    I think all carbon/composite parts (body chassis etc) need to be banned. Cars to me made of steel or perhaps aluminium in a more conventional manner. I want to hear V8’s V12’s V16’s! and cars with no rear wings and insanely wide rear tyres with mechanical grip. How I yearn to see a Lotus 88 built to 2006 standards. What would I know… I’m just a fan…


    The word FIA-SCO seems quite fitting.


    Marc Sparks


    First off I want to dispell any notion that the points earned by any of the teams at Indy were hollow. They’re not! Those three teams arrived with the correct equipment, which was in accordance with the rules, and raced.


    The other teams retired.


    This situation is not comparable to Barcelona in 2002 when Minardi withdrew due to safety concerns. In that instance Minardi had an unexplained problem, and they withdrew before the race, they didn’t toddle around the formation lap to gain TV exposure, and simply dive into the pits. No, they said ‘We are not racing.’ and they packed up and went home.


    If the Michelin runners felt that strongly about the issue, they should have packed up on Saturday.


    The FIA is absolutely correct in it’s attitude, any change of the rules in the middle of the race meeting would be grossly unfair to the Bridgestone teams. No quarter was given Minardi in Melbourne, so why should any be granted now, just because the problem effects the majority of the grid.


    Frankly the FIA should examine every single car that withdrew, and if it finds them in raceworthy condition, penalise them like it threatened to do after BAR‘s untimely retirements earlier this year.


    I feel very sad for the spectators, and race organizer, and cluedos to those drivers who performed under awkward circumstances.


    Christopher Voaden


    I have been an avid fan of F1 for upwards of 20 years now, in all my years, I have not seen the like of Sunday evening!


    First of all, may I notify you of my up most disgust of the 1 tyre formula. When the draft rules for 2005 were published my first thought was of horror. How can you expect 900 hp to go through a worn/flat spotted/old tyre with efficiency and safety? How many drivers have complained about the lack of grip etc? To save costs, the FIA have degraded the safety of the sport, a sport that had the highest safety record going with all modifications to cars and circuits after 1994. Now, there are many blow outs, poor performance of cars that were expected to shine in 2005 and OLD TYRES!


    Secondly, Why are the FIA so engrossed with breaches of the regulations to the detriment of the safety. When reading all of the FIA’s press releases, they seem to have not listened. In the interests of safety we would have a damn good show had the FIA allowed some form of compromise, my favourite was for Bridgestone cars to have started from the front.


    Thirdly, I used to be a Ferrari fan, I had supported them until 2004, they then started move themselves into a pact with the Devil. Are the recent rule changes actually for the good of the sport, or did Ferrari have too much say in how they were made? Once again, it is the supposed ‘superiority’ and arrogance they have shown, They once again were the only one of ten teams to disagree, echoes of Melbourne and Minardi. They moan that Michelin test too much, but when they see their problems they start to gloat.


    I for one hope that Formula 1 in the old US of A is not damaged too much by this farce, Indianapolis is one of my Favoured GP’s because I have been there but it is also a bit different. The political aspect from within this sport has never been seen before but yesterday the politics were outshined by the avoidable farce, I hope the FIA learn from their arrogance and this big mistake.


    Paulo Gomes


    Michelin just screwed up everything.


    They were on the edge with their tyres and failed (as you can see what happened in the Nurburgring with Räikkonen).


    Then they frightned team managers saying “Tyres aren’t safe”, obviously shifting responsability away from Michelin, if anything happened. Team mangers tried to pulled something so they wouldn’t be penalized (both on track and on the championship), but it would be unfair for Bridgestone teams, since they are not responsible for other peoples mess-up.


    Bridgestone, who were bashed all over in the first half of the season, had the upper hand and wanted to take advantage of it, fair and square. So, all the teams pulled out cowardly, and then we had a “race” with only 6 cars.


    They had the option to change tyres freely if they were affecting drivers safety, and i don’t think they would be penalized if they did (remeber Räikkonen’s situation again, when everubody said he sould’ve pitted and change the tyre).


    M. Elango – India


    Our F1 is in such a state because of the dirty politicking and a bunch of egoistic morons that run the teams. If the breakaway GPWC weren’t yet in any decent shape, things wouldn’t have come down to this. It’s basically a show of strength by the manufacturers – telling Bernie, “you don’t have a race without us.”


    As to who’s responsible for the Sunday farce (is it so difficult to see?), it Michelin, of course. They have been racing in the circuit for years. They knew of the regulations much before the season started. And they goofed up big time. And, cleverly, they have managed to shift the focus on to a non-issue: a chicane at Turn 13. And the whole bloody media (therefore, the world) is lapping it up saying “not agreeing to a new chicane in the 11th hour is the issue.”


    I think, all these teams and Michelin should be axed from F1. And more teams should be brought in with a whole host of new regulations that ensure level playing field. That’ll show these guys that the sport is
    bigger than the teams.


    Tim Crumlish


    First of all, I am still an F1 fan. I will continue to watch Formula One, and will continue attending the race in Canada, and the United States, if by some miracle it still exists next season.


    That said, yesterday was not a day to be proud of that fact. I was among the 160,000 plus in the grandstands who plunked down my hard-earned money for the race, and expected to see, of all things, a race. What happened, well documented in many sources, and other replies here, was not welcome. Perhaps the most frustrating thing in this whole episode is that there is no single place on which to focus all anger. With the exception of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, who handled this whole episode with class, there are no innocent parties. This shows more than any single episode in the past that the fans don’t matter to the current power structure of F1.


    Max and Bernie have created such a venomous atmosphere in the paddock through the political wrangling, and their divide-and-conquer schemes, that this situation became inevitable. If it was just about safety I think we could understand. But because of the war between the 9 teams and the FIA-Bernie-Ferrari triumvirate, it denigrates to petty politics, and the fan suffers. Until the war is over, it will happen again. One can only hope that some good comes out of this. It is clear that F1 has (we hope) hit rock-bottom. It is in these times that good leadership can use it to motivate everyone to improve. However, bad leadership will continue on the downward spiral, or in many cases speed it up. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little good leadership in F1, and I see this as being merely the opening salvo in a bigger war. As long as Max, Bernie, and Ferrari are calling the shots, nothing will change, and it is hard to see F1 going foreword. All we can do is hope that sanity will prevail, and F1 starts listening to, rather than showing open contempt for the fans.


    Mark Thompson – Darlington, UK


    I never thought I would say this, but after the farce that took place yesterday I am ashamed of Formula one.


    I have followed F1 for years, it has always been my favourite ‘spectator’ sport and this is where the problem is, I think somewhere along the way the FIA, Bernie Ecclestone, and the team principals have forgotten about the fans. The sport would not exist without the fans, it’s as simple as that, and yet between them all they managed to tarnish the F1 image (probably beyond repair in the USA).


    What took place was embarrassing and I think the FIA have to take a look at themselves as well as pointing the finger at Michelin. Yes Michelin were the root cause of the problems but the FIA could and should have done something to ensure a safe race took place. I find it incredible that the FIA have published letters on their website in defence of their actions, yet there is no apology to the fans on there. They may argue that the issue was not of their making, but they were directly involved in the decisions that resulted in a ‘Race’ of just six cars, for this fact alone they should apologise to the fans, without this they just come across as arrogant.


    I’m also angry at the Teams who pulled their cars out of the race, whilst I understand why it was done and agree with the decision for safety reasons, I think the manner in which it was done was completely unfair to the fans who turned up at the track. It felt like a game of brinkmanship was being played out by spoiled brats and it was being performed in front of well over 100,000 fans and a TV audience in the millions.


    I feel sorry for the drivers, as the cars were on the parade lap David Coulthard could be heard on his radio saying he was prepared to go racing. I’m glad they didn’t because one or more of them could have been seriously hurt or even killed, but it shows that at least some of the drivers wanted to put on a show.


    For the first time since I started watching F1 as a boy, I find myself wondering if I’ll even bother to watch the next race. The whole thing has become too political and I think that this is another reason as to why common sense didn’t prevail yesterday. If ‘They’ will not provide the racing entertainment the fans want, then the fans will seek it elsewhere.


    Pedro Gonçalves


    This is the first time i wrote here, but i would like to thank the opportunity that you gave to all of us, to share our opinions!


    I’m portuguese, from Oporto city, the same of Tiago Monteiro, and despite of all the confusion of this weekend, it was a pleasure to see Tiago finish one more race (nine times this season), but in third place???


    If he said only in dreams (according to an interview that he gave in “autosport” magazine) he thought finish in the podium, i have to admit that i never thought this was possible! Once more i have to say: Congratulations!!!


    But i have a question that i think it will be interesting: and if instead of all the problems that affect Michelin this weekend, the same happenned with Bridgestone, and the teams involved with them saw their participation in the US circuit in jeopardy, would someone care? After all, its was only six cars, the other fourteen could run anyway!!!!


    Dominic Moss – Crick, Northants, UK


    This was always going to happen, it is just indicative of the blinkered and self serving mindsets of those involved that it has happened in the most inappropriate place at the worst time possible. We had a season full of interest for the first time in ages but those involved could not see the bigger picture and have allowed their petty squabbles to wipe out the gains made so far this season.


    To my mind the FIA are the ones who should be held to account. Max Mosley may be a brilliant lawyer and his arguments may have been technically correct and perfectly argued but that misses the point. The smug and intractable position taken by the governing body in response to a safety issue highlighted by Michelin can hardly be described as being helpful. To err is to be human to forgive is to be divine! Michelin goofed, put their hand up and admitted the problem and then suffered a less than graceful response.


    The FIA may have scored some points and gained the upper hand in that argument, but at the same time paying spectators, fans on worldwide TV and the sponsors who bankroll the whole circus were all left in the dark and ultimately presented with a compromised farcical product, how can this be regarded as being in the best interests of the sport? How many fans and sponsors are going to take their custom elsewhere?


    I have always considered the 2 race engine and long life tyres to be an anachronism – how much additional testing has there has to be to ensure that these 2 new “cost saving” measures would work? The rules as introduced always had the potential to engineer this situation as the limit was always going to be reached or breached by one of the two companies competing against each other. A cynic might well say that this was ultimately the intent behind the rule itself, who knows.


    Gien the stance taken by the FIA how many potential technical partners are now re-considering their involvement? Michelin have invested millions in their involvement and look at the treatment they receive from the governing body. Max may argue that they wanted to be involved in the FIA’s championship and should abide by the rules but does he really believe that they set out to deliberately break those rules? Who knows, given the behaviour of the FIA what is to stop major motor manufacturers and suppliers establishing a new “governing body”? One that might be a bit more circumspect in exercising the authority it has been invested with.


    The only winners in this sad and shabby episode will be the lawyers, nice one Max – look after your own why don’t you?


    Philip Castrodale


    Firstly, the blame for this fiasco lies squarely on the shoulders of Michelin. They brought an unsuitable tire to Indy and waited until the last minute to declare it unsafe. They pushed the design limits too far without concern for the consequences. They should be fined by the sporting body.

    Notwithstanding this transgression, the FIA is even more responsible for not protecting the interests of the fans. This issue should have been decided well before Sunday morning, and the fact that they lined up the parade lap only added insult to injury. A non-points race should have been held, with championship points going to the Bridgestone teams. While it was correct to make safety the prime consideration, all parties involved need to realize that they must always deliver a quality product to the fans. Clearly Michelin, FIA and the teams did not take the fans into consideration. I believe that irreparable damage has been done.


    Ian Dixon – The Grand Prix Show


    I can’t see how they couldn’t between all of them work out a way to have a race. The idea of a chicane seems a good one, even if it meant disqualifying all the Michelin runners at the end of the race it would have been better that a farcical race that we had.


    I want to know what was wrong with chicane idea, and who blocked it. It looks like to me the FIA used it as an excuse to slap the manufactures down (as they did to BAR).


    F1 is dead in the USA and has once again taken a massive blow, roll on the GPWC?


    Tim Marshall – Pennsylvania, USA


    I always thought Formula One was a little bit soap opera and the rest was world class racing. Well, now it’s all soap opera. You know, with phony stakes at risk and big egos driving circumstances into inevitable, and obvious as the nose on you face, tragedy. It was a two hour car accident, if you stayed to watch. Michelin couldn’t get it done last weekend. The teams were concerned about safety. The FIA was concerned about being fair to the Bridgestone teams and adherence to the rules. So how’d that work out for ya? Any moron can hold up a rule book and say this is how it’s done. Race marshals do that. What’s the lord of the grooved tire, Max Mosley’s responsibility in this extraordinary situation? Wave a rule book? Whatever principles were at risk last Sunday at Indy will seem puny to the real damage done long term to the sport in the United States. Nobody, until after the fact, was capable of seeing that simple fact.


    Calling Formula One a soap opera insults soap operas. At least the people there know that the show must go on.


    Gordon Debono – Malta


    I start with saying that, this is not a Ferrari problem. I am a Ferrari fan and if Ferrari wins the championship., its only thanks to those stupid conglomerates who think that they can bend the rules because they can influence 9 out of 10 teams. F1 is not a democratic party, but a sport with its own set of rules and regulations for every one of the teams to follow.


    What amazes me most is how Bernie and the boys left the teams not race with out any sanctions, or at least so far. This morning the FIA published its correspondence and please do note that there was a solution. They could run and do a pit stop safely every 10 laps. SO WHY ON EARTH THEY DIDN’T RUN??? not to get 10 places penalty each time ?? Who gave them the right to penalize me and the other fans both on and off the track if a part of their package is faulty??


    G. Williams


    I am no lover of the FIA’s methods but in this instance I would have to agree with the option they proposed. If truly the problem was Turn 13 then the Michelin runners could have allowed themselves to do a limited speed around this corner, assuming this really could have been monitored. Due to legal considerations and fairness to the Bridgestone runners there really was no other real safe race option other than quitting.


    Here was the opportunity for a great race since although Ferrari would have won the two top positions (maybe?) there would have been greater than normal competition between the other Bridgestone runners and the Michelin racers. What a pity!


    Steve Heartsill


    As far as F1A goes, I’ll still be a fan tomorrow, but I don’t see much of a future for it here in America. I’ve been hearing rumors that Michelin planned this farce in protest of the United States. I hope this isn’t so? If it is true, I think there are some teams that need to look for another tire to use. As I recall earlier this year, Michael Schumacher had a problem with his tires in Spain, but I didn’t see him or Ferrari protest that track. I hope US GP stays in the Brick Yard forever. I only live three hours away.

    Steve Biro – Freehold, New Jersey, USA


    Like you and many others, I was outraged at what I saw transpire in Indianapolis on Sunday. What’s more, I’m not sure there is anything F1 can do to prevent additional damage – at least as far at the U.S. is concerned. What we saw was the old FIA-GP Constructors war spilling onto yet another front.


    These so-called adults couldn’t solve a problem that clearly was solvable between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. Once again, F1 proved that the paying fan is simply not a consideration among greedy factions competing for power and money. Once again, F1 demonstrated that it is populated by big bucks and small minds. Why should Tony George risk renewing a contract for the U.S. GP? Why should U.S. fans (or any fans, anywhere) risk paying the price of a ticket (plus airfare and a hotel room) when they may be drilled at the last minute? I truly believe the ramifications won’t stop at the U.S. border. If I were a sponsor, I’d be thinking about putting my money elsewhere. And maybe that’s just what F1 needs.


    Francis Newman – Twyford, Berks, UK


    I really am saddened not just by the fiasco of the race on Sunday, but by the complete lack of understanding (to my mind) in what has subsequently been written.


    OK – so I happen to support Ferrari, but I am a long time ( nearly 40 years) supporter of F1 and I think I can see beyond a narrow team based perspective.


    So let’s get the Ferrari bit out of the way first. Jean Todt has stated – Ferrari were not asked about the chicane. So OK – he was honest and said that if they had been asked – they wouldn’t have raced in that scenario. But they weren’t asked. So DON’T blame them. I actually agree with Todt. Read his interview oin Pitpass. It is logical and sensible.


    No-one (unless they are TOTALLY deluded) can say that anyoine other than Michelin caused this problem. No doubt there are endless extenuating circumstances but the underlying fact is that Michelin screwed up big time.


    So they didn’t have a suitable tyre, and couldn’t supp[y a suitable tyre. So do they expect the whole world to roll over for them. Pathetic


    Control the speed round turn 13 (with a speed trap) or run through the pitlane. Quite simple. But no. The Michelin teams wanted it all their own way. The seven - plus that idiot Stoddart were totally pathetic. I hope they are proud of themselves. THEY are the ones that were inflexible. If long term it hurts them in their pockets then it serves them right


    Eric Mogensen - Vancouver, Canada


    My feelings toward F1 have been mixed the past few years, due largely to the politics, personalities, and greed that have come to dominate this "Pinnacle of Motorsport". A fan for 30 years, I feel that F1's glory days are long gone. Having said that, I have continued to watch races, but only when convenient, because I've figured out that there are more fruitful ways of spending a Sunday morning than watching what is most often a rather dull, repetitious event.


    The spectacle at Indianapolis yesterday confirms that F1 is one very, very broken business.


    For everyone involved to recognize that fact, rather than pointing fingers and making someone the goat, would be a good thing. Because once the players recognize that they are supporting something that no longer works, the sooner it can be dismantled and a fresh attempt at rebuilding can begin.


    F1 needs to start from scratch and perhaps next time, those involved will get it right. Perhaps. But the larger question remains, will the fans have anything to do with it when it is rebuilt?


    In North America we've seen baseball nearly ruined due to a strike. Hockey is still closed down and even rabid Canadian fans are debating whether it's worth getting anywhere near as excited as they used to, if and when the millionaires figure out who gets all that cash, and play is resumed. the posrt will never recover in the expansion markets of the American South. Piss off enough people enough times, and something is bound to happen. Selling futures in F1 is going to get a lot harder after yesterday.


    If I ran an advertizing budget for a multinational that sponsored an F1 team, I'd be on the phone demanding my cash back. If I was a TV broadcaster I'd be on the phone demanding my cash back. If I had flown to Indy and paid the gate to watch the race, I'd be on the phone demanding my cash back. As a motorsport fan, I'm cutting my losses and walking because I can in all honesty no longer invest time and emotions on such an empty, self-absorbed enterprise.


    F1 will always attract fans, but I'm no longer one of them, not even on a casual basis. And I'm certain that F1 will not miss me, because it's done nothing to make me want to stay in the first place.


    I may return to watching races and visiting racing web sites some day in the future, when I read in the back of a newspaper that Messrs. Ecclestone and Mosley are in the ground, and some form of sporting purity has been re-instilled in the business. Maybe. Until then, the bitter taste of the past decade in F1, and yesterday's non-race, will remain in my mouth. I hope other dedicated fans stay away and bring this mess to the ground sooner rather than later, and put it out of its misery.


    I hope that those involved in F1 sponsorship are reading these pages of assembled fan comments, and rethinking how to spend their hundreds of millions next year. Amateur sport is a good starting place. Because F1 is a dead end. Just ask an (ex) fan.


    Stefan A Stefansson


    How could this happen?


    There could be a very simple solution for this problem. Let those Michelin-teams that wanted to change tires and do so in a pit-stop after the start (after 2-10 rounds), but they would be forbidden to take fuel in that pit-stop.


    Simple…


    Who was against this? The teams? Michelin ? FIA and Ferrari ?


    But everybody cries (with crocodile tears) and point there finger at each other …...and say “we could't do anything….somebody else should have sacrificed….”


    We the fans demand an answer for this fiasko!!


    Paul Berger


    I have only been following Formula 1 for half the years that you have, but in all those I had seen little worse than yesterday's farce.

    Before discussing the race itself, I believe that yesterday's antics will certainly affect Formula One for the worse. However, I also think that you, me, and most of the real (no offence here) followers will still watch F1. We did after May 1994. We did after Austria 2002. We endured Michelingate #1 in 2003. We shall survive Michelingate #2 this year too. It may do damage to the American market, but if next year's race (if there is one) goes well, it will all be forgotten - for them, not for us.

    Now, on to the 'race'. As far as I am concerned, full blame for this fiasco lies on Michelin - not on the FIA, and not on Ferrari. Michelin brought a bad tyre, one that they realised was not going to make it. They told the FIA and were given three options:


    (a) slow down
    (b) change it as necessary (subject to penalty if no proof is given that it is for 'safety reasons')
    (c) use another type of tyre (a breach of several technical regulations, subject to penalty but they'd still compete and claim points)

    For some amazing reason they took none of this. They wanted a 'reduction of vehicle speed in turns 12/13' as Dupasquier phrased it. This is outrageous. I thought option (a) told them just that, but they had none of it. They wanted a chicane installed to bring their competitors' level down to theirs. Talk about sporting spirit, fair play and all that....

    I too wondered, "what if Ferrari had the problem?". Well, it then dawned on me that a few days ago I had read an interview with Suganuma, where he said, more or less, "safety first". When I read it, I took it more as an excuse for the poor showing, rather than an actual fact. Turns out Suganuma was speaking the truth. Bridgestone would not have the problem any more. They had it in Bahrain and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia. Did they ask for a chicane to be installed? Nope. They reduced their pace as required to finish the race. Yes, it was humiliating, being lapped and all. But they did not say a thing. They only said they would make better tyres one day, and here they are again.

    The FIA did not indulge in what can only be described as a Michelin blackmail. If they had, they would set a dangerous precedent. They would also be, per Whiting's words, "grossly unfair to those with correct tyres". The FIA has been under a lot of flak, and is to blame for a lot of F1's faults. For yesterday's fiasco, they were not. Not at all. Michelin and its teams were given ample options. They chose to have their way, or no way. A lesson learned for them.

    All this said, I find it amazing that some can still find a way to blame Ferrari for something they had clearly no part in. The chicane stuff is utter bullsh*t and unheard of, so do not blame the reds for that.

    Michelin screwed up, and paid the price. Unfortunately it also affected the sport as whole, but the root cause is only one.

    It is a shame, but as Schumacher said, Formula One has had to endure far worse periods. It will be back and it is only up to us to not quit following our beloved sport, but show faith. The antics of the Michelin losers - and losers they are, if they want a track altered to suit THEIR tyres simply because they did a sloppy job - are not enough to destroy F1. That said, I am sure the Clermont Ferrand squadron will have some explaining to do - and hopefully refund the poor people that went to the Indy track.

    As for what brought us to this point - it would be naive to say that the tyre war, or the rules did. Tyre war we have had for quite a while now. The new rules have escalated the dependence upon tyres, but that is no excuse. Michelin did a bad job and did not handle the matter appropriately. One could say a word about its teams too, in the sense that if they wanted, they could have raced using one of the available solutions.

    Alas, it was not to be. A lesson learned.


    Ernesto Nigro - Canada


    There is something else brewing here. Are we to believe, that in Michelin's arsenal of tire compounds, they were unable to bring a tire that would survive turn 13 for the entire race distance? Perhaps the tires Michelin should have brought may not have been as competitive? Michelin was definitely to blame for not providing a tire compound that would have lasted the race distance. I'm not certain there is much blame to be placed onto the shoulders of the FIA, after all, how fair would this have been start changing rules or track layout ? It wouldn't be fair at all to the Bridgestone runners who have run tires in the past that may not have been competitive even though safety may not have been a concern. (I must applaud the FIA for not conceding the changes to Turn 13 by adding a chicane. This would have been unsportsmanlike. It would have been totally unfair to make a change to a circuit to suit certain teams to make up for their deficiencies.) I can't believe that there are some people blaming Ferrari for not agreeing to the proposed changes to Turn 13, where it was clearly not their call or responsibility. I must also applaud the Bridgestone runners for taking to the track and going through full race distance and at least trying to put an effort in. That said, Paul Stoddart comes across as an ignorant hypocrite for saying one thing and then running his cars so he could gain championship points to try to keep up with Jordan. I obviously feel sympathy for the race fans that spent hard earned money to go cheer on their heroes and their chariots and were left with something less than a spectacle. I'm glad I didn't go, but I'll tell you if I were the FIA, I would force Michelin and the team owners of those teams that decided not to run, to pay for a refund for all the fans that purchased tickets, and maybe show a little class and send them some team hats or shirts or something with a letter of apology.


    Politics have always been a part of F1 and will always be as long as F1 exists. We wanted a more exciting season, so we're getting now….Closer competition, politics, black flags, racing incidents, last minute lead changes, attrition, passing and someone other than the Scuderia winning right? So let's see how the rest of the season unfolds, who knows at this point who will emerge the victor.


    Alison Price


    Bridgestone must be laughing all the way now.... since the 2006 regulations suggest only one tyre manufacturer! This fiasco was Michelins initial fault, but in the interest of the entertainment value of the sport, the FIA are soley to blame. Ferrari aren't the bad guys in this... this showed on the podium and in the press conference. I feel sorry for Monterio... his first podium utterly destroyed by the failings of the buerocrats in charge of this sport!


    David Hutson


    Haven't enjoyed F1 in a very long time and this hammers the final nail in the coffin for me. I'll never watch another one that doesn't have the word "Historic" in front of it.


    The last fun it was for me was when Senna, Mansell, Piquet and Prost were all hammering away on each other in and out of the cars.


    On a side note, it's nice to see the fans in Indianapolis can still spell!


    Thomas Chacko - Cochin, India


    After Kimi's tyre failure at Nurburgring, FIA had warned Michelin not to sacrifice safety for performance, but they seem to have done nothing about it. Michelin teams could have either used safer tyres and faced whatever the penalties FIA may have imposed for using tyres other than those used for qualifying or set a speed limit at Turn 13 for Michelin shod cars. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

    There is no point blaming Ferrari for being spoilsports as Coulthard and Villeneuve seem to be doing. It appears from correspondence between FIA and Michelin that even if Ferrari had also requested the FIA to introduce the chicane, FIA would not have agreed to it.


    George Macdonald - Andover NJ USA


    There are so many questions about this "farce" which are apparently not being asked. None of them reduce the seriousness of the political haggling and public washing of laundry but here's a couple:


    1) Michelin is blamed for bringing the wrong tires and Bridgestone apparently knew what to bring BUT... WHY did Bridgestone know? Well, the IMS was resurfaced this past Winter with a strip-off and full 4 inches of new asphalt. Now, on April 5, 2005 a 2-day private test was scheduled to test the Firestone tires on the new surface which was abandoned after the first day with very few laps completed, possibly due to reported "oil weepers" in one section. 10 days later, on April 15, the new surface was diamond ground and Firestone testing was resumed on April 19.


    Note that there were several serious accidents in the lead-up to the Indy-500 this year, notably the Buddy Rice one, which put him out of the race. Now obviously Firestone had knowldge of this new surface and one can naturally assume that they passed on their info to their parent company, viz. Bridgestone. The question is: what did Bridgestone know, how serious was it with respect to tyre construction/selection and should they have passed on that info to FOM, FIA, or even Michelin directly? Was there perhaps a reason for the smug coyness of Ferrari leading up to and following the "farce"? As far as I know, according to FIA rules, Michelin would not have been allowed to perform any testing at the Speedway but when you boil it down, Bridgestone had the equivalent of such testing by proxy.


    2) I haven't seen anyone ask what would have been the course of action if Ralf Schumacher had been killed or even crippled. To me this is the crux of the whole matter. In other words, Ralf did not appear to be that badly hurt, so it's business as usual? If the FIA is so concerned about safety, why did they not take a more active role in the details of the accident, its cause and take action to avoid a recurrence? In other words, what the hell was Mr. Whiting up to on Friday?... too busy?


    I'm not saying that a culrpit should be hunted down here - only that there is plenty of blame to go around and procedures could easily be devised to prevent a repeat. I'll refrain from repeating the disgust and angst expressed so well by others. It is truly a dark day for F1.


    Ben


    I think eveyone has to take a step back and forget the politics which seems to be dragged into the equation.

    Lets mirror this senario with 2 others. The first, if for instance if Ferrari had designed an engine which due to a circuit characteristic, would not last more than 5 laps. 2 teams would be lost.

    The other is if it was Bridgstone who did what michelin had done. We'd would still had quite a spectical.

    I think the grumbling comes from the fact there were only 6 cars who were not capable of running anywhere near each other.

    If we'd had a 12 car pile up at the first corner we would have been in the same situation.

    So quit grumbling its up to IMS to deal with Michelin legally due to the american fans and their unfortunate position otherwise we've still got a lot of a grate 2005 season left.

    I also think into was quite nieve to not report it, and an own goal on Pitpass's front, ITV and BBC both did fantastic jobs on covering it and all credit to them.

    Everyone take a back step and calm down!


    Eddie Jones


    As a long Term Minardi Fan you would think I would be celebrating getting 7 points in a race.


    Sadly the are only emotions I feel are disappointment :-


    Why couldn’t Michelin provide an adequate tyre?


    Why couldn’t Ferrari see the benefit of allowing the chicane to allow some racing.


    Why couldn’t the FIA find a way to make a indy happen.


    It seems that racing, honour and sportsmanship are out the window, replaced by greed and self interest.


    Jason Laffin


    The first draft of this put the blame mostly on Michelin. They failed to bring the correct tires. But, according to reports, Michelin brought tires with similar spec to tires run at Barcelona, to be put on the cars Sunday morning. My guess is these "new" tires would have been acceptable for racing conditions at IMS. Then the problem falls squarely on the teams and the FIA. Why wouldn't/couldn't those tires be put on the car? I know about the "one-tire" rule, but it's at the discretion of the stewards to enforce the rule. Not to say the appeal by the FIA against BAR was wrong, but I wouldn't want to be a steward if my governing body was going to second guess my opinion. The stewards probably had to toe the FIA line in this case.


    Chris asked the question, "How did we get here?" The answer is simple, it's the same "Rebel 9" problem (or Rebel 8...adding Midland F1 to Ferrari). Again, it was another ploy to see how far Bernie and the FIA could be pushed to give into demands. It was made quite clear in Australia that the FIA wouldn't be pushed around. This has proved the FIA doesn't compromise, even for the good of the sport. They're lucky WRC is doing so well, or the FIA will soon be as irrelevant as CART.

    Paul Norris - Romford, Essex


    I think the weekend's event could well be the beginning of the end for F1. I don't think the blame should solely be placed on Michelin, but on a range of people.


    It was a massive mistake to bring tyres that were not safe for the race (or even one hot lap, as Ralf discovered), but I've since read articles about other tyre manufacturers being caught out this year by Indy's diamond-grinded track surface. Apparently it offers a lot more grip, but puts more pressure on the tyres (especially ones used on an F1 car with its amount of downforce). I believe testing there was also very hard because of the resurfacing work going on.


    My main concern is with the FIA and Ferrari's actions after the notification that the Michelin's were unsafe. Fair enough, if there's a severe problem then it's bound to take some time to solve, but to not solve it at all? Shocking. Would it have been so wrong to let them have new, safer Michelin tyres? They could have even been made to re-qualify on them or something on the morning of race day.


    I can also see the point of Ferrari, it wasn't their problem so why should they have to drive around a make-shift chicane? This is all very well if it was still a proper race, but they should have said yes to it when Michelin said that none of their runners would score points. This way, Ferrari could have still got their precious points, every car would technically have been racing and the US fans there would have been happy...ish.


    I'd have loved to have sat in the meeting that Frank Williams arranged while the so-called race was still in progress. I wonder if the splitting off from the FIA was mentioned in it at all?


    Frank B. Delmonte


    After last year’s USGP, I made a decision to attend the 2005 event; my first F1 race. I bought my tickets in October 2004, even though my company had a major shake-up in management. In March 2005, I went ahead and purchased my air fare even though the office was still shaky. The chances of attending my first every F1 event after being a fan for countless years lured me to my first USGP race.


    Then two weeks ago, the office became more tenuous, but I made the decision to attend – this was once in a lifetime event. So last week I took four days off from work, flew from Denver to Indianapolis and stayed in a second rate hotel for $310 a night – thousands of dollars WASTED.


    The debacle of yesterday’s race sickened me. I stood there stunned, with the thousands of other F1 fans, in near silence as the six cars started.


    The arrogance of the F1 management has soured me from ever attending another F1 race. As the Ferraris quickly took the lead and rapidly pulled away, all I could think about was the wasted money: in time and cash I used to get to this circus. I feel like a rube at the carnival that was taken by the hawkers selling their wares.


    If they gave the tickets away for free, I would not attend.


    Max Mosely, Bernie Ecclestone; F1 managers – you are fools.


    Richard Burns - Sydney, Australia


    I love my sport, it really has the most amazing thrill about it. While everyone can hold their hands up and say gee it use to be great... remember this, remember that, well in 10 years, I am going to be saying the same thing about the awesome season we have had so far. It has been thrilling, and it has kept me on the edge of my seat. The shame of it is that politics seem to be the centre of attention.......ALL THE TIME!!!!! It actually seems like the reporters/press - not all - seem to have become pawns in a millionaires paradise. I have to ask, Aren't you guys sick of reporting this tabloid crap. Mind you, Pitpass, seems to have the least and typically most accurate reporting of all that I read.


    Regarding Yesterday's Ferrari test day...... It was crap, and I just went back to sleep after a 3:30am start. I am sure many others did as well. (It was funny watching the first ad break though, of which included Michelin Tyres ....Performance blah blah). While disappointed, I am actually in full support of the FIA. It was not Ferrari's, Bridgestone's, nor the FIA's fault.


    As for Planet Paddock, f#*&'em, they suck, they have lost it, all true. So I have a suggestion, Fine them, hit them where it hurts. A million or 2 its not quite enough, I am thinking that all broadcasters get refunded for the costly coverage, the circuit gets refunded whatever costs it had to pay to host the event, All the fans who attended should get full refunds, and only those whom competed should get their race fee, not just for this event, but for the next three events. If it was Michelin's fault let the teams try and get their cash outta Michelin, let them work it out. Don't waste our time on this crap anymore. Planet Paddock, you want to race then prove it by getting on with the job, but as you (the teams, FOM, Michelin or whomever is responsible) f#%*ed up you should pay for it, There was no show, therefore you should be made accountable. If the teams then turn around a say - well we won't turn up at the next race then, GOOD, it's the perfect excuse to get rid of these racelords, whom are monopolising the most profitable form of motorsport. How much would they be worth should their racing licences be revoked? How many other keen parties are willing to come in and replace them? So we the fans might lose out for the rest of the season, this is the short term, but we need to think long term. Everyone would still be employed, just the head honchos would be given the stick.


    F1 in crisis, huh!!!! You really need to step outta limo's and listen to people who aren't paid to tell you how good you are, or more improtantly take a plane trip to Africa, and don't stay with the top %2 of the populations.... then you will know crisis, and maybe you will find your conscious as well. Wankers, with wet towels, and no lube.


    Hey I am no expert, but does anyone really think that having the manufacturers set-up and run a rival series would be a better option..... if so consider that the rival series is not a sport, but a marketing exercise as well as a business development program.... in short fans of racing are no more that potential customers, it will be like watching an hour long ad-break, with the only real benefactors being the organisers, besides if they can't agree now, do you expect them to later......seriously.


    Imagine seriously about putting a chicane at turn 13, the highlight of the event becomes a speed bump. Great, I really want to watch that. I think what it does show is the effect of bridgestone favouring one team, and one team only, with all other competitive teams using the other rubber. (By the way I think this was engineered into the 2005 rules as well, because there was never going to be a hope in hell of Bridgestone being able to complete the same milage as 7 teams on Michelin. Which in itself makes Michelin look pretty stupid for not having enough data to produce a decent tyre, for the acclaimed "biggest most importantest event".

    Interesting timing though, with Michelin's home GP next on the calender, and the show returning to Europe, organisers of Magny-Cours and other Eurpean events have already been hard pressed selling tickets, I am sure this won't help their cause one bit. I guess the smokers out there are about to get a present in the form of a race ticket in their next pack of Malboro's because I don't see Magny-Cours or other European events being a sell out after this debacle.


    The solution in hindsight was that Michelin should have brought 2 types of tyres to the event. They didn't, they were given options to solve the problem, which were fair and equitable to all competitors, and they chose to neglect it and turn it into a political show. You had a responsibility to the public and all interested parties to put on a show. IT pissed off your fan base which will affect your pay-packet, and I hope your sorry about it, because your accountants will be.


    Savo Jovanovic


    They were trying to find way to beat Ferrari in past years, and finaly got them on tyres......but it hits back.
    And now they want to change rules, modify track or just wont race.


    Why dont give them championship, driver and team, for next few seasons, first one to Renault ( best to hand it to Flavio), and then let others race the tracks as tracks are with rules that are on just for fun.


    For crying out loud, if it is not safe, drive slower! Ferrari won (the points) anyway! Show some respect to the fans, organisers, sponsors.....


    There are parts of the world 12 hours away, and some kid was up in the middle of the night to see the race, not to see some people with dark glasses making fools of us all. That kid is now going for other sport.


    About the rules, in my opinion, there should be only few rules: limited engine volume, limited test time or distance, and limited money ammount for season.


    What is the point to spend 10 times more money than Minardi and be 3 second faster in qualifying? This is couple hundreds of US dollars per second! What for? Not to race if dont like something about some track?
    Worst is that they can not be punished - they showed up on start of the race and then retired - according to the rules there is nothing wrong !

    Worst racing day in history of motorsport


    Chris Karstens - Sydney, Australia


    F1 has "Jumped The Shark"


    It is sadly ironic, and almost lucky for F1, that such an unprecedented incident in this business-entertainment venture took place in the U.S. I think many would agree that any relevant association F1 has had to "sport" fell by the wayside in the past 10-15 years or so. This is business-entertainment, with the emphasis on Business - and no one is in Business to lose money.


    To the heart of the matter in Indianapolis last Sunday, from where I sit, Michelin showed a level of incompetence usually reserved for Enron Executives and other white-collar criminals. I don't own, manage, or
    hold a major decision-making role for a tire supplier involved in the world's most technically advanced motor sport, but I find it incomprehensible that the budgets involved did not produce someone within Michelin who took into account the surface and the banking of the corner at issue.


    Same corner as last year - and IMS didn't keep the re-surfacing a secret. Game - set - match.


    We're all human, but when you consider the massive sums paid to such intelligent minds, Michelin flat-out failed their clients and ultimately the people who make this whole exercise relevant - the fans.


    Ferrari are without a doubt an easy target for being obstructionist in the 11th hour solution of a chicane, but Jean Todt is exactly right to say "too bad, so sad" as were they and the other teams on Bridgestones to say they had it all wrong - the laughs would have echoed louder than the revs.


    I believe this incident is the tipping point for F1, and it's all downhill going no where good. I mention ironic and lucky that this took place in the U.S. Ironic in a sense that, as F1 is a furnace for money, there are few markets as lucrative as that of the United States. For F1 to not find it's way through this crisis while trying to audition for support in the U.S. is laughable, proving to me that they ultimately felt they probably never had a shot anyway.


    The fact that it took place in a country that leads in apathy to F1 is indeed lucky for all those in positions of responsibility present on that weekend. Only 100,000 bothered to show on race day at Indianapolis, with a small percentage proving that idiotic behavior is an international condition by throwing missiles. Before anyone starts bashing the States on that point - I gladly point to the harrowing images of football in Europe. It's all inexcusable and awful for any event. Had this taken place in Spain earlier this year an prevented Alonso from racing in front of his fans, pyres of smoke would still be wafting through the air. Had this taken place in Monte Carlo, the ultimate weekend for millionaires to flex their pocketbooks, the embarrassment on F1's face would have been Ferrari red.


    F1 as a Business, obviously saw fit to forego the potential earnings, put on a parade, and get out of the U.S. with it's Gucci-clad tail between it's legs. Unhappy manufacturers, the FIA struggling to hold onto the monster it's created, absolutely no positions of compromise or sustainability for F1 by any of the parties involved proves to me all are unconcerned about doing what's right - but concerned about what's right for their own interests. The pressure of a European race-day involving a passionate fan-base would have forced those involved to earn some of that money and engage in some crisis management - something that F1 had better start getting familiar with, because at present the certain demise of F1 has now been put in motion.


    David Turnedge - Sydney, Australia


    Blame is always collective. Finger pointing one party ignores the blame to be shouldered by all who participate in the privileged world of International organised sport. What we saw in the States was a symptom of how stupid the politics in the world of F1 have become. Some clearly have more money than sense. The fans all know it's all about entertainment - entertainment - entertainment - the team owners, FOM, the FIA, the flashy jet setters, the drivers and all the others who enjoy the rarified atmosphere of the F1 paddock should do well to remember F1 is only what it is because it is a hobby of hundreds of millions to watch people race. Dennis would still be a greasy mechanic plying his trade. Button would still be playing video games in his bedroom. Michelin would be selling low cost tyres to the owners of clapped out Renaults. Max would be a village lawyer and Bernie would be sweeping the floor of his motor cycle dealership (well, maybe not, but you get the idea). Think of the fans, stupid! Even the biggest can fall flat on their faces with very short notice without continued care and attention to the basics. When the core audience starts turning off their televisions in the millions, the fun stops. Guys, if for no other reason than to continue the fun you're having in the paddock, don't fuck it up for the rest of us! Simplify the formula and let's get back to racing in Magny Cours.


    Please. Oh, and the FIA should mandate a single tyre formula from 1 July. Michelin is clearly not up to the job and although not solely to blame, they are the cause of this particular fuck up!


    PS I am glad I only taped the race instead of getting up at 3:30AM to watch it live.


    Greg Cunneen - Tokyo


    I have not missed a GP since 1980. Yesterday, I switched over and watched the US Open golf instead.


    If a fanatic cannot bear to watch, how so anyone else. The fans will want their money back, deservedly. The promoters will want their money back, deservedly. The Yanks love litigation; let them do their worst. F1 deserves it.


    I think there is enough blame to go around. Michelin didn't do it's job, but not deliberately. The FIA just sat there saying "it's not our problem," when some aspects of the current rules clearly played a part. The team owners could not agree on how to save the patient, so they let it die.


    Editor Balfe wants to hear views on how to repair the damage. The first thing that needs to happen is that the whole sport be dragged through the mud (US courts). Perhaps when it hurts the back pocket of the powers that be, more consideration will be made of the back pocket of us poor sods who shell out to watch the race from the stands.


    Tyler Bartley - Bradenton, Florida


    Formula 1 has never been in a more bad position then it is now. The race at Indy was a complete joke and the fans showed it. How can F1 operate like this in a region where they so desperately want to grow in terms of popularity in. The actions on Sundays race proved that the FIA hadn't a care in the world for the fans and the sports well being. This is all because of tires and the FIA's refusal to let Michelin resupply the teams. Another huge problem was the fans and the money they spent to attend a Grand Prix consisting of 10 teams. F1 ticket prices have skyrocketed in the recent years, so fans expect to get their money's worth. Instead the fans at Indy were treated to a Ferrari test session while the Jordans and Minardis toured pointlessly around the track with obviously no chance of catching the Ferraris, therefore providing the most predictable race in the 55 year history of Formula 1 racing.

    As far as Max Moseley goes, F1 teams should call for his immediate resignation for his total lack of judgement and inability to effectively put on a proper Grand Prix. You could say Michelin are also to blame for this monumental racing disaster, but they did provide a backup plan that was ridiculously denied by the FIA.

    I would not be surprised if Tony George and his organization deny Formula 1 the chance to come back to Indy in 2006 after the embarrassment he faced at the hands of Formula 1 and the FIA. You wouldn't dare see this at a NASCAR, Indy Car or Champcar race. Fans come first in those series and unfortunately F1 along with the FIA have proven that they just don't care for the fans any longer.


    Bobbie White


    For once, I am in full agreement with you Mr Ed! It was a total farce of the highest order. That the rulers and players of such a wealthy sport can gang up like boys in a school playground whilst the worlds media look on is beyond contempt! EVERYONE, and I stress EVERYONE in that paddock yesterday was to blame – not one person/team/supplier/official could see their way to trying to resolve the issue, and to some extent that includes Ferrari [though I agree that had the boot been on the other foot….and I am no ferrari fan.]


    I have long known this sport to be waters where only sharks with the sharpest teeth survive, but too many of this lot think they are bigger than the sport. Well, as I see it, they are about to find out that the biggest shark of them all is the paying public, and that public is about to bite them where it really hurts – I HOPE!!


    John


    I enjoy your site immensely and felt compelled to write in your talking point about the FIA Survey too (which you were kind enough to publish). I’ve been weighing up whether or not to cancel my F1 Racing Magazine subscription or not today, I’ve felt that let down over this (and the latest issue with their ‘new direction’ is a shocker). Ultimately I probably won’t, I love high technology open wheel racing cars racing on the most challenging circuits in the world. F1 is increasingly regressing away from that with the Tilke toy circuits (OK, so the old Hockenheim events weren’t filled with overtaking, but the skill of driving a car around that track was, to me, matched only by Spa or Monza in the modern era. I’m gutted it’s gone).


    Funny thing is I was dead against the GPWC from an ideological standpoint up until yesterday, perceiving it to be a money grab by the car manufacturers at the expense of F1 history (the heritage of Williams and McLaren especially), now I’m excited that they might actually be able to put on a ‘purer’ racing series rather than some dumbed-down, watered-down restricted also ran formula.


    I think what happened yesterday is the end result of things that have been brewing for years, you knew things weren’t right, but a prime-time public implosion like that confirms it all. Let’s hope that from the ashes a series proud to be the pinnacle of motor vehicle engineering excellence and ultimate driver skill (bye-bye pay drivers) arises. No matter who runs it, or who runs in it, that’s what I’ll be watching.


    None of this is really intended to be published or anything like that, but more to say that in tough times it’s reassuring to have such an informative and well written site put together by true fans as a place willing to put this kind of discussion forwards, so thanks for that Chris, I’ll be visiting the site regularly come what may. In the meantime, Forza Rossi! (the Catalunya Moto GP event was a corker!) and roll on A1-GP this winter.


    In all matters F1 I feel thoroughly let down by the FIA, regardless of tyre manufacturer culpability or team boss arrogance I feel like somehow and for some reason the FIA and Formula One Management have been steering us towards this for years.


    Charlie White


    24 hours has passed since I watched the death of my favorite sport live on television, a very public suicide by a sport that, in America at least, was barely alive on life support. I have read so many angry, vitrolic threads on many fan forums. I am more saddened than angry though I felt that emotion when I watched the Michelin teams roll into the pit lane after the parade lap. Why here? Why Indy? Why did this coming confrontation(and it was coming) over the tires and tire rules come to a head at Indy-directly in front of the very same fans in which the teams, the FIA and sponsors want to win over? This action effectively kills any chance for this sport
    to catch on with American fans. I’m soul searching for a reason to cling to the sport and keep it up with it. And I can’t find one. For me, this is the last straw. I have had enough of this sport spiraling fully out of control, running head long into the inevitable brickwall of reality at 320kph. It ends here-a fan since 1985; no longer a fan in 2005. With this, there is now an open slot in the future F1 schedule(possibly two if you include Canada).


    Who’s the blame? There’s plenty to go around, even to those parties who had nothing to do with the situation. Michelin, the FIA, Ferrari. All have some culpability but my anger falls on Michelin in particular. Goodbye F1 and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!


    Andrew Lo – Malaysia



    Having read the run up to the race (mostly from your site), it still come as a disbelief to see the teams peel off into the pit lane at the end of the warm up lap.

    Yes, Michelin screwed up big time, and what is not excusable is that they tried to hold the FIA to ransom, not doubt fueled by the fact that they are still pissed off that Ferrari is the one and only team so far to sign up with them post 2007. I cant help but feel that the whole thing is orchestrated by the GPWC.

    FIA was right to call their bluff ,same way as they rightly call Paul Stoddard’s bluff at the Australian GP.

    PS about turn is typical of the man, first blame Ferrari & FIA for not agreeing to the Chicane, then Jordan for continuing.

    It also appears to me that the whole farce was made “bigger” that it really is because it is the US GP, and the USA is a big market. almost everyone seems to be singing that tune- so are ewe not guilty of following the money as well?

    Look, there are still 6 cars at the finish, only 2 less than last year, and F1 attracts much more publicity the last year , and I think will lead to increase attendance at the French GP- Michelin’s home race. so that are some positives out of this debacle. so please focus on the positive.

    another thing – ticket prices at Indy is amongst the cheapest- taking per capita income into the equation. so if F1 lost the US market- so be it- there are countries queuing up to host.

    Sure without the biggest car market, F1 would not attract the richest sponsors- but isn’t (in an ironic way) that a good thing as a way to keeps cost down?


    Fernando César


    I’m not in position to judge this situation correctly, as none of us know the truth. We look on the verge of a break, as we were back in ’82 with FISA x FOCA, but now is FIA/Ferrari x F1 itself.

    If you make rules and you run a championship, you have to think about the spectacle you’re going to provide to “the man on the pub”, the man on the sofa, or the man paying for on a grandstand! Let’s think about it.

    About FIA, I think it was up to them to come up with a solution. If 70% of the drivers tell you that it’s too dangerous, and 90% agree with a backup solution (chicane), why would you stick with the other 10%? Can’t you simply accept it and let the race? No … you have to prove you are the one who master the game and won’t change a thing expecting them to race (and crash) just to say “I’m the boss here”.

    It’s absolutely unacceptable what happened yesterday. And I’m really praying for fast and deep changes, as F1 can’t be killed because of those greedy people that only pay attention to their bank accounts.

    Thumbs up only to Michelin’s brave decision to tell everyone their tires were unsafe, and their teams to propose racing without scoring points. They were worried about racing. Ferrari is worried about itself, as anyone can figure out reading their press releases …


    German Largo Urrea – Subachoque, Colombia


    CART/IMS 94/95 reloaded.
    GPWC is behind the 2005 USGP Michelin saga.


    Why the Michelin Seven didn’t agreed to solutions proposed by the FIA:


    1. Running more slowly in Turn 12/13
    2. Running a tyre not used in qualifying (which would attract a penalty)
    3. Repeatedly changing a tyre (subject to valid safety reasons)


    There’s a reglament, and everyone must to obey it. Any of these options would be result in the same consequences as the Michelin teams proposals: *A RACE”, with Bridgestone’s teams in front and Michelin’s teams back because of “a penalization”, but still *A RACE*.


    I would to take a phrase from a Colombian motorsports journalist: “The perfect scandal” (in spanish).


    I hope don’t incurre in copyright infringment


    Everyone acted conforming to the rules: The FIA, Bridgestone, Ferrari, even Mr. Tony George with his ego. The only ones willing to “jump” the rules were the Michelin Seven. Rules are rules. There’s no way out from hell to them.


    I’m a McLaren fan, even before Montoya arrival to the team. But maybe I will be converted definitely and for once to Champ Car, or A1GP even when it hasn’t running for a kilometer.


    I’m agree with Mr. Balfe: “…team bosses and many others involved in F1, lost touch with reality many, many years ago…”.


    For me, this is the GPWC making to F1 the same dirty moves as Tony George did to CART in 94/95. The GPWC used this debacle to show the FIA and F1 what is capable to do and what will be F1 without them. I like GPWC, but not this way, this is not the way to improve the most popular motorsport worldwide. GPWC its starting to look like Grand Prix World Cheating because they’re selling us the idea of a better F1, but with all these 2005 USGP saga, it seems to me like the only thing these egos want is, money, they don’t care about us, the fans, nor the FIA-Ferrari side, nor the GPWC side.


    James Delloyde
    Like Pitpass editor Chris, I have followed Formula One for almost 40 years and like Chris I am still seething with anger. I am angry not just about yesterdays events but also about how OUR sport has been destroyed slowly but very surely over the last numerous years. It is not just the fault of one individual or one team or one company, it has been a slow inexorable process of one stupid decision after another culminating in yesterdays death of F1.


    FIA; your rule changes, to cynically manipulate results is gradually snuffing out any individuality of the cars and designers. FOM; you are bleeding everyone dry financially (apart from the teams). Team bosses; your greed and inflexibility is truly astounding. Drivers; you get very little sympathy from me too, you take the big sacks full of money and then hide yourselves away for the weekend occasionally coming out to drive the cars. The current “World Champion”; I have always been under the impression that champions in any sport should be good ambassadors for their sport, ours is an embarrassment – the master of the “professional foul” – win at any cost, even by having to get the team mate to move over. Circuit owners; you charge us huge amounts of money to get in, keep us as far away from the cars and drivers as possible and then give us mediocre facilities.


    I would like to think that yesterday will be a big wake up call for everyone in F1, but sadly in my heart I know that nothing will change. Yesterday F1 put up two fingers then turned their backs on us – the long suffering F1 fans of the world. Have they forgotten that it is us that keep them in business? Have they also forgotten that it is us that can now make or break them? Have they forgotten that we don’t have to buy their merchandise and if we stop using their sponsors products what then happens to their “pots of gold”? Let’s start telling the teams and governing bodies know how much we think it all stinks by flooding them with letters and emails, take the same approach with the sponsors and tell them why you are not using their products anymore.


    F1 fans around the world, we CAN do something about this. The teams (seven of them) stuck together yesterday and snubbed us, now it is our turn, let us stick together and tell everyone involved Formula One that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH, change it or we will snub you.


    Art Iverson – Michigan, USA


    I’m at a bit of a crossroads on this. You see, I loathe Max Mosley AND Ron Dennis. Yet they are at loggerheads and I really don’t want either to win… And make no mistake, Ron is the ring leader of the “group of 9…..8…..7….


    Michelin has brought the sport into disrepute. They didn’t even have a backup tire available and according to the rules, they are supposed to have said tire. I really feel that Michelin should be banned from the Championship with immediate effect.


    Regarding the teams, they absolutely should have raced. They could have told their drivers to simply slow down in turn 13 and if necessary pit often. The worst that would’ve happened would’ve been a 7th and 8th place for 2 Michelin teams. What a tragedy eh? It was cynical and manipulative, but what did you expect from these people.


    I know I’ll catch flak for this, but IN MY OPINION, all of this has it’s roots in Ferrari’s dominance and the utter contempt that the other teams have for Ferrari. They can’t stand Ferrari’s success so they act like petulant children.


    As we say in America (I think we’re the first) it’s time to shit or get off the pot. If the teams really can no longer abide by the FIA……….quit. Just show some balls and frigging quit. The teams say that the FIA favours Ferrari. If they truly believe this, then it would be in the best interest of these teams to leave the Championship. Put your money where your mouth is.


    On the other hand, if the teams feel that Michelin makes unsafe tires, why don’t they opt for the safer Bridgestone rubber? If they do, THEN I think Ferrari should agree to that test ban thing………..!!


    Often, the European racing establishment looks down their noses at American racing. So be it. I prefer the European version myself. However…..I gaurantee that NO American racing series would’ve pulled this stunt. They would’ve raced.


    I am a more knowlegeable F1 fan that most Americans. I say that without arrogance, just as a matter of course. I know there is more going on in the background etc. But to the average American fan, what they’ll get from this is: About 4 weeks ago we had the Indy 500 with higher sustained speeds than the F1 cars. And even a girl had the guts to race (and nearly won), while these EuroWeenies said it was too dangerous.


    Great PR guys HA!


    Julia – West Sussex


    As fans, we accept and support the changes in technical regulations imposed by the FIA each year, primarily designed at increasing the safety of all those involved. We’ve stuck with the countless changes, resulting in teams having to adapt their cars mid-season (as well as us fans having to understand the already complex rules), we’ve watched the teams make a mockery of the sport with their ‘staged’ finishes (without penalty), and now, we are asked to support a sport which allows a 30% turnout of its competitors. Would we be forced to watch the England Football team field a 3-aside match? I doubt it. I wonder, what would happen if the manufacturer of the HANS device identified a fault in their standard issue equipment??


    The first F1 race I watched was where Wendlinger & Senna died – and I was so impressed with the immediate and pragmatic response that followed in such a fascinating and highly competitive sport, I became a fan and have not missed a GP since. Surely we don’t have to wait for another driver to die, or be seriously injured to make the powers that be realise they must be responsive to the demands of the moment. I lay fault at the door of the FIA for today’s debacle – had it not been for their unwillingness to be adaptive to a concern over driver safety, we’d have watched a race rather than turned over and watched the omnibus edition of Coronation Street. I have no doubt that the Michelin shod teams made the right decision – I never want to watch a driver die again – it’s as simple as that.


    People are questioning had the situation been reversed, and Bridgestone, thus Ferrari, suffer safety fears, would we have the same sympathy and suffer the same outrage. To be honest, I doubt it, but in that situation a whole 70% of the cars would have been able to race which is a hell of a lot better than only racing 30% of the field – who makes up those cars is irrelevant, and lets not forget it’s Ferrari’s choice to consistently sit on the other side of the fence to the majority. Given that the FIA clearly have regulations at their disposal which allow them to cancel a race if less than 10 cars start – this rule must have been written for the interests of the sport – I think we should now ask questions of them, why, as governors of the sport, did they allow such a sham to go ahead.


    Henrique Baptista


    No, I say it’s obviously Bridgestone’s fault!


    After all, why didn’t Bridgestone’s blown after some laps? That’s what happened with all of the other tyre makes involved in the race.


    If it did happen, the only problem was to postpone the race to a suitable date. We wouldn’t have been presented with a show of huge incompetence and blindness from F1 partners.


    Apart from Bridgestone’s fault, the rest didn’t help at all, that is:


    1) A rule that prevents people from changing tyres, we’ve seen before its result with Raikonnen. If they wanted to reduce tyre changes in race, the proper way would be the reduction in the number of mechanics allowed changing tyres in a car during a race;


    2) Something from Michelin, which I can’t classify as a mistake or an error because it goes far beyond, risking too much on performance, without a proper backup solution available;


    3) Stupid management from the parties involved: Michelin and its teams insisted in building a chicane “… the only solution …”. They should well know that it’s the most difficult solution, to conceive, built and test a new circuit layout, just a few hours from a race;


    FIA as done every effort to do absolutely nothing that could’ve solved the problem! If rules can’t be changed in short notice, at least they have the obligation to try to find ways that a proper race will take place, and then penalise whoever has to be penalised. Or state that the solution is to run tyres for the number of laps that they resisted (10 laps, 8 laps, or whatever) and then change them, like in the old days. In short, not to give Michelin the chance to say that FIA isn’t willing to find a solution;


    In resume, Bridgestone’s fault, presented us with a show of miseries from the ones involved in F1 championship.


    Andrew Ormonde


    I put the blame firmly where it belongs FERRARI.


    It has become a cliché but Ferrari believe that whats good for them is good for F1.


    All the teams would have raced yesterday, if it was safe to do so. Clearly for 7 of the teams the situation was not safe.


    Michelin can only be blamed for the initial error – BUT when a solution was found to the problem, i.e. adding a chicane on turn 13, all the teams with the exception of Ferrari agreed to the change.


    I have also lost all respect for Michael Schumacher for agreeing to race. He above all the other racers is strong enough in his team to have gone against Ferrari’s wishes and pulled out of the race. The shear fact that he raced to the finish – (pushing Rubens off in the process) ment he wanted to drive and wanted to take advantage of the situation to gain 10 points. I simply do not believe him when he said that he had no choice. That’s complete and utter nonsense. I hope he enjoys the points. If I was driving, I wouldn’t have accepted them.


    Would Fangio, Prost, Senna, Mansell, Lauda, Hunt, have raced? Not a chance. These where real racers – unlike Schumacher – who is a cardboard effigy of a real racer.


    Let me say also, as an Irish person, that it disappoints me that Jordan elected to take advantage of the situation. If Eddie was still in charge, this wouldn’t have happened. It speaks volumes about the heartless band of morons running the show there now.


    Finally, I’d like Ferrari to keep this next point in mind.


    How much did they like driving aimlessly around in circles for hours yesterday with a couple of minnows for company?. I hope it felt good – because that’s what F1 will look like after 2007!


    Pedro Lanari


    Well, one more time I woke up on sunday excited about the F1 racing schedule for the afternoon. As always I prepare snacks, drinks, stop watches and everything else I usually prepare for such big events.


    It was ridiculous and disrespectfull to see the Michelin teams perform the warm up lap and then go to the pits. I’ve read many articles about FIA, it’s president and Eclestone. I’ve read that FIA is more interested in the money then in the sport itself and Eclestone is justinterested in his own money.


    Maybe (probably)everything sad is true but regarding the US Grand Prix I can not say a word about FIA. The decision to not accept a track change or to allow new tires to be brought without any penaulty was completely correct. Fia acted with transparency and in its decision to do so, helped the sport and the F1 future.


    Michelin and its teams should be blamed for this sad weekend; Michelin for not being professional in being able to prepare a safe and efficient tire for its partners and the 7 teams for not being professional in recognizize the bridgestone superiority (for the first time of the year), accept this (like Ferrari did until now) and do their best to achieve a reasonable result.It seems like it was easier for them just to find an excuse under the “safety reasons” for not racing in the US. According to the letters exchanged between Michelin and FIA it is clear that FIA offered many reasonable options for the teams, but instead of racing in disadvantage (like Ferrari did until now), they prefered to make a ridiculous offer to FIA to change the track to fit on their performance problems.After FIA denied such ridiculous thing, they decided to put pressure on FIA executives and see what would happen.


    At the end they lost all the chances to score valuable points for the championship and were responsible for this traggic F1 weekend. FIA, congratulations for your courage regarding this sad event!!!


    P.S I’ve been a F1 fan for the last 20 years and my favorite Team is Mc Laren, not Ferrari like some may imagine.


    Jennie Crosier


    I will start by saying I had read the letter from the FIA to the Michelin teams hours before the start of the race. So I was expecting the Bridgstone runners to get the points and that the others would be driving round turn 13 slowly but still there may have been the possibility that some of them could still be faster than the Jordon and minardi’s. Yet my TV told me that they may not race unless they get things changed in their favour even though they failed to turn up with the correct equipment. My TV also failed to mention the letter and advice from the FIA. The TV later said that the race should have been non championship, but 6 drivers had the correct equipment why should they be punished.


    I tried to watch a race yesterday even though my TV seemed to keep cutting the coverage to go and talk to people who could not be bothered to race. I found this insulting not only to me as a fan who would watch just one car go round a track just to see what might happen. But mainly it was insulting to the 6 drivers who did bother, who went out there and risked their lives, dodged bottles and beer cans. It was insulting to the marshals who risked their lives retrieving the objects from the track.


    The Michelin teams made a big mistake yesterday I would still have had respect for them if they had the balls to stand up in front of the crowd before the race and say ‘Sorry we made a mistake, our tyres are not
    safe and we can not risk our drivers. We do not want any one to be killed so we have pulled our cars on safety grounds. We know this may spoil your enjoyment but please show your appreciations for the drivers
    that are racing’.


    This is just my opinion on what they should have done, it is to late but they can still apologise for trying to make this political and for insulting the fans and there intelligent’s.


    M Gaitskill – Cape Town, South Africa


    I wouldn’t say that I’m the world’s most faithful follower of Formula 1, but I do enjoy watching the races, watching the aggressiveness of the drivers, the twists of fate that send the best drivers spinning out of the race, the gesticulations as a fast driver is held up by a slower driver, and just the thrills and spills of the sport. Coming originally from the same area in Scotland as David Coulthard (even being born in the same hospital!), I support the local hero, and it was heartbreaking yesterday watching the grand prix to hear him plead with his team to let him race, and being denied that opportunity. He rightly said that it was a sad day when a group of grown-ups couldn’t reach a suitable compromise. I sensed and shared his embarrassment.


    I have nothing against Michael Schumacher, and good for him in getting the win, but I think the victory was somewhat hollow. Did he really have to push himself, without the likes of Alonso and Raikonnen? I felt sorry for the interviewer in the post-race interviews. He had only two things to talk about without becoming controversial – the debris thrown onto the track, and the two Ferraris almost taking each other out. Nothing of performance, nothing of race strategy – what need is there for race strategy when your cars are three times faster than the opposition?


    I can only imagine what it must have been like to have spent money to go see that race yesterday. I would have been livid and banging on a whole lot of doors, demanding my money back. Imagine having flown hundreds – thousands – of miles, to be there, and watch that farce? My heart truly goes out to the fans that did so. At least I could get up and leave the room. You can understand how bad it must be if washing dishes is more interesting than watching the Grand Prix!


    To the three teams who competed, well done, you earned the points and enjoy the victory. To the drivers who wanted to race and were denied that opportunity, thanks for trying at least. To the fans – locally and internationally – who were so bitterly disappointed by so abysmal a show, I can’t even begin to imagine your wrath, and I truly sympathise with you. To the other teams and the FIA, surely something must be done so that this debacle is never replayed on this or any other Formula 1 circuit. To Michelin, I’m sorry, but heads need to roll for this. Someone there made serious – critical – errors. On your shoulders must rest the majority of the blame.


    Hopefully there will be no more Grand Prix races like this, but I will stack up my ironing pile just in case…..


    Andrew Sheehan – Nashville TN USA


    Thoughts in the aftermath of the USGP 2005…


    To: Michael- join Minardi… seriously; you could bring everything to them (talent, sponsorship, interest), they are Italian- you could bring Ferrari engines even, and every victory you win with Ferrari from here on out will not stand up, on a human scale, to one single real podium or victory with Minardi- whether in the past it was right or wrong, you will never get booed again, and it will make up for a lot of the questionable things you’ve done in your ‘younger’ past- Japan, Indy (twice), Austria… winning itself isn’t everything, it’s the way that you win that really matters, (and that’s a lesson the USA needs to see right now, in particular, as I suspect (hope) Ayrton would have thought, eventually)… In the end, right now, YOU have the chance to make a legacy that maybe he didn’t, and that would make all of your victories all the more memorable… and that should be presented to Jean Todt in big bold letters, not that he would care, which is why perhaps you should see where your biggest eventual opponent really resides… I can’t help wondering what good could have been recouped from today if ‘Ferrari’ had simply pulled off- haven’t you benefited enough already from F1 to want to try to contribute something back, just for once? If you are really ‘racing’, and not just representing a manufacturer, what would have been the real outcome for the ‘sport’ you can’t help but represent today? You are the personal leader of Ferrari, more than anyone else inside the team might prefer to think, and you would have probably done Ferrari a bit of major PR good as well by supporting the ‘sport’, more than you did by winning (as you yourself said- one of 84, what does it matter?). What damage to Ferrari, and your image, has ‘winning’ done this time? What will you think perhaps, as an ‘old man’, if you win a championship by less than ten points this time? It’s not as simple as you might like us all to believe; (I can’t help but think, owing to the circumstances, that you may just want to underestimate us all … It’s ironic, and perhaps illustrative, that when given the chance in the winners press conference, even in this circumstance, even when your teammate mentioned it offhand, you still had no comment, either way, directly to the fans…) if you really disagree with everything I’ve just said, why don’t you speak out in support of a sporting governmental structure that supports rational racing? You are the biggest voice in the room and I’m sure you must have an opinion, no?


    Barrichello, please join Red Bull and pull a Coulthard.


    Monteiro, thank you for putting a smile on a face that I thought for a while couldn’t build one…


    Max Mosley, resign now… in fact, I can’t believe, in dignity, that you haven’t already… What is the point of a ‘governing’ body that destroys its Charge? How can you call yourself an Authority when there was no other solution to a straightforward, and definitely, eventually, foreseeable, technical screw-up than the awful situation we were presented with; particularly when it was one of your most important personal issues, life safety, that was involved? A ‘governing’ body should be the agent of compromise, and the support of the entity it is in charge of (any positive action you have made in your personal name in road-car safety will be lost, right or wrong, in the face of a few million angry fans- particularly when the solution of a chicane- and possibly no points (in the face of no offered alternatives)- was pretty clear). As David Coulthard pointed out, the choice of all the guys we all really come to see would have been to race.


    Bernie Ecclestone; what will it take to get you and your overwhelming, destructive, greed out of F1? Really, what will satisfy you? I’d love to see you give a real, direct, answer to the fans… perhaps today was your chance? As you point out yourself, you can’t just live on past accomplishments…


    DC’s radio/broadcast guy- Thanks for showing all of us what I’m sure every driver was thinking, and why we are all really interested in any of this to begin with… and why I’m glad nobody was hurt…


    Michelin, give the Indy fans their money back yourselves, and pull the biggest marketing turn-around in history…


    Sam Posey, I miss you- I hope you are well. Dakar was barren this year without you.


    Tony George, while the current situation is not your fault, it is very obvious that banked tracks are so much of a different animal to road courses (just ask the Texas speedway guys after the indycar debacle a few years ago) as to require different approaches to the construction of races… I love Indy, from the museum, to the fact that regular folks’ houses line most of the trackside- the most charming thing I’ve ever experienced in racing is parking my car on a happy locals lawn for a few bucks just blocks from the track, and then joining the jolly crew on the sidewalk on their way into the track- so much better than the atmosphere around the track at Canada (though the city there is amazingly great!)! Indy has always been an amazing experience for me, generally, except for the actual race- at some point people (particularly straightforward Americans) tend to catch on to stuff like that, but perhaps an F1 race would benefit from an investment in a real road course somewhere in our big, now old I think, country…


    On a final note, I’ve been to every USGP since it came to Indy, except this one (in retrospect, thank god; I was really just tired of getting gouged by the local hotels- capitalism at it’s finest- just wait until next year to see how real capitalism works!), and while I was just buzzed by the whole atmosphere at every race, I was never taken by the action I’ve seen on track- not so much in terms of quality- I’ve been to more than a few bad Indy and sports car races as well, but I also got to see support races at each of those that helped to make up for it…


    The best ‘Racing Experience’ I’ve ever had, ironically, was going to LeMans in ’98… and believe me, it was a lot less expensive, in the end, to fly to (and stay in) France than it was to drive a few hours to, and stay in, Indianapolis. Funny how they both happened within hours, broadcast on the same channel, this weekend. I can only imagine the incredible damage done, in the eyes of the totally casual, supposedly ‘desired’, American viewer, to everyone if CBS had broadcast the race this year; But then I wouldn’t have been left wondering why David Hobbs, as well as the rest of the fox broadcasters, some of the most entertaining voices I’ve ever heard in my living room in any situation, would have been so upset with the Michelin teams for following advice about driver safety… and not having a word to say against the FIA at all…


    You know, it’s funny, the two sports I’m really passionate about are Hockey and International Motor Racing…. At some point I hope there are actual Professional Organizations of each that I can support… otherwise, more power to the people; each Sport is much bigger than those folk who currently benefit from them… this may be the best thing that could have ever happened… I’ve been trying to imagine this same situation happening in Motocross or Moto GP… or Nascar… or Football (choose your nationality)…


    Goodbye Max. Goodbye Bernie. Turkey, China, Malaysia, Bahrain, etc… simply put, while you seem to be the flavor of the day, unless your government goes long with F1, to the tune of very many millions of dollars of otherwise better spent subsidies, you’ve been screwed, they go into Bernie’s pocket, and you will be left hanging, just like us. Enjoy it while you can…


    F1 has been optimistically relying on us hardcore, partially well-off (by US standards), US fans to prop it, and it’s amazingly unrealistic financial suppositions, up, and we obviously are going to see nothing by it. Goodbye F1. Welcome, A1GP.


    Funny, the national anthem, and the fly-by, went ahead today as planned, just not the reason we were all there….


    Sincerely, one lonely, unsupported (American- not that it matters, ask anyone at Spa or Imola- the best tracks in F1, duh!), very patient ,F1 fan


    Michael Rutledge


    The consensus seems to be that Michelin messed up big time, but that once it became clear that this was the case everybody else failed to solve the problem. I have to agree. David Coulthard said he could not see why adults were unable to come to an agreement, and he is correct.


    Some people are attempting to blame Ferrari for not agreeing to a chicaine, but why should they. After all they came prepared to race around the full F1 course. I do feel the fault lies with the GPWC group of teams and the FIA. The GPWC teams saw this as an opportunity to get one over on the FIA (and Ferrari), but the FIA refused to blink. The result? Unhappy fans, sponsors and promoters. I feel sorry for the US fans, they have been treated badly. And this in acountry where the customer is always right even when they are wrong. F1 has lost the battle for the USA. Well done to all concerned (not).


    I will keep watching, but I will be giving MotoGP first place in the event of a clash for the rest of the season. If the BTCC was as good as it was in its early 90′s incarnation I would go back to it, but as it is as messed up as F1 (I saw my first TV coverage yesterday on ITV). Sucess ballest and reverse grids and only 14 runners does not attract me. So it’s F1 and MotoGP for me but in reverse order.


    Aravind Vijayakumar


    A sad, sad, spectacle. Michelin were utterly reprehensible in coming so woefully underprepared for what they knew was one of the most demanding corners in F1. And once that was established, the travesty that played itself out was shameful. What is surprising to me is the number of people who are aportioning some of the blame to Ferrari in this matter. The Michelin runners seemed to be unwilling to take any option that seriously dented their position (as in, any option that would make it difficult for them to score points/deny points to their rivals). The FIA seemed to be unwilling to appear to cave in to the teams, and in their own way, were justified. But having the moral high ground didn’t make the race any better, did it?


    I can’t help but feel that this was just one part of the chess game that the FIA and the GPWC have been playing for over a year. Today, they exchanged queens … don’t they realise that they may not have a board
    left to play on if they continue in this vein?


    Deane Walpole


    I’d like to congratulate Martin Brundle on some wonderful commentary for ITV1, and for roughing up Bernie Ecc on the grid. His arrogant, nonsensical answers showed him in a poor light and was something the F1 community needed to see. I think he should shoulder a lot of blame for what happened.


    Year on year he has run F1 as his own personal license to print money, and finally he has ostracised most of the teams. They are fed up with the obscene skims Bernie’s companies take, the every more strenuous schedule (more races = more money for Bernie) and all the kissing up to the FIA and Ferrari.

    On Sunday we saw the price for the selfish deal he cooked up with Max Mosley and Jean Todt. The other teams, who also behaved appallingly, no longer listen to or trust the guy that used to be everyone’s Mr Fixit. As a consequence he found himself live on air, bereft of answers and unable to keep the show on the road. Only Brundle an a few others flew out of Indiana with any credit due them.

    He (Bernie)should stand aside, Mosley should be removed and the Concorde agreement should be scrapped straight away, replaced by a fair and transparent set of governing procedures. None of this will happen because the corridors of power (and team headquarters) are full of incompetent and/or self-involved and/or arrogant individuals who will kill the sport I love if they are not stopped.


    Mark Newman


    Just to say that F1 has been too clicky for too long. Its run as a ‘membership only’ dictatorship, with a few ‘golden boys’ i.e Ferrari who can do no wrong. It is a farce, and quite pathetic.

    Echoing some of your words, a bunch of greedy, bickering, egotistical and largely very immature ‘boys’ who think their sport is untouchable.

    How wrong they are! The Americans will NOT forgive this pathetic and spiteful spectacle, and I predict (as I did some months back) that other racing series will quite rightly benefit.

    F1 is out of date, and needs to be started afresh. The only way that will happen is with a new series, as F1 seems to revolve around a few multi millionaires, who far from being short sighted, have their heads stuck firmly up their own derrieres…

    A sad sad day, that should be full of shame, but its obvious from the drivers press conference, that they have not got a clue. Not an inkling of how fans feel. Do they care?? I’m personally completely sick of empty diplomatic press speak coming from the mouths of drivers and team owners. Where are the REAL people in F1??

    Answer: Doing the dirty work, and not having a voice. The mechanics and other race day staff are the real unsung heroes, who never seek glory, from their loyal and physically exhausting work. The chefs, the HGV drivers, the hospitality staff, the factory staff etc etc …

    Its sickening, and should stop. I was embarassed to watch last night, and many people should hang their heads in shame.

    Create competition with tyre companies, and you will always run the risk of compromising safety. Its common sense.


    On a positive note, I actually like the proposed new regulations for the future, but we’ll see eh?


    Robin McInnes


    This was a disaster for F1, and it was made even more of a disaster by where it happened. For as long as I’ve been following F1 we’ve been trying to convince the Americans that it was the business. All that hard work has now been wasted.


    The usual contractual obligations excuse notwithstanding, I doubt there will be a USGP next year; the circuit is likely to offer more entertainment for its paying public by extending the golf course over the infield circuit than F1 did yesterday.


    What went wrong? There is certainly NO excuse for the unprofessional way things unravelled in the lead up to the grid but, as ever, it’s more complicated than that.


    Who was to blame? Well, pretty nearly everyone involved is my personal opinion.


    Michelin: Obviously their inferior tyres were a major factor. It is not without precedent that a component has been found wanting at at Grand Prix meeting, and the cars using that component withdrawn, (Sauber rear-wings, Brazil 2003 for example), but never a component which affects so many teams. From their point of view, Michelin really had no option but to declare their tyres unsafe, but it was nonetheless a brave man who made the decision to make that declaration. They will undoubtedly pay big for their mistake, both in terms of F1 and commercially. The whole tyre-buying world will have formed an opinion on Michelin tyres yesterday, and the company’s future in F1 looks very bleak.


    FIA: Apart from the short-term decision making at Indianapolis, which to a degree I can sympathize with*, the FIA must be held partly responsible in the long term by constraining the sport with its artificial money-saving regulations. The level of competitiveness requires all those involved to work at the very edge of the envelope; putting constraints upon it, such as preventing routine tyre-changes and demanding that one set of tyres last for so long. They justify their actions by claiming that they want to keep the manufacturers in the sport, but how many manufacturers involved yesterday will lose millions in sales across the world?


    (* If they had backed down yesterday, and modified the circuit as requested by Michelin, how long would it be before some sly team boss, or tyre boss, decided a circuit somewhere else didn’t suit his cars, and requested it be changed, citing the ‘Indy Precedent’?)


    Ferrari: Yes, they could have agreed to some of the suggested compromises, and the fact that they didn’t makes them a factor. But, (and I’m not a Ferrari fan), they surely did the right thing as far as they were concerned. If they had agreed, not only would it have benefited their rivals it would also have compromised them. As the editor says elsewhere, it is not for a competitor to decide things like this.


    The Michelin Teams: The Michelin teams were undoubtedly at a disadvantage here and, once Michelin advised them that their tyres were unsafe, they obviously had no option but to withdraw from a race held on an unmodified circuit. What they apparently did NOT have to do was to take that decision right down to the line and turn the whole thing into the farce it became. Early in the morning, or even the previous evening, they could have announced that they were definitely not going to race, and ceased preparing for it. Doing something tangible like that, may -possibly- have triggered others into making the decisions necessary for a reasonable compromise. Instead, they put up this ‘wall of silence and no comment’ to the end, even the drivers on the grid apparently having no idea (or, more likely, being unwilling to reveal), what was going to happen.


    I would suggest that the reason for this was some sort of contractual obligation to turn up on the grid or have to pay someone, (IMS, FIA, Bernie, TV Companies -who knows?), a lot of money. For that, I cannot forgive them.


    Mark Jennings


    OK, everybody, calm down. Yes, the fans at Indy got cheated and yes, fans around the world got cheated out of a race on Sunday.


    But people are totally over-reacting- calling this the biggest farce in F1 history in non-sense. Similar things happened in the 1980′s when the FISA were at war with FOCA. And what about all the politics and similar stunts in the 1960′s with the likes of Enzo Ferrari?


    Calm down, people. What happened on Sunday is nothing new to F1 and, while this may may hurt F1′s popularity with US fans, F1 will continue on as it always has.


    Dan Lewis


    First of all I want to thank you for your great coverage and for the wonderfully wallpapers that you provide.


    I wanted to comment on the USGP debacle as a US fan. I live a little over 120km from the Indianapolis Motor speedway and grew up closer than that. As someone who grew up in the shadow of a once great track I have been a motor sports fan for most of my life. I came to be aware of F1 through the Indy cars. (or what used to be Indy cars anyway)


    What I saw yesterday will not go over well here at all. I know the F1 teams were entertaining Casino big wigs from Las Vegas and you can count that out right now. No way they will put up with that kind of crap from anyone.


    I did not attend the race because I (along with most open wheel fans in the US) will not set foot in the Indianapolis Motor speedway as long as the IRL exists. But I did watch on TV and a number of my friends did attend the race despite the hatred of Tony George. What they said was that everyone they spoke with will not be back.


    Today I mourn the thought that I will never be able to see a USGP in person since I dont think we will see another one for a very long time. I suppose they could come back next year but not very many fans will show up.


    Rob Becker – Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA


    I was there at Turn One, and things got ugly once everyone’s suspicions were confirmed. (that Michelin teams would not race). Those throwing beer cans were confronted and arrested (there is a jail and police station on site). Mass confusion reigned for about 10 laps, then I’d say about 20% of everyone left.


    I and 3 friends paid $105 per ticket for our seats, plus 3 nights at a hotel, plus fuel and rental car for a 10-hour-each-way trip. Plus meals, plus knick knacks. In NO WAY are we entitled to a refund.. that’s complete rubbish and makes sense to all but the most casual fan / sh** talker. I was not wronged by anyone.. it just fell apart in my back yard, nothing more.


    The Indpls. Motor Speedway sold me my ticket, but they cannot guarantee a product that I’m happy with.. they can only offer me the chance to see something interesting. And what happened was that the whole event rolled boxcars.. what can you do? It’s not as though McLaren, Renault, et al, did not want those 3 points that nobody raced for.


    Part of the reason that anyone cares about F1 at all is because it’s the most purely competitive auto racing series ever. Unabated disparity is what the sport is about! They compete with traction control, driver ability, aerodynamics, gearboxes, fancy metal ballast pieces, contracts written in incomprehensible legalese, and of course their budgets. It’s an enormous house of cards, and interestingly the most-shared component among all teams was the one that caused it all to fall in on itself.


    If you are after reliability, transparency, level-handed utopian racing with no incentive to explore a loophole in the rules, you should follow the lead of those who left the track after half a lap and call out “Let’s go watch NASCAR”. Of course I want excitement every weekend, but the ingredients that create that atmosphere are volatile, and this weekend we saw the other side of the coin. Because unfortunately the people who make F1 great (Bernie, Ron Dennis, Flavio, Ferrari, Max Mosley) are strongest in ego, and that was Formula One’s downfall.


    By no means do I forgive the team principles for passing the buck on to the FIA. What I can’t understand is why they would protect their tire supplier’s image in spite of each of their sponsors and engine manufacturers. All it takes is one PR-heavy statement like “we are confident that Michelin will recover, and the French GP will showcase our abilities once again”.


    In short, the Michelin teams had ought to take their lumps. If you’re going to park it in the garage anyhow, why not own up?


    Charlie Whiting had it spot-on.. Michelin was unprepared.


    Mike Smith


    The events at Indianapolis underline the need for F1 to redefine itself. While it is certainly the leading edge technically speaking in motorsport, it must also sustain itself with rules that allow the teams to remain competitive without sacrificing the element of entertainment and spectacle.


    The debate about a control tire has never been more important than right now. A single tire, possibly a slick (my own preference), that is supplied to all teams, that is vetted for safety and durability, would be the best choice. If such a tire were to reduce lap times by a fraction due to over-engineered construction, then so be it – it would be across the board with all teams ‘suffering’ the same ‘disadvantage’. The element of competitiveness would remain and safety would be assured.


    Should we have a single tire per race? Hard to say, but pitstops that feature tire changes are a fascinating part of the spectacle and should therefore be retained — anything that contributes to the ‘show’ should be considered.


    The rules are already written for 2.4 litre engines and significant changes to aerodynamics. Comment across the spectrum seems to favour these changes which will increase driver input and increase passing attempts by making the cars more difficult to control.


    Sir Jackie Stewart remarked that launch control was an amazing bit of technology but he recalled that a driver’s finesse was what was really needed in ‘the old days’ when getting away cleanly at starts and after pitstops.


    The overall philosophy of increased driver input is what makes the enthusiasts’ blood stir. Slick tires, reduced aero efficiency, a return to manual transmissions with foot clutches (and using a stick, not paddles) are all elements of increased driver control. By all means, keep on with the space age materials and refinements to the ‘bits’ but don’t let the technology define the formula.


    We’ve all seen how the engineers clawed back mechanical grip after the introduction of the grooved tires. No doubt the same sort of thing would happen again if rules-based handicaps were considered. That’s the only way to increase the sport’s appeal while ensuring competitiveness among the so-called ‘best drivers in the world’.


    PS Regarding your coverage of F1 matters generally — the other sites provide repeats and rewrites of each other’s material: very boring. Keep on with analysis that focuses on the minutiae of the sport — long time fans out here are looking for that sort of thing. Keep up the good work.


    Frank Neiman


    Regardless of the fault/blame for the race???? yesterday. It my understanding that the teams have the option to change tires during a race if deemed unsafe. Why didn’t the Michelin teams make one or two laps then
    come in and change tires and continue the race. That would have place the direct responsibility for the validity of the tire change on the FIA tech steward. And though it is by no means assured I doubt the tech steward could have ignored the Michelin statement the tires were unsafe.


    Timm Smith


    As disappointed as I am with the “race”, I can’t see where anyone did anything wrong. The Michelin guys screwed up, I am sure it wasn’t on purpose, #%^! happens! They did the only safe and sensible thing they could do and that was to recommend that the drivers lives not be risked due to faulty tires. The teams should not be criticized for not wanting their drivers killed for the viewing pleasure of tens of millions of fans worldwide.


    The Bridgestone teams came prepared for the race, a race on the schedule for over a year, to rules in effect since the beginning of the season on a track they have raced on for some time now. They had every right to race on the track they expected, under the rules on the books. I seem to remember quite a few people who were very pleased that the FIA followed the “rules” when it came to BAR earlier this season. If the rules could be changed for the Michelin teams, why couldn’t they have been changed for BAR? This would have been extremely hypocritical. BAR were never actually proven to have been underweight during the race, and no other team has had their cars drained since then. As much as I hate to admit it, the FIA was right to stand by their rules (you don’t know how much that hurt to type!). Whether we like it or not, F1 is supposed to be a sport, not a show. In a sport, there are rules, you either play by them or you forfeit. The Michelin teams chose the latter.


    The root cause of this though should be laid at Max’s feet. These cars are extremely complex and by their nature require huge amounts of engineering time to perfect. While months may seem like a long time to some, to those of us who make our living designing and engineering complex machines that move, it isn’t all that much time. I design boats for a living, sweating all the details takes time. A missed detail could cost someone their life, in my profession possibly dozens of lives. The one tire rule should have been proposed and scheduled for implementation 2-3 years ago. There should have been special tests conducted and administered by the FIA (working in concert with the tire manufacturers) to ensure the safety of these tires during the development period. These tests should have been conducted on any track with a unique feature that could effect the design and construction of the tire. Would this have happened if at the end of last year’s USGP, the teams stayed around for an extra week of testing on the new tires for next year? We’ll never know because Max, in all his God like wisdom, had to change the rules this year, right now! You can’t keep changing the rules constantly and expect the cars to be of the same high standard.


    Champ Car hasn’t changed it’s Lola’s in quite a few years. Yet yesterday afternoon they put on a good, safe race at PIR. The cars were reliable and fast. The fans got to see the fourth different winner of the year, in what, five races? As a fan of both series, my only hope is the fans who have finally had enough of F1 will become fans of Champ Car, thus helping it grow. The damage done to F1 over the last few years by Max is enormous, the USGP was just 1 more nail in a rapidly closing coffin that Max is hammering on. I would be extremely surprised if there is another F1 race at the Brickyard next year. I can’t imagine there are any other businessmen with the outright stupidity of Tony George who will pay the millions to Bernie for the great business proposition that F1 has become here in the US. You would have to be a fool to think any great numbers of people would show up and pay to see F1 again. Even as dense as Tony is, his lawyers are probably smarter and trying to figure out how they will get out of the coming class action lawsuit for the least amount of money, as well as how to make sure this never happens again. This won’t kill F1 worldwide, but it is now a laughing stock here in the States.


    Peter Clothier


    When will all those involved in F1 realise that their first priority, after their drivers’ safety, is to the spectators and viewers. If they lose these, all their empires will collapse as they will have nothing to offer their sponsors!

    Bernie seems to have lost the plot. I’m not sure Max ever had it.

    Wake up Bernie, Max, & all team principals – write rules that favour entertaining the fans – concentrate on getting drivers back into the race, not disqualifying them when they have fully functioning cars – when there are problems, seek ways to solve them for the benefit of the fans.


    Raouf Morcos – U.S.A.


    Yesterday’s race was a sham. The FIA is a sham. FOM is a sham. the FIA court of appeals is a sham. The dealings of F1 are a sham (with its fans and amongst its various members). Why any major manufacturer or sponsor would go near F1 with a 10 foot cattle prod is beyond me? I’ve always agreed with Mike Lawrence that it doesn’t make sense for a major auto manufacturer. The phrase “racing improves the breed” lost its meaning years ago.

    In its press release to the world the FIA used the execuse of safety, fairness, and the litigious american system as a reason no to install a chicane at turn 13. Yet in 1994, after the events of Imola, the FIA did install chicanes at various circuits, including montreal and spa, in the name of safetyy and no-one complained about whether it was fair or not, or whether it changed the nature of the course or not.

    The only cure for this mess is for the fans to vote with their dollars, euros, pounds, yen … Fans need to boycott the sport and its sponsors. I could not believe the # of spectators that stayed to watch the race after they vocally booed what happened. That only sends a message to “planet paddock” that they can do anything they want and get away with it. But then again those fans paid so much money to watch the race so they stayed out of stubborness. Maybe the only solution is for a truly independent arbitrator to judge such issues. But the egos that make-up the sport will probably not agree to it.

    The debacle that was yesterday was not just a making of michelin bringing a “wrong” tire to the track. This has been building up over a period of time under the administration of Max Mosley & Bernie. For the life of me I do not understand those members of the f1 press corp. who drool all over themselves over max’s lawyerly talk and ability to so called outhink his opponents, and bernie making so much money for himself and F1. Perhaps they are afraind of loosing their paddock passes.

    I have never attended a formula 1 event because i believe the cost of a ticket is outrageous for the entertainment you get. Yesterday’s event only confirms that. The question is why do we continue to watch? Why do web sites continue to report? why do people continue to pay outrageous amounts of money to attend a race? Perhaps it is our naivete that the next race will be a true battle between men and machines, and we will watch something great as these atheletes display their great skills.

    Years ago i thought it was a mistake for cart to go public, because then they had to answer to wall street’s demands. But after yesterday, maybe the best thing for f1 is to go public so that the shennagins of Max, Bernie, and all the other inhabitants of “planet paddock” would be subject to the scrutiny of a securities regulator, civil penalties, and reputation risk.

    I am not a fan of Tony George because of what he has done to open wheeled racing in this country but i do applaud his decision to release the addresses of the 3 protagonists of yesterday’s debacle. That is the best way for the fans to know who the culprits of yesterday’s sham are and perhaps to do something about it.


    Karthik Padmanabhan


    I am sure you are receiving tonnes of fuming emails from all over the world – this one’s from another fuming fan in India.

    Yesterday was ridiculous. I stop with this since I assume that you wouldn’t publish expletives.

    Just one simple question:

    Why didn’t all the Michelin runners change their tyres on Sunday (using the fresh set that was brought from France) and accept whatever penalty that may have been imposed (stop-go, drive-through, time added to their final result.. whatever..)?

    They could have changed the tyres, accepted whatever penalty was imposed and still raced!! Why didn’t they race?


    Peter Wells – South Africa


    I hear you Chris – Michelin cocked up a reality. However we all cock up now and again – what were they supposed to do – send their cars out on suspect rubber and risk a nasty prang or 14 nasty prangs – they couldn’t do it. Should the Michelin teams have simply driven within the limits of the suspect rubber – wouldn’t happen – they are racing drivers and would have gone for it – prang !!!

    In my view FIA has lost it’s way – they are the root cause of all the rot in F1. You cannot implement a rule that results in danger to the drivers – drop the one tyre rule and replace it with no fuel stops. Running out of fuel did not kill anyone – burst tyres have. Simple. Kimi flat spotted as they all do 2 races ago – very lucky the accident was not more serious – with the current rules there will be a big one soon.

    Remember when Jaques trashed his BAR at Spa – the team did the right thing and withdrew both cars as the wings were suspect – wasn’t a problem then – only a problem when 14 cars are forced to do the same thing.

    In summary the crisis was real one at the time – they palookas who run the sport failed to reach a compromise in the interests of all. As I have said before MotoGP is fast becoming the way to go – only wished they raced those bikes for another 2- laps per race.


    Mike Zimmermann – Johannesburg, South Africa


    Like every other sports fan, not only the motor sports fans but fans of sport in general, I feel that we have been cheated in the worst possible way by the events of Sunday. But there is one glimmer of hope on the horizon. The event took place in the USA where as everyone knows everyone sues everyone. I pray fervently that all the sponsors, the race organisers, and the TV stations take out law suits against Michelin first and thereafter against the FIA, Bernie Ecclestone and the teams who withdrew from the race, for loss of revenue. After all the teams could have competed by simply taking the penalty of multiple tyre changes. There were after all still points on offer if not a win. After all Minardi takes part race after race with absolutely no prospect of winning.

    I would also like to see someone with the right connections, possibly Pitpass.com themselves starting a fund to take out a class action against the above respondents for bringing the sport into disrepute. The proceeds from the class action law-suit could go into a special fund to support young financially disadvantaged youngsters wanting to make it in motor sport. It could be called the 619 fund to commemorate the day that F1 was disgracefully sabotaged.

    If this does happen maybe we could get live coverage of the court proceedings, which would be more interesting that many of the GP’s we’ve had in recent years.


    Tom Johnson


    I support your view, Chris. But does Michelin have a tire that could have safely done race distance at Indy? Is Michelin new???!!!! Maybe the Michelin tire that would guarantee race distance at Indy was too much of a performance sacrifice. So, the Michelin guys come to a race with inferior equipment. Race accordingly. All the Michelin cars will still be racing against each other. They will just be doing it behind the Bridgestone cars. Embarassed to have to finish behind a Minardi, Ron? Tough pill to swallow being passed by a Jordan, eh Flavio???? For shame all of you. You selfish spoiled children. You have all forgotten who’s ultimately responsible for paying the bills. Lose your audience and see how many sponsers are there providing all your extravagances. In my humble opinion, the best way to fix F1 is to stop watching. And I mean everyone! I do not have a better answer than that. The people who can come up with much better ideas on how to save F1 than I can, will. Because their gravey train will truly be in jeopardy. If you can’t turn it off, then suck it up, quit whining and take what they give you!!


    I’d also like to say Bravo to Champ Car. They truly understand on which side their bread is buttered. And to Mr Ecclestone… Gum me!!!!!!!


    Alex – London


    I would like to applaud at – as ever – pitpass‘ balanced and refreshing attitude towards events in F1.


    In England and elsewhere yesterday we once again witnessed Ferrari (Minardi and Jordan seemed to be running on Michelin?) being branded as the baddies by the TV commentary on ITV. Their balanced view of things essentially consists of everything our pals in the English teams can get away with we will explain to gullible public, be it lighter cars (“ultimately an interpretation of the regulations” – think not), breach of contract by a driver (“it is in the fine legal points” – sorry, think not again), etc.


    The ‘message’ of the coverage is constantly: “The Germans are bad, our English boys are fighting for freedom against them and the bureaucratic and colluded FIA”. Their only regret that the FIA is not led by a Belgian or a French to make their Daily-Mail-story perfect. All this coming from a broadcaster who cannot even be bothered to show live qualifying in the do not happen in the dead ours of lunch. Oh please, I have had enough of this. Can we have the BBC back?


    Yesterday was the typical case in point. Michelin, after having pushed their tyres to the limit since the beginning of the season and having had a number of very risky failures, do a major screw up and end up with
    a product that will not last the race. What happens? It’s suddenly Ferrari’s fault for not allowing them to try another one or change the track?


    I am sorry?! When Bridgestone had tyres failures – and Ferrari lost races because of that – earlier this season, did you see the Japanese writing to the FIA saying “sorry this is unsafe let us use another, or put in a straight here and there”. No, they advised their runners to retire their cars, which they did in silence without making the fuss that was made yesterday. Why should there be a difference? What would ITV commentators have said if Ferrari had come out with a statement saying you either change the track or we do not race here? Would they have said that in the interests of fans they should have been allowed? I doubt it.


    And, in the specifics, what precedent would have caused if the track had been changed? What would have then stopped another team, perhaps Ferrari, at the next race to bring with them lighter more effective brakes, and then on the Saturday come out and say “Sorry Brembo tells us our brakes are not gonna last the race. Can we put in a chicane between the two straights to reduce the heat?”. Surely they would have been allowed on the same grounds then. So quickly we would have a situation in which we have a negotiation at every race for the changes to be adopted to the track “to guarantee safety”. In a while you would have cars running different set-ups preparing for the changes to happen and so on – this is a totally unworkable mess.


    The facts are that Michelin have been running too close to the margin for a while. Drivers have been lucky not to get hurt. Team principals know this very well – how much they have so far reiterated Michelin that it is in their contract and obligations to supply tyres that are safe beyond doubt is not known to us, but there are not big signs of it given as it is they have been running on pressures that are even lower than what specified by Michelin.


    All this went too far and yesterday it was so obvious and they were left with the only option of retiring around L10 as suggested by Michelin. Someone might say they could have at least raced for 10 laps – in entire safety as Michelin stated and changed the LR around then, rather than retiring all together to show their disappointment to the FIA for not having bent the rules for them. The same someone might suspect this move was only to get the fans annoyed with the sport so that their migration to a newer formula (where Ferrari is not present so that one of them can win) is easier for them.


    Any race with few runners and yesterday’s was one of these is uninteresting – none of us watched it with any interest. But to say like ITV commentators did that it is the FIA’s fault or Ferrari’s, or even Minardi and Jordan not honouring supposed promises not to run (to show solidarity?!) is surely absurd.


    The facts are that Michelin tried once again to take a tyre too close to the safety margin and it did not work. They are under contractual obligations to supply performance tyres that will last the race, so they are in breach of contract. Team principals should push their tyre supplier not only on performance grounds but also on reliability.”The show must go on” cannot be a motivation for introducing a mentality of making up the rules as you go along.


    Let’s write off yesterday’s race (we had better than average racing so far this year) and hope the message is understood. And finally, the issue of having one, reliable, safe, tyre supplier for all the teams should have persuaded everyone yesterday and hopefully will be in the books by next year.


    In the meantime how can we get a broadcaster that shows live qualifying and is not so blatantly partisan in all reporting to “our boys” to become utterly ridiculous?


    Demity Majors – Las Vegas, NV USA


    Being originally from Europe, I have been following the sport for many years. What happened on Sunday at Indianapolis only shows, just how far the sport has drifted from its roots of being the pinnacle of motor sport and transformed into a corporate advertising machine with teams and drivers being used for accomplishing a corporate profit objective. As to who is to blame for this shameful occurrence. First on the list is the FIA for creating rules that require top performance cars in the world, that stress the limits of what is technologically possible to run a single set of tires during the qualifying and race. As far as the sport has come, it’s not that far yet. To justify that the decision to do so was in order to create more competition is utter BS. The competition was always there and the sport has never been as popular as it is today. Did they accomplish the goal of making the sport more competitive? The answer is no. Teams are still winning races by similar margins as before and the slower teams are still getting lapped. There is however more danger. The real answer behind the ridiculous tire rule, is that by making competition more fierce and allowing more teams to win races draws more substantial checks from the sponsors, who are willing to sponsor more teams that might have not stood a chance before. Second to blame is Michelin. Knowing that this ridiculous rule exists, knowing that cars on banked speedways go though tires much quicker then on flat surfaces, Michelin did not voice a strong enough opinion if any to the FIA or the teams about a possible danger. The fact is that we don’t know if the tires designed for future events are up to par. A problem that would occur at Indy on lap 10 might well be a problem on lap 30 at a less aggressive track. I refuse to believe that a banked turn at Indy is the only high G-force, stressful corner, in the Grand Prix season. Not to be totally bashing Michelin. Bridgestone has not expressed its concerns either. By allowing this rule to be in effect, everyone is to blame for what happened. The Teams, the FIA, and the Tire Manufacturers. The drivers are in more danger now then they were a year ago.


    Graeme Eagleson


    Can you imagine any other sport where competitors turned up to compete without the proper equipment and asked for the rules to be changed or the arena altered to allow them to compete. Take Football for example Man u Turn up at the cup final to find Arsenal with no boots so arsenal ask that the pitch be covered in carpet to allow them to play.


    Or they only have 5 players so ask the ref to move the goals to the half way line so they can compete on an even basis. Extreme but you get the gist The FIA are the referee they cant go changing the rules of the game once the game starts.


    It wouldn’t happen and the game would be abandoned and awarded to Man u .


    F1 could have abandoned but then who would have got the points so they did the only option that was available to them.


    Lets not forget the teams could have changed tyres and taken a penalty that would not have been exclusion. They were told this but pressed on with the stupid and unworkable idea of a chicane.


    You do have to ask why what did that achieve. Only one thing it forced the blame back towards the FIA and diluted the blame being apportioned to Michelin


    We were all played and all robed of the spectacle of a race not by the fIA not by Ferrari or any other team but by a major manufacturer who failed to have a suitable contingency for this.


    Bridgestone have said they could have brought a more competitive tyre but were not sure of its durability so didn’t


    Michelin are desperate to win this championship and appear to be willing to take risk to do so….This time though they have just scored the winning own goal.


    Jim Casey


    I’ve been an F1 fan for over 40 years and today’s “race” was the worst thing I’ve seen in all that time. F1 is dead in the US. Indy won’t have them back and no one will risk putting on a race with all of the money invovled after this disaster. I had just watched Le Mans before the F1 event, and watched the Champr Car race from Portland after. No trouble with the grids there. Too much money, too much greed, too much avarice, and too many stupid rules.


    Dave – Boston, MA, USA


    I am all done with F1. I’ve spent a small fortune going to F1 races and feel like a patsy for doing so. In Montreal I bought a $20 souvenir pen and the next booth had it for $10. How much money can they suck out of people? To the people who run the show — FU to F1. F1 is only about money and nothing about sport. Please don’t come back to the U.S.


    Nick Collins


    At Last!!!

    Thank Christ it’s finally all over. The slow, wasting death of F1 was starting to give every one the sh*ts. All the endless talking and talking and still doing nothing as the Sport itself slid slowly and inexorably into decay and disrepute.

    Well now it’s dead! Sunday’s disgraceful display by the sports administrators and the blatant bias and manipulation of the participants have finished the poor, sad bastard off.

    I, as a life-long Motorsport tragic, couldn’t be more relieved. I will never again have to justify the blatant absurdity of F1 to a skeptical audience. The King is dead, … lets just leave it that way.

    A monument to all the worst of human traits – greed, nepotism, favoritism, prejudice, prejudgment, bias, stupidity, narcissism, hubris, malevolence, deception and deceit.


    Michael J. Wang


    I was born in Taiwan, a place where car racing was generally considered as illegal until the last decade. I have been watching F1 since 1995, and missed very few live broadcasts. Coming to pursue an advanced degree in a university in Indiaia in 2002, I finally had the chance to see a live F1 race at trackside. I treated my mom to USGP last year, and she enjoyed the race too. So this year, I asked several friends, and we went together, hoping to see an exciting race. Of course, we saw nothing exciting but just a farce. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that, some of the “top guys”, no matter working for a tyre manufacturer or working for a race team, do NOT respect the sports at all. They do not respect the spectators, TV viewers, drivers and even the sponsors who paid them. They behaved like spoiled children, lying on the ground and crying just because something did not go as they wished. It is a shame to have these people in the Formula One business.


    This also shows how arrogant “some” Europeans are. Some tyre manufacturer claimed that “this will not happen in France”. Of course, otherwise the fans will cause a riot. On the other hand, America is not an important place for F1. So they sacrificed USGP. I, however, wonder if they know there are people coming from Japan and India?


    I hope FIA to punish the bad teams and their managers. Spare the rod, spoil the child


    Joe Angers – Ayer, MA


    As an American, I am one of the few of the “Sunday Morning Cult” who follow Formula 1 fervently. Even though we are few in number, we are a passionate bunch. Hell, Minardi’s biggest group of supporters are U.S. based (we love the underdog who plugs away). We sacrificed many early Sunday mornings for the sport we love. The first race I ever saw was the 1987 British GP…. I was hooked… I knew right away it was the greatest thing I ever saw. We would make a party of Formula 1 viewing, renting out bars and restaurants for our early Sunday ritual. Local Ferrari dealerships would freely open their doors to the common man just so we could feel that bit closer to the men and machines we idolized.

    For nearly twenty years, I have had to defend my love of Formula 1. I had to defend a sport decried as “faggoty” and for limp wristed “Euro Trash”. Instead of the traditional Dale Earnhardt number “3″ decals on my car, I have a “Benetton-Powered by Ford” decal on the back of my Mustang. For 20 years, I patiently enlightened those as to the wonder of Formula 1. Why the cars were different from their ChampCar/IndyCar cousins. Why Formula raced on road courses and why it demanded higher skills than going in circles for 500 miles. If F-1 was a church, I was the evangelist, bringing in those out in the wilderness. For the last 5 years, I have willingly spent thousands of dollars without complaint to attend the Canadian GP.

    In the last few years, I have seen the fruits of mine and my fellow “cult” members starting to bear. Formula 1 was making inroads. We were on major network television pulling in decent ratings. We had Scott Speed!!! We were turning the corner. And now this. I’m still filled with shock, grief, a heartache. Formula 1 was there to console me during the sad times in my life. I always knew that no matter what was happening, Formula 1 was there to make it all better, even if only for a couple of hours. In a fortnight, the best drivers and machines in the world would lineup, and all would be right with the world. This is such a letdown, that it is unfathomable for me to know what the repercussions will be for me as a fan.

    In a sick sort of way, this reminds me of the turning point in Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita, where Hubert Humbert finally realizes that the passion and (perverse) love he had for Lolita was never reciprocated. That he was only used by her to reach her ultimate goal. Formula 1 has been using us. They pretended to love us, they reassured it was a true love and that everything will be ok. In the end, we are left with the realization that it never had anything to do with love. We were being used by Formula 1.

    Formula 1 did itself no favors here in the States. We defended Formula 1, we wanted to prove that F-1 belongs in the U.S. and that we as a nation are not the close minded xenophobes that the rest of the world makes us out to be. There was a glimmer of hope. But I fear all that’s gone. It was a sad day. Not in terms of the immensity of losing a driver…but in knowing that the sport you loved has truly revealed themselves for what they are.


    Alex Abreu – Temecula, Southern California, USA


    I am a bit amused at the jabs at Ferrari in a couple of the previous notes. Evil as he is, it is not Michael’s fault that Rubens was too hot in the corner- there was no way he was going to make it, he wanted the line as bad as MS. And Jean Todt should smirk, the idiots on the other teams handed them all those points. As noted in the article, do you think the other teams would have cared if Bridgestone was suffering? Did the field retire in solidarity when MS retired with tire problems earlier this year? Everyone is missing the point that this was a powerplay by the so called renegade teams to strengthen position. THAT is why they were so smug. As one of the dwindling US fans, the fact that they put on the show to assemble on the grid was far more upsetting than had they just stayed in the safety of their garages. That makes the disgrace of the Ferrari finish in 03 look mild. But you know what, all you people, just like me, will probably be watching. Maybe not the next race… maybe not even this year, but you’ll be back. I’ve got about 15 hours of Le Mans coverage left to watch, plenty of ALMS, Grand Am, SWC, and Champ Car racing ahead this summer. And F1, too.


    Paul Cajka – Sarasota, Florida


    Well, thanks to my PS2 I did get to see a real USGP at the Indy course with Kimi. OK, so it was the F12002 game and Kimi finished 13th four laps behind. But I was inspired to run the full distance instead of the
    fractional versions. At least I’m over the debacle that was the 2005 USGP.


    At least I didn’t waste my day watching it live. My workday was more exciting even on Sunday. As a Father’s Day present, my son took the effort to record the race on tape. Upon arriving home I thanked him and switched on the VCR. I watched the parade lap and the alleged start, and then the tape went off. Dinner and a movie were more interesting than the Bridgestone test session. But like the sometimes faithful motorsports fan I am, I watched the charity race.


    Yes, it was a charity race & why:


    1. It was a cheesy win for Ferrari, who couldn’t get a win any other way.


    2. Some encouragement for the Midland/Jordan folks & Alex Schnaider. Otherwise this team couldn’t find a podium finish with a map & both hands.


    3. Minardi is guaranteed travel funding for F1 season 2006, if there is one.


    4. Bridgestone was given an inside line on being the sole tire provider for future seasons


    Lehel Bernadt


    Firstly, I think Michelin pushed the envelope too far this time. They were always trying to find an advantage by going over the limit, see their liberal interpretation of tire width in 2003.


    But this backfired in such an unbelievable way, I mean they brought 2 types of tires, and the conservative one would last only 10 laps of the 73 lap race. I think this actually defines professional suicide, it’s such a big disgrace for an engineer. Maybe it’s time to leave the show for them.


    However never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that we come to this, a 6 car race. I understand that the FIA wanted to follow the rules strictly, because giving concessions would have set a dangerous precedent. I also understand Ferrari, because when Schumacher had his double puncture in Spain, nobody shed a tear for them, and neither they tried to mask their failure by asking for chicanes under the pretext of driver safety. In this case, a chicane created after the practice sessions and qualifying would have ruined their setup, tyre choice, and strategy. One could question if all these things are more important than the integrity of the sport, but I personally understand their viewpoint, after all the whole problem was not their fault.


    But, if you think back, this would not have happened 10 years ago. There was no one tyre rule, no parc ferme conditions. A new setup could be used for the race, with a warmup to check the track conditions. In this case I don’t think Ferrari would have objected to a track layout change, and with both tyre change and refuelling being allowed at the pit stops, the tyre problem would have been of a much smaller scale.


    This just shows how degenerated the F1 rules have become since then. No backup provisions in the rules, no t-cars allowed. This was bound to happen sooner or later. A similar thing could have happened in a Belgium ’98 situation, because of the lack of the 3rd car.


    All these restrictive rules just kill the show, for the holy grail of cost cutting. Well, yesterday it really spared some costs for the teams, right? After all, they didn’t have to run those 73 laps, and could save the engine for France. A big triumph for the FIA indeed.


    David Jones – WI, USA


    Living in the USA, F1 viewing opportunities have been rather rare over the last 20 or so years. I welcomed the return of F1 to America and have attended all the F1 races at Indy. While Road America would be a better drivers track, Indy has the facilities to host the event. It almost seems like poetic justice that this gaff occurred at Indy, the Champ Car / IRL split still has many North/Central/South American open wheel race fans wondering what is the point of it all. F1/FIA’s goal of making the series more competitive is understood by most race fans, the implementation via this years tire restrictions is just plain crazy. Everyone has seen that Michelin can qualify well, and as anyone that watches F1 knows that where you qualify has a direct impact on where you finish, the fact that Michelin did not bring a tire (alternative set) that could last the race was irresponsible of the tire manufacturer. Sad as it is F1 finally got some press time in USA. I truly feel sorry for the Central and South American fans that came to the races to see Rubins, Juan, Felipe and others, they are the people that really make this event unique in the USA. I can only hope that those in control can find their way out of this quagmire. Those at Michelin should be hanging their heads for what they did to the teams and fans of F1.


    Richard Burns – Sydney Australia


    I can’t believe this anger towards the FIA, Ferrari and/or Bridgestone.


    Its crap, serious crap, these guys are the ones who are in the right. I am not a football fan, but I think its like a team turning up to the world cup with boots, but forgetting to bring their studs. Then turning around to the governing body saying that in the interests of fair competition all opposing teams should remove their studs.


    Again, the Michelin teams were given options, they didn’t take them, they are going to pay, and pay dearly for this. Fine them all for bringing the sport into disrepute, Bernie take away the race fee’s of all those who chose not to race, or only pay them for the percentage of laps raced…. which is zero, refund the TV stations, and refund the ticket holders…. and do it fast.


    The other thing is, how can one imagine that the rival GWPC series would be a good thing? A series run as a Marketing exercise. Think about a Manufacturer deciding that the market or some other quim is not in the best interests of their brand image, and saying ‘nah, racing here is not good for us, and we may not win, so we won’t race’, Which from a certain point of view is similar to what happened in the last weekends race. The value of a marketing exercise is similar to last years boy band or idol star, popular for a very brief amount of time.


    It is funny hearing all these people stating that they will never watch F1 again, funny as it seems to be the same people who were upset about something else previously. our still watching, and so am I. I just hope that the racing headlines will beat the political headlines.


    Looking forward to Mike Lawrences views, great reporting Pitpass.


    Victor Felice – Scottsdale AZ USA


    I have never, EVER gotten up during a race, but on Sunday, I actually took a shower during the second or third commercial break, missed a lap or two, and that’s when the idea hit me!


    Why didn’t the 7 Michelin teams race with their intermediate rain tires? BRILLIANT!! Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi go off and rightfully do their thing, and the other 7 teams would have had one hell of a race.


    Sure, not ideal, but 14 cars on rain tires would have been more fun than 6 on dry’s.


    Incidentally, I once did bugger up my last set of slicks while racing, qualified on pole with ragged-out tires, raced with my rain tires and still finished second. So how hard would that have been?


    Double incidentally, I will ride the bus before I ever buy a Michelin product, unless of course the bus has Michelin tires, at which point, I’ll use my wife’s car. It’s got Good Years…remember them?


    Dana Scofidio – USA


    I am saddened, disgusted, and angry at the events of the USGP. I have made the trip North from New York To Montreal many times. I have participated in armature motor sports, as a crew member and a driver and have had a deep love for auto racing since 1967. As a professional in the entertainment industry, there is a golden rule, “the show must go on”.


    In a colossal display of stupidity, stubbornness and most of all arrogance, formula 1, or formula Zero as it is now called in the USA forgot this rule,and forgot the people who actually pay the bills, the Fans.Who to blame? it doesn’t really matter. But for the sake of argument #1 Michelin..by the way we just had a race at IMS in May were cars went through four of the banked turns at 220 miles per hour for five hundred miles. Michelin should be banned from F1 at once. #2 its a tie between the seven Michelin teems and the FIA, to not find a workable solution in three days is unacceptable. Bridgestone and there three teems are in the clear. If anyone thinks a break away series is the answer take look at open wheel racing in the USA. Next year you won’t find me at Montreal for F1, I’ll be in Virginia for NASCAR.


    Tim – Whitehorse, Yukon


    Yesterday’s disgusting display was simply damage control for Michelin.


    Imagine Michelin sending out their teams and telling them to slow in turn 13. Ferrari, as well as Jordan and Minardi, would pass all the slowing BARs, Renaults and Saubers at the fatefully named turn. But, of course, Michelin thought this situation out a bit further, and surmised that a F1 driver — let’s say Jacques Villeneuve — doesn’t really enjoy being passed, and would thus push the limits of the left rear tire by going faster. Of course, this would mean a big explosion, a big crash, possible driver paralysis, and it would all be blamed on Michelin.


    What goads me is that the teams weren’t simply allowed to make up their own minds about what to do — and that’s because Michelin was in aggressive damage control mode. Had they allowed their teams to elect to run, or to bring their drivers in to check tires, or to take a penalty and change tires at the start, or to go slowly in turn 13, they couldn’t guarantee their faulty tires wouldn’t fail. Thus, they couldn’t guarantee that those watching the race around the world wouldn’t then view the quality of Michelin’s tires in a negative light.


    The simple answer to the why’s being thrown around about this is, sadly, money. Michelin has too much money invested, and too much to lose, to be revealed as a tire company that can get it wrong in the pinnacle of motorsports, though they clearly did. Thus, they played it safe — financially speaking — and sought consensus from the teams to save their image, not the drivers. Of course, the cloaked this in the “interests of safety,” but then, if that were really the ultimate goal, wouldn’t Michelin just stop developing its tires to go faster and faster? After all, cornering speeds have all the drivers saying they’re at dangerous levels, and tire development is the main technical area where F1 lap times are still being decreased significantly.


    Where is Michelin’s concern for safety in that regard?


    Dale LaFollette


    I am led to believe from what I heard on TV and what I have read that Michelin had sent some substitute tires Saturday night to Indianapolis that they said were safe to use but the FIA said they could not run them without penalty as they had not qualified on them (per Charlie Whiting’s letter to the teams). Since the teams are really in show business not sport why did the show not go on and the teams accept the penalty?

    Because it became not an issue about safety or tires or chicanes but an issue of power. The non-Ferrari teams have shown the FIA that given an opportunity they will stick together and that they have control of their drivers. Lines are being drawn in the sand and if you were a lover of politics and not of racing then next couple of years could be interesting. As a racing enthusiast however it is already a bit of a bore.


    Pat McDonald-Meyer


    An alternative perspective on this weekends debacle


    There never was any intention for the Michelin runners to race in the US Grand Prix. The only question to be asked is when was that decision made. There are two possible time frames to consider, based on your degree of skepticism. The first and lesser skeptics’ ideal timeframe would be on Friday afternoon.


    Why? After the first practice session on Friday, Michelin and their partner teams were aware that they had serious degradation problems on the recently diamond cut surface, and having not brought a harder compound tire as backup, realized that they would be struggling to compete, let alone complete the race on Sunday.


    Fortuitously for them Ralf had his off due to a puncture and the other Toyota of Ricardo Zonta also had a puncture. Queue the perfect excuse to get out of this debacle and also pick a political fight with the FIA.


    The demand that a chicane be built at turn 13 was the red herring. The team principals and Michelin were in no doubt that there wasn’t a hope in the world of such a request being entertained by the FIA and as long as that demand was the main tenant of their argument they would never have to race.


    The higher ups in the GPWC saw a perfect opportunity to embarrass the FIA and FOM, what better way to hasten the demise of F1 and give rise to the GPWC, and there isn’t a better place on the planet to have done it.


    Time frame two is for the true skeptics and conspiracy theorists.


    The higher ups in the GPWC hatched a plan long before the race to make their stand and embarrass the FIA and FOM, again to hasten the demise of F1 and the rise of GPWC. Contrary to many of the articles and email sent in following Sundays farce, berating the stupidity of the Michelin shod team principles, maybe, just maybe, some of them were actually very clever.


    Realizing that the US grand Prix was the show piece in Formula 1’s market place, with a court system renown for its excessive punitive damage awards, and that if they were to succeed in embarrassing the powers that be, then this would be the perfect place to hatch there plan.


    What to do? Create a situation where safety is a reason to abandon a race. How to do this and affect all teams. Simple tires. Why else would Michelin turn up at an event with too soft a compound of tire for the track? It is incomprehensible to believe that someone from Michelin didn’t visit the track long before the race to check the surface. Then they turn up with no alternative, harder compound lesser performing tyre, which they have done for every single race since they joined Formula 1 as a tire supplier. Even if through some gross oversight Michelin forgot to pack the alternative tires, another question arises. These tires arrive at a Grand Prix event one, if not two days ahead of the first practice session. The team principles are meticulous in ensuring that they have everything they need including tires, and types of tires. Are we expected to believe that not one of them went to Michelin on Wednesday or Thursday and said “where are the alternative tires that we usually have at every single grand prix”. At which point Michelin would respond that they had forgotten them but not to worry we can have them flown over here by tomorrow before we even start free practice. This didn’t happen. What other reason could there possibly be for this series of events.


    Then we have the problem of how too encapsulate Ferrari into the embarrassment. Again simple, knowing that you intend to demand a change to the layout of the track, which you know full well, will not be agreed to by the FIA and Ferrari, keep that as a tenant of your demands. Then call a meeting of all team principles and purposely exclude Ferrari. Have your meeting and then let the spokesman come out and tell the world using carefully worded English that nine teams have agreed to the chicane. The media jumps straight on the bandwagon berating Ferrari for voting against the measure, which would have allowed the race to go ahead. You know the crazy thing is, they weren’t invited and didn’t know that Minardi and Jordan had attended the meeting.


    The question is who are the clever ones?


    Chris McQuade – Nelson New Zealand


    What a joke ! How could a multimillon dollar sport let this happen?


    Tony Traugott – Santa Monica, California USA


    Dear FIA:


    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Without cursing or hyperbole this is the only way to describe the FIA’s (Max Mosley’s) handling of the USGP debacle. Mr. Mosley took a bad situation and made it infinitely worse. The only way it could have been worse was for the Michelin shod cars to run the race disregarding the written warning of Michelin which stated that their tires were unsafe at this venue at this time.


    Was it Michelin’s fault? I don’t know, but they’ve never had this sort of trouble at Indy, or indeed, any other venue before. However, it is common knowledge that the Speedway was imperfectly repaved last year and the irregularities that were revealed in Firestone tire tests, had to be ground away, making the surface very abrasive. Firestone must have learned something, because I don’t recall any massive tire failures by the heavier, ground effects IRL cars that ran 200 laps on that same portion of track last May 29th. Perhaps Michelin didn’t get the memo that possibly went from Firestone to Bridgestone. Perhaps that’s because Michelin doesn’t fall under the same corporate umbrella like Firestone and Bridgestone do. I don’t know. I’m just speculating. What do you think, Max?


    What I do know is that the FIA had two viable options. You could have mandated a chicane or you could have allowed the Michelin teams use of the new tires that were flown in overnight. Then you could have dealt with the arguments and protests at a later date. Is this a perfect solution? Hardly. But at least then there would have been a race for the fans.


    You remember the fans don’t you Max? They’re all those people in the stands who pay the exorbitant ticket prices to attend the races. Sometimes traveling hundreds, even thousands of miles to do so. They’re the people who pay the outrageous prices for the merchandise to show that they SUPPORT they’re favorite teams and/or drivers. They’re the people who watch the races on TV, who relate to/SUPPORT the sponsors because the sponsors are SUPPORTING their favorite team/driver or series. The fans are the reason the sponsors are there. Without the fans, there are no sponsors. Without the sponsors there are no teams. And with out the teams there is no F1. And without F1 you are pretty much just dead weight. Today Max, you revealed that you are without a doubt a bigger disaster (re: horse’s ass) than that clown that preceded you.


    Forget about Ferrari for a while. Do you think Ferrari quit F1 if you go against them? Dream on. F1 won’t be F1 without Ferrari? Bulls#*t!! Ferrari won’t be Ferrari without F1. Think about it. From 1961 until 1999 Ferrari had only 3, count ‘em, 3 driver’s titles. Three driver’s titles in 39 YEARS. Three driver’s titles in 4 DECADES. Lotus did that in just 6 years in the 60’s.


    You seem to forget that until the mondo Marlboro money became available (only after the death of Enzo); Ferrari was pretty much in the weeds and showing no signs of recovery. So it’s pretty much a no-brainer that without Marlboro, Ferrari is nowhere again, And without F1, Ferrari can’t get the mondo Marlboro money. So quit sucking up to Ferrari. Ferrari is not going anywhere. At least until the tobacco money runs out. Besides it’s embarrassing to see the FIA constantly brown-nosing the team from Maranello.


    Teams come and go. Drivers come and go. Manufacturers, ESPECIALLY manufacturers come and go. Nobody is bigger than the sport. Not you, not Bernie and certainly not Ferrari. So for Pete’s sake, grow some balls and do what’s right for the sport, which means the fans, for a change.


    Andrew Upson


    Having actually watched the entire USGP (in vain hope of something other than the 6 car farce to happen) I have a suggestion for how Michelin could make things, if not right, at least make a step in the right direction.


    The Indy Motor Speedway should either refund all tickets, or give coupons good for equivalent or better seats at next year’s race. The entire cost of this should be reimbursed by Michelin. Possibly some share should also come from each of the seven teams that withdrew. Perhaps 50-60% from Michelin, the remainder split between the seven teams.


    This debacle is not the fault of the IMS. I only suggest they send the refunds/vouchers as they likely have the data necessary to do so.


    Regardless of what anyone may say, I see no way that Ferrari is at all to blame, nor Bridgestone (and this is from a non-Ferrari, non-Bridgestone fan). They did their homework, and Michelin dropped the ball.


    The FIA had its hands tied by the sporting regulations, so although the race could have been run as a non-championship event, it was up to the teams to decide if that was acceptable. They chose not to follow that route.


    My father was in town visiting this weekend. He watched the race with me. Although he was never likely to become an F1 fan, after that race I imagine he’s even wondering about my sanity with regard to how much I’ve enjoyed the sport.


    The fiasco at Austria and the USGP from a couple years ago is nothing compared to the damage this farce of a race has done to the image of F1 around the world, and most importantly the USA. As an American I would dearly love to see F1 become a proper rival to NASCAR in terms of popularity. After this how can it possibly hope to accomplish that? It never had much of a chance anyway, but with Mr. E. in charge, who know what could have been pulled off. I’m afraid that not even he will be able to manage that kind of feat now.


    Anything short of a refund/coupon with a letter of apology, and a MAJOR public mea culpa, and who knows what else, I see little future for F1, at least in my country.


    Carsen Kline


    F1 has always been my favorite soap opera, and pitpass.com my favorite source for all the latest gossip and news. But if I wake up tomorrow, and I see nothing but A1GP news and pics on your pages, I would salute you and remain riveted as always. His Highness needs to get this series moving in a hurry! I hate to see a grown man down the pub crying, but I couldn’t blame him one bit today.


    Robert Telford


    As you probably have noticed, todays ‘grand prix’, was simply pathetic. As a humble fan of the sport, I simply cannot find this sort of behaviour acceptable. After the ‘race’, we are definately and finally able to conclude, that no one in Formula One, think of it as a sport. Not Bernie, not Max, not Michelin, not Bridgestone, not Jean Todt, not Flavio, Ron, Frank, any of them.


    Every single one of them, they could not care less. They try to show sympathy for the ‘simple’ fans, who buy the shirts and caps that pay for their yachts, but in reality, they don’t care. Today, there could have been a race, it might not have been the best, but there could have been a race. However, with the FIA, Bridgestone, Michelin and the teams too busy catering to their own needs, there was none. Nobody was willing to give up their small share of the pie, for the fans. How dare they? This, is ignorance. How dare they.


    F1 has been sliding down the slope for the last few years. The mistakes, are getting too large, and too numerous. F1 is not being led, it is being exploited. Something has to be done. At the very least, certain people should retire their leadership, and someone who cares should be found. As fans, we have no one listening to our needs. The only people that can unite fans, and help us get our beloved F1 back, are in the media. The fans should have a voice (a little louder than a simple survey that asks if I suscribe to a F1 magazine). I will not be so brash as to make any firm suggestions, but strong preasure needs to be put on the FIA to clean this up, and on a personal level, I think that the supposed leaders of F1, Max and Bernie, should retire as they do not guide F1 ‘in the interests of the sport’. Shame on them.


    George T. Coller – USA


    Stick a fork in F1. It is done in the US for any foreseesbale future.


    I agree that if the tires are not safe, you don’t run.


    Ferrari not siding with the teams simply confirms their arrogance. Even Enzo would not have condoned that decision.


    It won’t be the first of Schumacher’s victories that deserves an asterix.


    The fact that the 7 teams took the warm-up lap to make it a “legitimate” Grand Prix is a slap in the face to Tony George and any other possible US promoter.


    Just take F1 and go, and don’t come back.


    I have supported F1 for too many years with little or no return on my emotional investment. This is the end.


    F1′s behavior was excrable, or to put it more crudely, F1 is used food.


    Gina Kerridge


    i am only 14 and i could have told all them men what to do there is only 6 bridgestone racers and 14 michelin racers so the michelin should have been aloud to build the chicane because there is no point having 6 cars racing because it is not a proper race you only have to look at how many people there is in the stands. also it was only ferrari who didn’t want the chicane because they wanted to win so they should have been the ones who shouldn’t be racing. i also feel sorry for the people who have payed all that money to go and see a good race and they are getting a rubbish race so i hope there is nobody left in the stands at the end and i think ferrari should pay for all the people who want their money back because if i was there i would want my money back because ferrari were the only people who did want the chicane.


    A Dewey


    I concur fully with your analysis of the Indianapolis event, and of the underlying problems in F1 today.

    The greed, ego, and power demands that exist in the F1 circus currently will be its downfall, not unlike that which happens to nations in our world history. There were compromises available for the Indy race. Some, if implemented, would have unfairly penalized those teams which had safe equipment – Ferrari, Jordan, and Minardi. Others would have placed a penalty on the teams which brought defective equipment to the track. The obvious selection from the above two choices is the latter. This cannot be disputed using any sound logic, and I am amazed that some of the correspondents believe that the Bridgestone teams (specifically Ferrari) should have been the ones to compromise!!

    Max Mosley simply stated this as well, and offered that those teams which came ill-prepared to race through turn 13 at speed, could slow down for that one corner. He offered FIA assistance in speed management monitoring. Unfortunately, the “egos” of Messrs. Dennis, Williams and Briatore et.al. torpedoed this approach, with the smaller fish following their lead. Thus, when Mosley laid blame at the feet of the teams and Michelin, he was correct, regardless of what one thinks of his “one tire” rule, etc. (I happen to think the one tire rule, as well as treaded tires, etc. are frivolous, but that is not the point of this specific argument.)

    That the Michelin tire company is complicit in this problem should be obvious when one considers the performance of their tire this season against the erstwhile Bridgestone. One doesn’t need to be a tire engineer to know that the tire equation is performance vs. durability/safety. Michelin’s meteoric rise in the performance spec this season heralded a tire construction which was pushing safe limits. Indeed, the FIA recently “warned” Michelin in writing regarding just such a practice.

    Is the problem in F1 solvable?? Maybe not, given the current list of players. Teams that boycott are reprehensible, given an alternative. This was a slam against the FIA -fans be damned- and those who played the trump card should never be forgotten. Naively, I would think that both the FIA and the team directors need to be chastised and overhauled.


    Champcar anyone??


    C Wray – Cincinnati, Ohio


    Yesterday in America was Fathers day. There were many sons in the crowd who made a special effort to give their fathers a special gift – one that only comes around the US once a year – an exclusive invitation to be part of an event that is greatly appreciated around the globe. I would like the men who made that decision to think about the impact of their decision, the true impact. Do you think Michelin tires are going to be the big selling tires they have been here? I will never buy them again. They only come here once a year! How could they not know what would be needed? I personally just started getting into F1 in the past two years – I live 125 miles from Indianapolis and would have loved to have been there. I almost spent $200 buying a couple of tickets off a coworker., however, my two young daughters had me going to a racing movie featuring a jazzy little Volkswagen – but if I could have, I would have been at Indy. Now I am glad I was not there. I hate to say it, but I will not spend anymore money or time even following this so called sport. If this has done anything – it has made me appreciate NASCAR. Goodbye F1, I feel like I hardly knew you…not that you would have cared anyway.


    Eric Fraser


    I work in the film industry where things go radically wrong with great frequency. We always find a way to shoot something on the day, and never, unless it’s in the script, do we shoot ourselves in the foot.


    To my mind the FIA has lost the moral authority to govern this international level of racing, and I will now actively support the creation of an alternative.


    I also believe that Michelin has demonstrated a responsible safety attitude, it’s time for them to take their share of the responsibility for the marketing disaster that their error precipitated. They, the seven teams, and the FIA should offer to fund a makeup race at the IMS, with no gate charges.


    Ricardo Paoletti


    When the is sports and money involved, the fans are usually the last concern – as long as they’re dutyfully paying exhorbitant ticket prices or giving sponsors the impression that TV advertising works…


    Similar situations happen all the time in small scale in football (soccer here in the US), but one of the biggest incidents was displayed at the 2000 World Cup in Paris. The Final game between Brazil and France would be a battle of the giants Zedani and Ronaldo. On the eve of his greatest game, Ronaldo had a problem. No one knows for sure it it was a seizure, emotions or something he had for dinner, but he required medical attention and his teamates were relieved when they heard that he would be OK but was out of the game. The brazilian team had enough stars to carry the show. But Nyke, which had a lot of money and tie-ins invested in Ronaldo, could not admit having his poster boy in the sidelines. The pressure on the brazilian team manager’s was reportedelly so intense that at the last minute the coach decided to put Ronaldo in the field — he was a ghost of himself, and his teammates were worried sick that whatever illness afflicted him the day before could vitimize him in the field. The result was a game that the French fans loved, but a huge fiasco as a sporting event.


    Some reform were introduced with the Brazilian Football Federation, but the sponsors wtill have a heavy hand on the game.


    Ken Chevis – Toronto, Canada


    I am amazed and disgusted by many of you so-called experts who take great pleasure in questioning the courage and professionalism of the Michelin F1 drivers. One wonders how brave you would be if a governing body demanded that you take to the track (at 200mph) knowing there was a loose heim joint in the suspension system or defective lugs on one of the wheels. You would crap your pants at the thought. So you stand back at arm’s length, shake your collective heads and say “tsk, tsk” what a group of cowards, because these drivers refused to race knowing full well that the Michelin’s could fail on any lap. How many of you morons have even sat in a racecar at rest, let alone drive one at high speed. I have raced for many years and I am still around to talk about it because never once did I willingly trifle with safety. I align with the drivers and admire them for their stand against King Bernie, Mosley and the rest of the FIA idiots.


    Finally, has anyone ever considered that this whole issue could have been avoided if the FIA had rescinded the ridiculous “one tire” regulation?


    Clive Costa-Correa


    That last weekend’s fiasco took place in the Land of Lawsuits is not lost on anyone in terms of the various parties’ concerns about liability. Along with the unavoidable fact that so many of the teams’ sponsors and partners are either American or American-owned.

    There’s another thing. Highly-paid, talented and daring as they may be, drivers aren’t gladiators! At a certain point teams, the manufacturers, component suppliers, circuit-owners, promoters, and the FIA have a responsibility to provide, jointly and severally, the drivers with the highest levels of safety possible.

    Michelin goofed big time. They couldn’t provide the required margin of safety and they admitted as much. In doing so they upheld their integrity but they also paid the price on Monday on the Paris stock exchange. They’ve taken a bloody nose.

    But moving on from the original sin, if Michelin and the Michelin teams are to be believed, there were several alternatives proposed to avoid a show-stopper. In an ever-shrinking timeframe the most practical suggestion appears to have been the chicane. That, together with some form of time penalty in favour of the Bridgestone runners, may have saved the day.

    But it needed the will and of the FIA and that will wasn’t forthcoming, despite there being precedence for temporary chicanes being installed for safety reasons. Respected individuals have voiced their opinion in favour of this sort of compromise but it seems the FIA had set its course early on in the weekend and b***** any other opinion.

    This is the same FIA that only weeks before launched its major fan survey into F1, on the pretext it was aiming for discussion and inclusion.

    Which brings me to a final point. Whenever there is a crisis of the magnitude seen at the weekend, the CEO of the organisation concerned is usually on-site as quickly as possible, personally dealing with the matter. You see this all the time, everywhere.

    Yet Max Mosley chose to “keep an eye” on proceedings from thousands of miles away. What message does that send to American fans, not to mention followers of F1 worldwide? It doesn’t matter how many observers or other FIA people were at Indy. The bottom line is the President, The Boss, couldn’t even be bothered to haul himself over there at the height of F1′s biggest ever crisis.

    Keeping an eye? Whatever decrees are passed and punishments handed down in the coming weeks, this myopia can only come back to haunt the FIA.


    Fritz McKellar


    As a Canadian, I can tell you of another sport which suffered a similar embarrassment.


    In early 2005, the National Hockey League (NHL) in dispute with the National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) chose to perform a very similar act. They cancelled the 2005 season.


    The irony is that both sporting associations are/were keen to build interest in the United States.


    To have an elitist sport, you must have elitist/intelligent fans. I shouldn’t have to mention the negative business effects of taking payment while not delivering a service. At this point, complex technical regulations and legal requirements take a very low priority to basic business rules.


    I was at Indy last weekend, having taken some time off and surprising my father with a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Indy. Our fantastic weekend came to a disappointing end Sunday because a political point had to be publicly displayed at our expense. Point taken, my 10 years of loyal and dedicated interest and financial contribution mean nothing to you.


    Ian Peckett


    First of all, thanks ITV for finally showing a prime time qualifying session “live”, albeit on ITV2


    Whether or not it would have been the right thing to do to build a chicane, it would not be the first time that changes had been made to the Indy circuit between qualifying and race. I seem to remember in the inaugural Indy GP, Michael Schumacher had the physical location of pole position moved so that he and he alone would not be disadvantaged by loss of traction on the yard of bricks, something Ferrari had not thought to request until it affected them, and being Ferrari THEY got the change they requested.


    It was interesting to read that Bridgestone/Firestone already had the diamond cut track knowledge and experience from other series racing at Indy – perhaps this is the reason why they decided not to bring their ‘faster’ compound, knowing from data & experience it was not going to be suitable? Yes, Michelin should have been aware of those previous failures this year, but without suitable data or the ability to test, were probably proceeding blind. How do you safely create a product for a new surface not knowing what directional forces, temperatures and pressures that surface will exert. (although bringing an alternative construction/compound may have helped)


    Some have asked why the 7 teams did the formation lap and Pitpass insider said it was so contractual obligations were fulfilled. However, will running that lap also mean that those who were using an engine for their second consecutive race in the USA, will now be able to have a fresh engine for France?


    Finally, having now seen the charges brought against the teams by the FIA and due to be heard next week, if found guilty, then these crimes, being surely more serious than BAR’s (mis)interpretation of what the FIA agreed was not a clearly defined rule regarding their fuel, tank & weight, will have imposed on them a penalty which is far more severe and will ban all the teams for the rest of the season? Lets hope Ferrari / Jordan / Minardi can quickly build enough cars to make up the grid of 20. Anyone with a super licence out there who fancies a drive?


    Paul Barrow – Oxfordshire


    I’m astonished that so many people continue to blame the FIA. Like or loathe the rules, they are the rules and should not be changed simply to accommodate the failings of participants. It is said that the Michelin teams could not participate for reasons of safety, which appears to be the case. Nevertheless, that statement is incomplete. It should properly read, “The Michelin teams could not participate for reasons of safety due to the failure of the teams to provide adequate equipment and their failure to accept any of the undesirable, but nonetheless reasonable, alternatives offered to them.” The blame for the outcome of this weekend rests firmly with Michelin and the Michelin teams – and nobody else. Blaming Ferrari is about as silly as it gets, and presumably is motivated by feelings other than rational thought.


    Robert Man – UK


    In my opinion, the main creators of the current problems in Formula 1, and possibly worst still, the future of Formula 1, are the FIA under the control of Max Mosely and Ferrari. From my understanding of ongoing events over the last year to date, individually, they really do not act for the good of the sport but only for self-promotion. Together, they will support each other and thereby will never compromise with the other teams and will eventually destroy the sport unless one is removed immediately. The Michelin tyre problem at the US grand prix should had been treated as an exceptional situation like the freak weather conditions in the Japanese grand prix last year when the qualifying rules were changed. In my opinion, where the FIA should make directions, they don’t, like the testing limitations to achieve their stated objective of saving costs. Bridgestone had produced a better tyre for the US grand prix because of Ferrari’s unrelenting testing and from Bridgestone’s information from running in the US Champ Car series. However, where the FIA should not make uni-lateral directions they do, like changing the engines to V8s which will make F1 into a second class sport, and in my opinion, not much better than GP2 or the new A1 grand prix. To stop this blaming culture now in F1 and to start solving the problems, I implore all the non-Ferrari teams to demand the resignation of Max Mosely immediately and I really hope that they will seriously implement their plans as soon as possible for the breakaway Grand Prix series for 2008 where everything will be fairer and for the good of the sport of Formula 1.


    Thomas Dinsmore


    Formula One’s governing institutions are a perfect metaphor for Europe: over-regulated, uncompetitive, corrupt, feckless, arrogant and unaccountable. What happened on Sunday could have happened at any venue, but there is a certain irony that it happened at Indianapolis in full view of an American audience.

    Low interest in Formula One among American fans is not attributable to ignorance; it is attributable to the fact that no American team will ever tolerate governance from effete snobs in Paris or London. Let McLaren, Ferrari et al enter a NASCAR race; I’m guessing that those coddled and sissified weenies would get blown away at Bristol.


    Barry Evans


    What can you say about the latest F1 Fiasco.

    Well lets not kid ourselves it has been coming for a long time. This weekend was brought about by the utterly stupid and highly dangerous rule of 1 set of tyres.Two tyre suppliers produce tyres for a circuit that has no resemblance to any other F1 circuit, there is no testing at this circuit. 1 supplier gets it right the other doesn’t. The rules are the rules and the cars cant run. Now that’s fair enough BUT in the event it causing a major dysfunction to a race there should be an exception rule such as allowing a different tyre providing all the affected teams use the same replacement or a track modification to bring the safety standards back to an acceptable level.

    However that’s a little complicated for the likes of Ecclestone and his chums because it means he cant go around playing God and exerting his total power over all he surveys. (to say what I think of him would probably cause me to be in receipt of a liable action so I will refrain). The whole point is.

    F1 is about racing and displaying driver skills to as wide an audience as possible. The audience being the fans, the who you ask, well you know they are those people without whom the whole thing would be utterly pointless. the ones Red Bull want to buy their drinks HP want to buy there PC’s and the ones the teams want to buy their merchandise, the FORGOTTEN ones By the FIA and a minority of teams.

    Where does all the Billions it takes to produce an F1 season come from it comes from the forgotten ones. The FIA would do well to remember that it is the fans who have ALL the power if they so choose they can break F1 in an instant. I believe F1 commited suicide this weekend. Thank you Bernie.


    For the American fans my sympathy and hopes they will be reimbursed


    For those who took it there ( the Brits) absolute shame


    To all the teams who believe in racing for sport and fans Good Luck


    From me, F1 Goodbye and good riddance… A1GP HERE I COME


    Collin Ihlenfeldt


    As an American that loves Formula 1, this weekend was a real frustration. As it was father’s day here, I took my father to the race. This was an ordeal, as it involved 20 hours of driving. The expense wasn’t small either. However, as upset as I was, I couldn’t help but to feel worse for the international fans.

    I have travelled internationally for an F1 race before, and I would have most likely been detained for my actions if I were to be denied a race from such circumstances. This was a huge setback for F1 in America. I live in Charlotte, NC – the nascar capital. There is no disputing this, as over 70% of the teams are within 30 miles of my home. I work for (ironically) a tire company, which is behind Joe Gibbs Racing. I mention this because nobody here even knows what a F1 car looks like. To most, it is just like an Indy car.

    Lastly, I’m not writing to bitch about the situation. I’m tired of bitching about all the time and money I spent to treat my father to the sounds of F1. But, my inconvenience was dwarfed by the Irish, Portuguese, Colombian, Indian, and Finns that were in my immediate area. I hate that this is the American F1 experience that they’ve left with. I’m writing to say, Danica Patrick is a joke. To the news watcher, its a great story. To the race fan, its a disgrace. If eliminating several cars from the field by spinning under caution isn’t bad enough, benefiting from it is. She may be a media icon, but they can keep her. I wanted to see the Villeneuve‘s, the Raikkonen’s, the Button’s, the Barrichello’s, and the Juan-Pablo’s (random thoughts). I don’t want to see that “Danica Patrick is (America’s) darling.”

    Piss on that, and piss on the treatment of the F1 fans. Thanks for coming.


    Andrew Zarb


    I am absolutely stunned and amazed at the lack of logic in so many arguments. As I see it Michelin was the one protagonist that could have allowed the race to take place or, as it did, stop the race from having its full contingent of participants.


    1. Michelin brings faulty equipment to Indianapolis with no suitable back-up.


    2. Michelin advises FIA and wants to break five rules to be able rectify situation.


    3. FIA advises that breaking the rules is not necessary and gives Michelin runners alternative options which would allow them to race (for points).


    4. Michelin ignores suggestion and suggests that the track be altered at the eleventh hour!


    5. FIA declines to absurd suggestion and reiterates its previously workable solution.


    6. Michelin and its supplied teams unanimously collude to boycott the race after fulfilling their obligation to line up for the warm-up lap.


    The Michelin shod teams’ bosses would have been foolish to race without the approval of Michelin just as the FIA would have been foolish to change the track conditions after qualifying. For some reason the Michelin teams’ bosses did not support the FIA suggestions and press Michelin to allow them to race. I believe that Michelin knew that its suggestions were unrealistic, that they would not be considered and would have considered slowing their cars before the FIA suggested it. I believe that faced with the utter embarrassment of its mistake it preferred not to race.


    This has caused so much confusion that that the FIA and Ferrari are being blamed for the debacle and people are looking forward to the break-away, which will probably feature Michelin tyres and its current crop of runners.


    Jim Casey


    It is time for the fans who have made the sport what it is to stand up and let the greedheads know that we can hit them where they live. We don’t want to give up watching the races, because that’s what we love the most, when there are real races. But we can give up the souvenirs, models, t-shirts, etc., that really fill the coffers. And, though some would undoubtedly disagree, we can certainly avoid buying Michelin tires. Plenty of other companies make road tires that are at least as good and the same price as anything they make, so let’s give them some of theirs back.


    Paul Kovich – NY NY


    The fault lies totally with Michelin, they alone are responsible for the safety of their tires, they pushed the edge of the envelope too far and were unprepared with a back up. The Bridgestone teams were not responsible for bailing out Michelin. Once Michelin took the position that the tires were unsafe they transfered the risk to the teams, a position that was probably required by their legal department not the engineering department and the teams had no choice but to withdraw. If an accident had occured they would have exposed themselves to ruinous litigatin. Make no mistake about that, in the US bigger companies then these have been driven to bankruptcy by civil litigation. These companies are major enterprises that must take these types of risks seriously. F1 is not a sport it’s big business, and while the decision to not run was damaging to the business franchise, an accident involving the deaths of spectators which could have been avoided would have ended F1. The FIA should hold Michelin accountable and no one else. They should be made responsible for ticket refunds, they should be responsible for related financial damages and they should be put on warning that if anything like this ever happens again they will be banned for life from all FIA sanctioned motor racing events.


    Robert Man


    In my opinion, the main creators of the current problems in Formula 1, and possibly worst still, the future of Formula 1, are the FIA under the control of Max Mosely and Ferrari. From my understanding of ongoing events over the last year to date, individually, they really do not act for the good of the sport but only for self-promotion. Together, they will support each other and thereby will never compromise with the other teams and will eventually destroy the sport unless one is removed immediately. The Michelin tyre problem at the US grand prix should had been treated as an exceptional situation like the freak weather conditions in the Japanese grand prix last year when the qualifying rules were changed. In my opinion, where the FIA should make directions, they don’t, like the testing limitations to achieve their stated objective of saving costs. Bridgestone had produced a better tyre for the US grand prix because of Ferrari’s unrelenting testing and from Bridgestone’s information from running in the US Champ Car series. However, where the FIA should not make uni-lateral directions they do, like changing the engines to V8s which will make F1 into a second class sport, and in my opinion, not much better than GP2 or the new A1 grand prix. To stop this blaming culture now in F1 and to start solving the problems, I implore all the non-Ferrari teams to demand the resignation of Max Mosely immediately and I really hope that they will seriously implement their plans as soon as possible for the breakaway Grand Prix series for 2008 where everything will be fairer and for the good of the sport of Formula 1.


    Alex Rensen – the Netherlands


    I asked myself if I enjoyed last Sunday’s race. I must have been, cause the 73 laps were over in no time, at least so it felt.


    At the same time, what hurt most was the comments giving by Paul Stoddart, live on Dutch TV. In a overwhelming tirade he condemned Jordan for starting, forcing him to race also, blaming Ferrari for refusing for a chicane to be build, blaming the FIA for being, blaming the one tire rule and so on and so on.


    If Paul Stoddart really has a heart for F1, as he says he has, then why doesn’t he start seeing things in the right proportions. First of all, it wasn’t his problem. Second, doing what the 7 Michelin teams did wasn’t (isn’t) the most sensible thing to do if you have a love for the sport and its fans. Stoddart was part of it, had not Jordan intervened. Does that make sense? Third, Stoddart does grab hold of every minute opportunity to shift the blame to Ferrari, rightly or wrongly, and the balance tends to slip very much to the latter. Fourth, he sees the FIA as a big bad wolf and acts accordingly. Furthermore, if I want to see an irrational dogfight with words, I tune into Discovery’s OCC.


    What also is kind of sad is that Stoddart said that he heard a lot of people saying Max Mosley should step down and he agrees with that. He hides behind a cloud of voiced opinions, which is a sign of weakness. If Stoddart runs his team on the same basis, on what other people are saying, is it any wonder his team is the most unfunded and the weakest team? By the way, I guess he will be smiling if and when he picks up the check for a quarter of next year’s budget at the end of the season.


    What the seven teams did was kind of like busting an window to get into their house while holding the key in their hands. Aka kinda stupid.


    Early in the season the Michelin runners got the best of the Bridgestone runners, because Bridgestone had trouble finding the right balance between safety and performance. At the ninth race of the season, things turned around in a hurry.


    On Wednesday, the guys who place the huge Michelin stickers on the tire were smiling, things went alright in Canada and at Indy things would go great too. But on Friday two Toyota’s ran into tire trouble. Smelling trouble, the Michelin guys started to wipe the sweat of the foreheads, saying, ok let’s put in a little more air. The extra air made the rides a bit bumpy. More bad news, the back-up tire also had the same problem in turn 13. More trouble. Desperately trying to find a solution, the asked the FIA for one, but all the FIA had to say was that it was Michelin’s problem, while suggesting that the teams should limit their top speed through turn 13, if that’s where the problem lies. A chicane is rightfully out of the question.


    The 7 teams got together again, begging again for the help of the two weakest teams in the business, omitting any involvement of Ferrari. They decided the way to go was to come in after the formation lap, thus avoiding the legal consequences of not starting at all. Best part was, they didn’t tell anyone. Then they played a little blackmail game, a chicane was build or they wouldn’t race. Alas for the teams, the FIA didn’t budge. So they plan they had carefully thought out was in shambles and they had to come in.


    Action is reaction, Although the reaction of the crowds in the stands might have been anticipated, the teams really didn’t care all that much. TV listings are far more important and funny enough, they didn’t suffer all that much.


    Afterward, they all put up their sorriest faces, pleading farce majeur, trying very, very hard to convince everybody there was no alternative. Bah humbug, as Ebenezer Scrooge would say. Off course there were alternatives. But the teams were the inflexible ones in this matter.


    They should have raced, accepting the consequences and limit the speed through turn 13.


    I love F1, something really strange or important has to happen will I miss a race. I favor the stallion and the bull, but no one will ever see me wear team related stuff. Not because the items are too expensive, but because I just don’t believe in following a team blindly that way. I have a hard time trying not to laugh at people fully dressing up in for instance Ferrari clothes, it’s so utterly useless. But, and there is me worrying, reading the forums and the “express you opinion” pages, I notice a shift in the mood of the fans. It is like they are not far from becoming like the average soccer hooligan. Screaming, yelling, boasting, expressing unfounded and dumbfounded opinions, without respect towards the other fans. Last thing this sport needs is hollow and thus useless comments. And the media is doing their part. Pitpass is one of the few sites, who are trying to be objective, even a renowned site like Grandprix.com blamed Ferrari e.q. from the start while there are no facts to prove their accusations. And everybody knows what happens if you put more fuel to a flame.


    I’m not saying everything the FIA does is OK, neither is Ferrari perfect in every which way. But in this case a lot of people, willingly or not, are trying desperately to cover the root of the problem with a sandstorm, which makes this whole debacle even more said.


    Larry Templeton


    Nothing short of stripping ALL teams, that boycotted the USGP, of ALL championship points to date will be accepted! The loss of points should be held to manufacture only as the respective drivers must adhere to team orders. Additionally, Michelin should be fine an amount sufficient to reimburse ALL ticket holders and IMS of compensatory losses.


    Mark


    Max Mosley might be the smarter than anyone might realize. Michelin’s screwup might be the best thing for the FIA, Bernie, the F1 investors and killing off the upcoming spinoff series before it gets a chance….


    He calls Michelin in and the tire data and upon review of it excludes Michelin from the championship series. Serious event should it happen right — what happens next?


    No Michelin tires means that all the Michelin-tired teams can’t race for safety reasons the rest of the year. Thus they quit the series or slap Bridgestones on and optimize for those. The big F1 teams might have contractual obligations with Michelin and thus can’t switch — but the smaller teams do not and will switch to protect their investments. Thus the smaller teams ala Sauber, BAR, etc could continue in the series.


    So that leaves F1 with six or seven teams then? Not enough to fulfill the contractual obligations for a “full grid” eh? Not necessarily! Each teams provides three chassis/drivers for the remainder of the races. Most have additional chassis and a driver available already. Plus it will give them additional driver input for the new tires. Smaller teams can contract this “third drive” for additional revenue. More advertising spread across more cars — your sponsor would like! The FIA would underwrite the additional travel expenses without question for remainder of the year. Now they have a full grid for the remainder of the season.


    What does it get Max / Bernie for possibly doing the above now? (and biting the financial bullet now -vs- later) Kiss the Concorde Agreement goodbye. It keeps the German banks happy as their investment is still valid. Ditto Bernie via his investment and participation. Max is still involved via the FIA (even more see by new rule stipulation and enforcement). Essentially a “win – win” scenario for all the above.


    Fight the battle now and kill the inevitable mess in two years before it ever gets a chance to lay groundwork to become a success.


    Yes — it is pure conjecture on my part. But it would be a strong play with very little negative impact for the upcoming future seasons. Max has the ego to pull it off and the financial might via Bernie/banks to do it now.


    Jim Wilson


    Oh I was there too. 7 1/2 hours each way, tent set next to the drunk who thought he could play guitar and sing (until 2:00a.m.), gas, meals, hats and jersey’s. I was with my son (12), and a co-worker and we were having a great time. It was our fourth year in a row at Indy and it is just a wonderful place to see a race. For the first two days you can sit where you want, move around, people are friendly, prices are reasonable (for F-1), the weather was perfect, and then the nuclear device went off.

    My son saved for months to buy me the Sauber polo jersey I am wearing in the attached photo. He was so happy to give it to me as a father’s day gift. This was our one big trip we take each year where he escapes the evil clutches of his two sister’s (7 & 5), and it was likely to be his last as I was planning on taking the oldest girl next year when she is 8 (even though she is a Ferrari fan).

    What are the odds of running into Peter Sauber downtown when your son is decked out in Sauber gear? Not even the new Villeneuve stuff, but a 2004 Fisi hat and a old Massa red bull shirt. Strangely, the odds must have been pretty good, as we ran into him twice on Friday night. He was just out wandering around the streets by himself. Perhaps he had something on his mind. The second time we met him we stopped and chatted, and we took the attached picture. He seems like a very nice fellow…not the sort of person you would expect to be involved in the upper reaches of F-1.

    I don’t know what the answer was to the problem, but not running the cars wasn’t it. There is lots of blame for everyone involved, but in the end, the seven Michelin teams should have raced, even if they had to pit every damn lap or the drivers were forced to get out and push their cars around corner 13. Of course the rules are stupid, and the FIA should have shown some flexibility, and Ferrari are just so blind to what is good for the sport….but in the end, the seven teams should have run the cars. It was really ugly at the track once people realized that they had been fleeced. The teams say they were worried about the safety of their drivers, but they did not seem to worry about the safety of the fans. I was amazed at the class shown by almost all the fans, but it still would not have taken much more to trigger a situation where many could have been hurt. Certainly the state police thought so, as when we were leaving (lap 15), they were pouring into the track to ward off any difficulties. I am so pissed at the teams for carrying the charade out to the parade lap ( I bought two last minute Foster’s, just so I would not have to get up during the race). They showed utter contempt for the fans. It was like being at the party were the wife and husband fight in front of the guests…it was embarrassing. To think I was away from my beautiful wife and two daughters on Father’s day for this.

    I am not sure if F-1 has lost my son or not. If he shows no real interest next year, I suspect that will be it. On the drive home he mentioned going to a NASCAR race. I swallowed hard and said that might be fun, but you know, maybe it would be. My son didn’t cry or whine after the race. In fact he took it all pretty well. He is a smart kid, and has seen for himself the deterioration of the product since 2000, with all the rule changes, qualification formats etc. He understands the whole damn show is mismanaged, and even that in some ways, watching these arrogant, apparently intelligent managers and owners screw up is actually part of the fun. Isn’t it sad that a 12 year old shook his head and basically said “it doesn’t surprise me at all”.

    I guess I just feel glad the F-1 leadership are not running countries with nuclear arsenals. Isn’t this all just so sad. I feel so bad for all the people who made such a big effort to get to the track…what a sad, sad day. Really Chris, my story is just one of so many. I talked to dozens of fans that had come from all points of the globe…so sad.

    (After sending in this post, Jim wrote in again: I emailed the IMS to re-order my tickets for next year. I actually asked for an upgrade to seats above Turn 1. Pretty good chance I will get them!. Perhaps it was history we witnessed, and I really don`t remember who was sixth last year, but it sure would be nice to see a normal boring race at Indy. – Editor)


    Peter Carr


    I totally agree with your thoughts on this issue.

    As is only a minor detail now in comparison to what has happened, but going back to the issue of BAR being banned for two races, i find this punishment so archaic that i cannot believe this has happened. Imagine if it had been three teams that broke the rules as BAR did – would three teams all be banned for two races.

    It seems that the FIA create their own doom. I place entire blame on Michelin and the teams for the USA fiasco, however, by the FIA banning a team for races, they must create consistency and obviously all these Michelin teams need much harsher punishment than what BAR got – but it would be stupid to ban that many teams from the next (say 10 GP’s – which i think would be light punishment).

    I offer the following form of punishment: any team that does something wrong, should always be able to compete at the next race. As punishment however, they should race for only HALF POINTS for so many races.

    ie. Bar should have had a two race penalty where they could only score half points – so if they won, they would only get 5 points, if they came second they would only get 4 points etc etc.

    This keeps them in the sport, keeps them fighting and keeps them meeting commercial committements.

    The Michelin teams should all face this sort of punishment.


    Mike


    I have been a motorsports fan for years. After Sunday I’m ashamed to call myself an F1 fan, I was in denial, but no longer I’m done,


    F1 used to be the epitome of motor racing, elite drivers, exotic machines, amazing circuits. The allure and magic are gone


    What has happened to F1?


    Too many rules have change the face of F1, what once was the epitome of engineering excellence has turned in just a few years to a joke.


    And with these last set of rule changes let you witness 22 guys on a pit stop doing nothing!! the elegance of the F1 pit stop is gone.


    Strategy is gone, Qualifying is a joke, an engine lasting how long??? one set of tires!! next year V8′s.


    I’ve had enough


    Who is benefitting from these rule changes?


    The teams that shouldn’t be in the series in the first place.


    F1 needs to go away and be reborn or maybe the teams need to start another series. Who knows, but this whole thing needs to end


    Can the USGP be saved .. WHO CARES can F1 is the question


    Marius van Reenen


    What a disaster for the sport. As you’ve mentioned in your articles, someone should have stand up and said this is what we’re or you’re going to do, and my personal opinion is that the FIA (Bernie) should have made that call. This is the guy (Bernie) that is getting a huge salary each month out of F1 and where was plan B? I agree that Michelen was at fault – they new about this problem since Fridays practice – the cicane I think was not the answer and Ferrari and the other 2 Bridgestone teams were not to blame because they were not part of the strike not to race. The FIA could have decided maybe on 1 or 2 tyre changes during the race for ALL CARS when they came in for fuel and then the FIA could have sorted this tyre problem with Michelen after the race. If Bernie can’t do the job anymore he should step down.

    I’ll rather from now on watch GP bikes!


    Matthew Bond – Leeds, UK


    I feel the blame for this rests squarely with Michelin. They failed to produce a safe tyre for the event. Anything that compromised the Bridgestone runners, or could potentially do so, would have been an even greater travesty (and I say this as a Jenson Button / BAR fan, not some rabid Ferrari supporter).


    The most equitable solution would have been to 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3 points respectively to the Ferrari, Jordan and Minard cars in the order they qualified. Then built a chicane and held a non-championship race for the fans. This should have been decided on late Staurday or Early Sunday, so as to give the teams chance to have a warm-up session with the chicane in place, with parc ferme rules being waived so setup chages could be made.


    Given that wasn’t agreed upon (or probably even suggested), and would probably be a bad precedent to set, I think the eventual outcome, while damaging to the public perception in the short term, at least preserved the integrity of the sport vis-a-vis the rules and regulations. The FIA have made their position clear regarding how strictly they intend to enforce the rules this year, just witness the BAR debacle.


    If anything I think it gives increased need for seriously considering having a single tyre manufacturer rather than the costly (both financially and publicity-wise) competition that currently exists.


    Bruce Bell


    It took a long time to write this but I had to get my facts straight and listen to the more experienced voices in F1 before I could commit myself to spouting out about the “so called” USGP. First, I felt an almost glee about watching the F1 dinglebats (Mike Mosely, Bernie E.) suffer in the hands of the teams that which they seem to be constricting in their drive to compete and enhance the sport. But, upon further review, I’ve concluded that it was, in fact, the teams themselves which have created this embarrassment upon the USPG.


    I blame Michelin for being unable to fulfill their contractual obligations to provide a safe and competitive tire to the teams that have hired them to do so.


    I also blame the teams for not being able to recognize the severity of the problem (because their tires were unsafe, they should not compete) and dragging out the situation until the last possible second by actually expecting the FIA to bend on a few rules and install a chicane, after qualifying! As Jean Todt stated, “..if we ask for a chicane because we feel it would be safer for our tyres, I think everybody would laugh at us.” And they would.


    But what really sucks is the mentality of F1. In America, I’m not sure where else, we have a saying, “The show must go on.” And, if it can’t, then it must be postponed. Imagine going to see an opera without any music. Or a rock concert without a lead singer. We, in America, are used to rain delays for racing. Heck, we have full course yellows if a car just spins out without doing any damage. Safety is the topmost thought in our minds when it comes to auto racing. We have no problem with coming back another day if the race is called off due to safety reasons. I believe that the USGP should have been postponed until a reasonable solution (naturally, one that has been okayed by all those involved) was reached upon. The US public would’ve understood, (and probably wouldn’t have thrown debris on the track), but I can’t speak for the visiting countries. There was no absolute reason for running the 2005 USPG with 6 cars running other than a bunch of spoiled little brats competing amongst themselves to see who would chicken out first.


    On a final note, I would like to take the responsibility of stating that Michael Schumacher, Rubens Barichello, and Tiago Monteiro were not the ones being booed at as they stood on the podium after the race. It was, of course, the governing bodies who were responsible for the debacle that were the real targets for the name calling, booing, beer cans thrown at, fingers flipped at, bad press directed towards, cursing at, …. I’m sorry. I’m ranting. But, hey, isn’t that what Reader’s Rant is all about!


    David Williams


    Well, I had a reasonably open mind up until reading Paul Stoddart’s account of the weekend, if this is the truth (and I have no reason to doubt him) then the blame really does lie with Max, I cannot understand how someone who fought so hard to keep f1 together in the early 80′s can now be working so hard to tear it apart. True the team bosses don’t do themselves any favours but this has gone beyond a joke. Is there any chance pitpass could accidentally publish a senior FIA official’s email address so we have got a direct point of contact to complain to before he makes anything worse on June 29th? As for the race itself (if such it can be called) it proved yet again that even in such ridiculous circumstances there is no way they’ll ever let their drivers race each other, they were never at ten tenths and clearly backed off even more towards the end, the instructions given over the radio that we heard were tantamount to team orders under another name, perhaps they should be called to the FIA on the 29th as well to explain themselves?


    Terry Painter (Fiasco Attendee) – Maryville, TN USA


    I lay the complete blame on Michelin and the teams they provide tires. However, David Coulthard said it best in that grown men should have been able to solve the problems. I have e-mailed Michelin, N.A. with my disgust with their company and stated that I would not purchase Michelin products in the future and feel many others will not as well.


    Carl Enser (Melbourne Australia)


    The elements that first drew me to F1 were exotic locations (anywhere else was exotic growing up in New Zealand in the late 70’s), exotic machines, exotic women and heroic drivers. Flawed heroes, many of them, like James Hunt and Gilles Villeneuve, but heroes none the less. I was beside myself in 1982 when Gilles died, more so than the year previous when I lost my Grandfather, I felt that a part of my life had ended (I was very Young and Passionate). New Zealand was so isolated and it was to be a long time before I was able to attend a GP myself in Melbourne. It was an extraordinary experience and has been every year since as I always go and pay several hundred dollars to get a reasonable seat from which I can get a fleeting glimpse of the current crop of heroes (mine are mostly dead now). I can wander the support race pits and get up close to their cars and drivers. I can buy the team paraphernalia to make myself feel more a part of it but I know that had I the money or the connections I could get so much closer to the heart of it all. But I don’t have the money or the connections so I hate to say it but F1 is out of my league. But I still love F1. I love it when my team wins and I love it when they lose. I even loved it last Sunday, which is why I’m so angry at they way things are moving within the sport.


    I’m prepared to put my hand up and say that I am a Ferrari supporter and have been for the 25 odd years I’ve been passionately following F1 but, that said, I’m an F1 fan and never wavered during the 21 years that the drivers title eluded the red team. During those years and also recently, it’s been real competition that ignited my passion. I know that politics are, and always have been, an integral part of this series but I always believed that they came second to the real point of it all, the racing. There has been a lot of posturing, chest beating and power struggles since I’ve been watching but I always felt that at the end of the day, the teams and everyone else concerned wanted to go racing first and foremost. Now I’m no longer certain of that. Commercial considerations seem to be paramount and even the old guard appear to be prepared to risk bringing the sport to its knees in order to gain more control. The problem will be that when it all ends what will be left to control.


    I believe the situation at Indy was a very simple one. As soon as Michelin & their teams discovered that they had the wrong tires, they knew that Ferrari had already won. So for them to offer to race for no points or to let Ferrari take maximum points was hardly magnanimous as, barring some disaster of their own, Ferrari already had those points in the bag. The Michelin runners had nothing to lose in giving up their points, as long as they all stuck together. I’m sure that if one had broken ranks and decided to race, they all would have followed suit. It was interesting to note that Paul Stoddart didn’t even display the courage of someone else’s convictions. Staunch supporter though he is of anything his “Colleagues” in the group of 9 say or do, he bolted to the start line to avoid a points deficit to the only team he’s in contention with. It was a bit like his pitiful display in Melbourne, posturing and game playing right up till the last minute.


    It would have been grossly unfair to install a chicane to level the playing field, Image if they had and Mclaren or Renault had crossed the line first, even if they didn’t get the points it would be like line honours in Yacht racing, the general public just sees the first finisher as the winner. That I believe would have been an even greater farce then the one we were witness to on Sunday. Much has been made of the fact that all the other nine teams were prepared to agree to the chicane option. What a surprise! For 7 of those 9 teams it was in their interest and the other 2 (Bridgestone) teams had nothing to lose either way as their only real competition is each other. So it was only Ferrari who would be disadvantaged. It’s not surprising that every time the group of 9 come up with a suggestion, “for the benefit of F1”, it disadvantages Ferrari. This group of team owners who for years have been unable to agree on anything of worth have suddenly become close and united friends. They’ve put aside all of their differences for one common cause. Having been in recent years unable to beat the red cars on the track they’ve bitched and moaned that the FIA always favours Ferrari. Quite why it would be in the FIA’s interest to do so is beyond me and many of the rule changes made have been to curb the dominance of any one team. For this season the GO9 have seized on the limited testing approach to cost savings. Of course they’ve only arrived at this brilliant idea since they’re all on Michelins, and so can spread the tire testing load and because Ferrari has a massive sunk investment in its own track testing facilities. I remember an interview a couple of years ago where Frank Williams stated that if they had their own testing facilities, they wouldn’t be prepared to agree to curbed testing but it seems that he expects others to do so. Has anyone heard these teams offer to limit the use of any of their own facilities? They have also so far ignored all other cost saving ideas put forward by the FIA and refused to even turn up at meetings to discuss them. I know these people are busy but surely if they were genuine in their efforts they could send a representative and continue to keep lines of communication open. The irony is that this season some of these teams have simply done a better job than Ferrari in putting together a racing package which has been reflected in the results. I believe that any real F1 fan, wherever their allegiance lies, applauds this as it’s what the sport should be about, beating your opponents on the track by having the best car, crew and equipment. Another irony is that Sunday’s debacle has eroded much of the points benefit gained by all the excellent work done on the track, particularly in the case of Mclaren who now sit 2nd equal in the constructor’s championship with Ferrari. Previously Kimi was robbed of a real opportunity to win the drivers title by equipment failure; it would be a tragedy if he were to be thwarted again because the teams put their differences with the FIA (or Max in particular) ahead of the sport. It’s also ironic that the points scoring changes that were introduced to stop Ferrari running away with the championship may end up working against Renault and McLaren as despite their success in winning multiple races Ferrari is now sniffing at their heels. Renault would certainly be in much better shape under the old points system.


    At the end of the day it was Michelin & their teams stuff up (the teams could have done more testing there but most went to Silverstone instead) so it was up to them to find a way to work within the FIA’s rules, not to expect the FIA to change to suit them. There could have something of a race within a race, even if the Ferrari’s had romped away, but it would have been interesting to see how a Mclaren or Renault or whatever, having to slow through one corner or pit more often for tire changes, would fare against an unhindered Jordan or Minardi. Surely that would have been a test of drivers and teams as to who could best cope with this new challenge.


    I can only hope that all of the actors in this play come to see that they have to put F1 before their petty personal squabbles, if indeed they really care about it. I think that no player here, with the possible exception of the drivers, are blameless for the overall situation F1 is in, though I would like to see the GPDA being a bit more publicly vocal about what they want for the benefit of racing. Ferrari has been guilty of some stupid moves, particularly in their handling of team orders but I don’t understand the hatred that is displayed towards them. You don’t have to like individuals or agree with how they go about things but the vitriol is just pointless.


    The FIA too have made some blunders. Grooved tires and reliance on aero have certainly reduced the spectacle. I often think about Villeneuve (snr) & Prost side by side banging wheels in combat, in the corners and on the straights. They’ve also been responsible for some knee jerk reactions in butchering qualifying and other areas but much of this is because of the inability of the other parties to come up with better solutions, many peoples hindsight is 20 20. Their suggestions for 2008 seem to have merit though, particularly those that promote closer racing and passing and those that allow independent and privateer teams to be more competitive. I just hope that the teams can get past the attitude that everything suggested by the FIA should be rejected out of hand.


    Finally, it would be nice to see the other teams showing the kind of commitment to F1 now that they seem so have for a championship that does not and may not ever exist


     


  • Monica Almeida/The New York Times

    Michael Jackson leaving the courthouse on Monday after learning that he had been acquitted of all charges. Mr. Jackson then paused to blow kisses to his many fans outside before returning to his estate

    June 13, 2005
    Michael Jackson Is Acquitted on All Counts in Molestation Case
    By JOHN M. BRODER
    SANTA MARIA, Calif., June 13 – Michael Jackson was acquitted today of all charges in connection with accusations that he molested a 13-year-old boy he had befriended as the youth was recovering from cancer in 2003.

    Mr. Jackson’s complete acquittal – a stinging defeat for a retiring prosecutor who had spent more than a decade pursuing the singer on pedophilia accusations – ends a nearly four-month trial that featured 140 witnesses who painted clashing portraits of the 46-year-old international pop star as either pedophile or Peter Pan.

    “Mr. Jackson, your bail is exonerated and you are released,” Judge Rodney S. Melville said after the string of not-guilty verdicts were read.

    Mr. Jackson stood for the verdicts and later embraced his chief lawyer, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr. One of Mr. Mesereau’s assistants had quietly started sobbing as the first “not guilty” verdicts were read out in court.

    Along with the verdict, the jury gave a note for the judge to read out in court. In it, they said they felt “the weight of the world’s eyes upon us all” and that they had “thoroughly and meticulously” studied all the evidence. The note concluded with a plea “we would like the public to allow us to return to our lives as anonymously as we came.”

    The jury of eight women and four men delivered the verdict in California Superior Court here on their seventh day of deliberations, which began June 3. The jury was not sequestered and took weekends off.

    Despite their written plea to be left alone, the jurors and alternates gathered for an hourlong news conference in which they were identified only by juror number, though offering a few personal details about themselves in the process of discussing the case with reporters.

    “We expected better evidence, something that was a little more convincing,” a female juror said, adding she is a mother herself. “It just wasn’t there.”

    Other jurors expressed irritation with the demeanor of the mother of Mr. Jackson’s accuser, noting that she had stared at jurors throughout most of her sometimes bizarre testimony and once snapping her finger at them.

    Asked about the mother’s consent to let her son spend nights in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, a woman on the jury said, “What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen?”

    Asked about Michael Jackson’s celebrity, the jurors said that it had little effect on them, though one juror said the case had “made him real in my eyes” and another said she came to view the somewhat eccentric entertainer as simply an ordinary person.

    A middle-aged man said that although he held personal opinions about Mr. Jackson, which he declined to divulge, he sometimes forgot that Mr. Jackson was even in the courtroom. “We’re basing our verdict on the 10 counts we were asked to look at,” he said, not a particular view of Mr. Jackson.

    Mr. Jackson, wearing tinted aviator glasses, a dark blazer, black tie and white wing-collar shirt, looked tense and somber as he emerged from the courthouse with his family and entourage shortly after the verdict was read, and he walked quickly to a waiting sport utility vehicle. Shielded from the bright sun by an umbrella tended by an aide, Mr. Jackson held up one hand in acknowledgement of the ecstatic fans outside cheering his acquittal.

    Television helicopters chronicled his caravan’s departure for his nearby Neverland ranch under police escort.

    When news of the verdict spread through the crowd, a huge roar erupted among his fans, while those who had been hoping for a conviction booed. His fans, many who have maintained that the charges were part of a vast conspiracy, hugged each other, danced and threw confetti.

    “Victory! Victory!” shouted Omar Reece, 25, who traveled to Santa Maria from Belleville, Ill. “He’s proven himself. People have been trying to stop him for 20 years, to destroy his character, his name. And each time he’s come back better, stronger, unbreakable.”

    John Carlson, who said he has six children, said the jury might have felt sympathy for Mr. Jackson, who had been taken to the hospital with various ailments several times during the trial.

    “Maybe the jury thought his life was over,” Mr. Carlson said. “They maybe had sympathy for him. Maybe it worked for him to have all that publicity about going to the hospital.”

    Earlier, not long after it was made public that a verdict had been reached, television helicopters arrived over Mr. Jackson’s Neverland ranch near here. Cable news channels broadcast a nearly constant stream of images showing Mr. Jackson’s small convoy of sport utility vehicles en route to the courthouse for the reading of the verdict. At the courthouse, crowds hastily gathered outside awaiting his arrival as the police ranks swelled as well.

    Mr. Jackson was accompanied to the courtroom by several members of his family, including his father and mother, Joe and Katherine Jackson, two brothers, Randy and Jermaine Jackson, and two sisters, LaToya and Rebbie Jackson. He stopped briefly as he walked toward the courthouse lobby to wave to the throngs of fans calling out to him.

    Mr. Jackson was prosecuted on 10 felony counts – four of child molesting, one of attempted child molesting, four of administering alcohol to aid in the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. Together, the charges carried a maximum possible sentence of more than 18 years in prison.

    Mr. Jackson was accused of molesting the boy in February or March 2003 at his 2,700-acre Neverland Valley ranch. Prosecutors said the singer had plied the youth with alcohol in order to abuse him and had later conspired to intimidate and restrict the freedom of the boy, who is now 15, and his mother to keep them away from the news media.

    But the verdict clearly showed that the jury had found the testimony of the accuser’s family – the boy, his mother and his brother – to be not credible.

    At a news conference afterward, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the district attorney of Santa Barbara County, said that “obviously, we’re disappointed in the verdict,” but “in 37 years, I’ve never quarreled with jury’s verdict and I’m not going to today.”

    Asked whether the prosecution’s case had been undermined because it depended on testimony from the “wrong family,” he replied, “We don’t select our victims and we don’t select the families they come from.”

    “When a victim comes in and tells you they’ve been victimized and you believe that, you don’t look at their pedigree,” he added. “We look at what we think is the right thing, the right reason.”

    As the trial progressed and testimony grew more graphic, Mr. Jackson appeared more weary and worn out. On June 5, just two days after the jury got the case, he went to a hospital seeking treatment for back pain.

    Shortly after the jury got the case, Mr. Jackson’s brother Jermaine Jackson said on CNN that Michael Jackson was “1,000 percent innocent.” Asked whether Michael would change his ways if acquitted, Jermaine Jackson said, “He’ll become a complete recluse if found not guilty,” adding, “He won’t be able to deal with anyone because he can’t trust anyone.”

    The case arose from the February 2003 broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson,” a British documentary in which Mr. Jackson admitted sharing his bed with young boys, calling it a loving act unrelated to sex. The boy who later became the accuser was shown holding hands with the singer and resting his head affectionately on his shoulder. He was described as a 13-year-old cancer patient whom Mr. Jackson had decided to help.

    The documentary provoked a sensation, reinforcing years of rumor and speculation that Mr. Jackson was unnaturally fond of young boys. It also led Mr. Sneddon, the district attorney for Santa Barbara County, where Neverland is located, to open a criminal investigation, reprising a similar, though unsuccessful, effort in 1993 to prosecute Mr. Jackson on pedophilia charges.

    People around Mr. Jackson saw the 2003 documentary as a public relations disaster and sought to isolate the boy and his family. They also made plans for a rebuttal video to undo some of the damage and, not incidentally, make some money.

    Their efforts to persuade the family to participate in the rebuttal video and to keep them away from the press, first with a flight to Florida and then several extended stays at Neverland, formed the basis of the prosecution’s later charge of conspiracy to commit extortion, child abduction and false imprisonment. It was toward the end of a stay at Neverland, in late February and early March, prosecutors said, that Mr. Jackson molested the boy on several occasions.

    Nearly nine months into Mr. Sneddon’s investigation, on Nov. 18, 2003, a small army of sheriff’s deputies and district attorney investigators descended on Neverland with a search warrant. They spent about 11 hours there, videotaping every corner of the estate and seizing hundreds of items, which they said included pornographic magazines, bedding and a lifelike doll that had been lewdly defaced.

    A day later, Mr. Sneddon announced that Mr. Jackson would be charged with multiple counts of committing a lewd act upon a child. He urged other parents whose children had spent the night with Mr. Jackson to come forward to assist investigators; none did.

    Thus began 20 months of a sometimes bizarre spectacle that included Mr. Jackson’s choreographed airport arrest in November 2003, and his dancing atop an S.U.V. in January 2004 after his arraignment on nine felony charges, as hundreds of fans screamed outside the courthouse. He entered and left accompanied by his brothers Tito and Jermaine and a phalanx of guards from the Nation of Islam.

    His lawyer at the time, Mark Geragos, dismissed the charges as nonsense, driven by the vindictiveness of Mr. Sneddon, whose 1993 prosecution fell apart when the accuser in that case withdrew his complaint after reaching a $20 million settlement with Mr. Jackson.

    Legal analysts said Mr. Mesereau, , a high-profile defense lawyer from Los Angeles, outargued the prosecution team, but they were less certain that he had made a strong connection with the jurors, who were drawn from the largely conservative area around Santa Maria, a farming community of 90,000.

    The jury, selected in less than a week in late February, was an eclectic lot, ranging in age from 20 to 79. Seven are white, three are Latino and one is Asian; the 12th juror declined to define his ethnicity. The only black to sit in the jury box was a young man who served as an alternate and did not participate in the deliberations.

    Eight jurors are parents and six said they were fans of Mr. Jackson’s music. One had been to Neverland, a 21-year-old man who uses a wheelchair. He said during jury selection that he had visited with a group of others with cerebral palsy. All but two jurors have some college education; three have graduate degrees.

    The trial was marked by moments of bathos and melodrama and genuine tension, particularly when the accuser and his mother were on the stand. The prosecution saved perhaps its strongest evidence for last, a videotape of the boy being interviewed by a sheriff’s detective. The boy, who was 13 at the time, appeared shy and reluctant to discuss the matter as the officer elicited his account.

    The strain on Mr. Jackson throughout the proceedings was evident and no doubt figured in his twice seeking medical attention at a hospital, for flulike symptoms and back pain.

    At one point, on a day that Mr. Jackson’s accuser was testifying, Judge Melville threatened to revoke the singer’s $3 million bail and lock him up for the rest of the trial after a pajama-clad Mr. Jackson shuffled in weakly more than an hour late. The defense said he had been seeking medical treatment at a hospital for a back injury.

    The case appeared to take a toll on Mr. Sneddon, as well. The 64-year-old prosecutor had viewed the trial as a means to vindicate his lengthy quest to put Mr. Jackson behind bars. But several star witnesses faltered under withering cross-examination by Mr. Mesereau, and Mr. Sneddon occasionally buried his head in his hands in seeming despair.

    The testimony itself often verged on the incredible. The accuser’s mother harangued Mr. Mesereau and lectured the jury as she wove a strange tale of being kidnapped by Mr. Jackson’s henchmen even as she was spending his money on restaurants, clothes and beauty treatments. She also spoke of a plot by Mr. Jackson’s aides to have her and her family disappear in a hot-air balloon.

    Mr. Jackson, who did not take the stand, was shown in a videotaped interview talking about how much he loved children and his plans to throw a birthday party for his chimp Bubbles, with a guest list of famous show-business animals like Benji, Lassie and Cheetah from the Tarzan movies.

    Testimony laid bare the hidden life of one of the world’s best-known entertainers, revealing, for example, that Mr. Jackson called wine “Jesus juice,” which he drank from ostensibly soft-drink cans.

    Prosecutors introduced into evidence sexually explicit pictures of naked boys as well as magazines with titles like “Barely Legal,” featuring female models who appear younger than 18.

    Experts also told of the perilous state of Mr. Jackson’s finances, saying he was spending $20 million to $30 million a year more than he was making.

    Prosecutors painted a dark portrait of Neverland as the lair of a serial pedophile, not a magical place of innocence to compensate for the childhood Mr. Jackson claimed he was deprived of as young performer.

    Prosecutors also made use of a California law that permits the introduction in sex cases of evidence of “prior bad acts” or a propensity to commit sex crimes, even if the offenses were never reported or prosecuted. Several former Neverland employees testified that they had seen Mr. Jackson molest young boys, but the defense showed that those witnesses were a mixed group with grudges against Mr. Jackson and financial motives to smear him.

    The defense’s chief contention was that the accuser and his family had set up Mr. Jackson for an elaborate scheme, using the boy’s illness as a hook. In his summation, Mr. Mesereau repeatedly called the family “con artists, actors and liars” who had pressed numerous celebrities for money, committed welfare fraud and leveled a phony assault charge against J.C. Penney.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • June 16, 2005
    The Trillion-Dollar Bet
    By DAVID LEONHARDT and MOTOKO RICH

    American homeowners have made a trillion-dollar bet that mortgage rates will remain near record lows for at least a few more years. But with some interest rates already rising, economists worry that the bet could turn bad.

    The problem is that new types of mortgages that hold down monthly payments for families – helping many buy homes that they would not otherwise be able to afford – also require potentially far higher payments in future years.

    The bill will soon start to come due in a serious way, as the initial period of fixed payments, typically set at artificially low rates, expires for millions of homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages.

    This year, only about $80 billion, or 1 percent, of mortgage debt will switch to an adjustable rate based largely on prevailing interest rates, according to an analysis by Deutsche Bank in New York. Next year, some $300 billion of mortgage debt will be similarly adjusted.

    But in 2007, the portion will soar, with $1 trillion of the nation’s mortgage debt – or about 12 percent of it – switching to adjustable payments, according to the analysis.

    The 2007 adjustments will almost certainly be the largest such turnover that has ever occurred.

    The impact is not likely to derail the economy on its own, economists predict, but it will probably slow growth. For individual families, the problems could be significant.

    “I’m not sure that people are being counseled on really how big of a risk they are taking,” said Amy Crews Cutts, deputy chief economist at Freddie Mac, the mortgage company.

    Consider a typical $300,000 interest-only mortgage with fixed payments for the first five years.

    The homeowner would start by paying about $1,250 a month. If interest rates rise modestly over the next few years, as many forecasters expect, the payment will jump to almost $2,100 in 2010, according to Stephen Barrett, the owner of Redmond Financial, a mortgage business near Seattle.

    With the help of new computer models, lenders have brought out newer and riskier mortgages to attract borrowers and increase their buying power during the long housing boom. The traditional 30-year mortgage with guaranteed payments is increasingly a loan of the past.

    The hot loan of 2004 – the interest-only mortgage – allowed home buyers to pay no principal for the first few years of the loan, substantially lowering their initial payments.

    It has remained popular this year, accounting for at least 40 percent of purchase loans over $360,000 in areas with fast-rising home prices, like San Diego, Washington, Seattle, Reno, Atlanta and much of Northern California, according to LoanPerformance, a mortgage data firm.

    This year’s fashionable model, known as an “option ARM,” allows borrowers to make payments with monthly rates starting as low as 1.25 percent for the first five years of the loan; the average rate on a 30-year, fixed-rate loan is about 5.6 percent.

    During the first quarter of 2005, 40 percent of mortgages over $360,000 issued to people with good credit were option ARM’s, said David Liu, a mortgage strategy analyst with UBS in New York. Very few borrowers used option ARM’s before 2003.

    Many borrowers stand to benefit from these creative loans. On option ARM’s, buyers with variable incomes, like the self-employed, can also make smaller or larger payments depending on their take-home pay in a particular month, without incurring penalties. With the average homeowner moving every six years, any loan with lower initial payments can substantially reduce housing costs.

    “As a rule, I would prefer the 30-year fixed mortgage,” said Alejandro Brown, 31, a technical trainer for Nissan, the automaker, who refinanced the mortgage on his 1,700-square-foot house in Auburn, Wash., with an adjustable-rate loan last year, reducing his monthly payments. But, he said, “I knew I wasn’t going to be in my house more than three years; I was very confident.”

    All of these loans come with the risk of a spike in payments sometime in the future. In particular, borrowers who have taken out an interest-only loan will see a jump in payments simply because they will start to owe principal after the interest-only period lapses. If rates rise, the payments will go even higher.

    Borrowers whose incomes have not risen enough or who have not planned for the higher payments could find themselves shocked.

    “The apparent froth in housing markets may have spilled over into mortgage markets,” Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, said while testifying to Congress last week. “The dramatic increase in the prevalence of interest-only loans, as well as the introduction of other relatively exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages, are developments of particular concern.”

    The lure of such loans is obvious. Because of the lower initial payments, buyers can purchase bigger and more expensive houses.

    With her daughter leaving for college this summer, Linda Thompson decided to sell her four-bedroom house in the Seattle suburbs and move to a town house in the city’s Lake Union neighborhood. But prices were so high that she had to go beyond her “level of comfort,” she said, and spend $619,000.

    She signed an interest-only mortgage that cut her monthly payments by about $500 compared with a conventional mortgage. Seven years from now, the bill will rise as she starts paying principal, and the size of the increase will be determined by interest rates at the time. But she may have moved by then, she said. And because the house is in an up-and-coming neighborhood, she expects the value to rise.

    “The risk factor – of course it’s always there,” Ms. Thompson, 49, who runs a small marketing company, said as she was preparing to watch her daughter graduate from high school yesterday. “But to me, real estate is a better investment than the stock market.”

    “Just sitting there,” she said of her new house, “it’s appreciating right now.”

    Still, even some mortgage brokers are concerned by how much their clients are stretching their spending power using creative mortgages.

    One possible warning sign is that a growing share of those taking out the aggressive loans is made up of lower-income families living in expensive areas, according to Economy.com, a research company. Another is that variable-rate mortgages have stayed popular even as long-term, fixed rates have gone down and rates on adjustable mortgages have risen.

    “There are people who are buying homes that they shouldn’t buy,” said Eric Appelbaum, president of the Apple Mortgage Corporation in Manhattan. “People are saying, I can afford it on interest-only but I can’t afford it” with a traditional mortgage, Mr. Appelbaum said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

    Since borrowers with interest-only mortgages are not yet paying down their debt, they are hoping to build up equity through an increase in home values. If house prices fall, as they did during the early 90′s in some cities, borrowers will be forced to bring money to the table when they sell.

    Even if home prices rise a little, borrowers who have taken out option ARM’s and made only minimum payments for five years could find themselves in a hole. Such loans, which are typically based on rates that adjust monthly, give homeowners four payment options each month. In the first quarter of 2005, 70 percent of option ARM borrowers made the minimum payment, according to UBS.

    In doing so, those borrowers effectively added more debt to the back of their loans.

    On a $400,000 loan, for example, a buyer who made only minimum payments over the first five years would add more than $27,000 to the end of the loan, assuming short-term rates increase by one percentage point over the course of the loan, said Robert Binette, a mortgage broker with Hamilton Mortgage in Ridgefield, Conn. The monthly payment would jump from $1,718 in the final month of the fifth year to $2,580 after the loan was reset, a difference of more than 50 percent.

    Borrowers who expect to cover the larger debt by refinancing could be in trouble if rates have increased. Thirty-year fixed-mortgage rates are near their lowest level in a generation.

    Nationwide, the increase in monthly payments as more mortgage rates start to float will cost families about an extra $40 billion over the next two years, according to estimates by Credit Suisse First Boston. That is the rough equivalent of a 40-cent increase in gas prices over the same span, which would pinch incomes but would not be likely to create a recession.

    The biggest concern, many economists say, is that the new mortgages have come onto the market at a time when low interest rates and rapidly rising home prices are the only reality many people can imagine. Families might be making decisions assuming that combination will last forever.

    In a speech to bankers in New York, Donald L. Kohn, a Federal Reserve governor, said yesterday that he expected a strong economy over the next few years.

    “My message this morning, however, is that this is not a time for complacency,” he said.

    There is “significant uncertainty,” he added, because some recent financial innovations “have not yet been rigorously stress-tested.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


    Risking Affordability


  • The couple at home in Sag Harbor, N.Y., with their sons, Cecil, left, and Milo

    June 19, 2005
    Lindsay Morris and Stephen Munshin
    By LOIS SMITH BRADY

    AFTER Lindsay Morris and Stephen Munshin married nine years ago they were as rootless as orchids. They disliked anything even suggesting home, like monogrammed towels or overstuffed couches you sink into like quicksand. They found bed-and-breakfast inns about as appealing as spider webs. Even their work – they were partners in River Road, a clothing company specializing in Himalayan yak-wool coats – required them to travel constantly. Their home, a one-bedroom cottage in Sag Harbor, N.Y., on the East End of Long Island, was spare to the point of uninhabited. “We didn’t really decorate,” Ms. Morris said. “It made it easier to leave.”

    And leave they did, spending the first years of their marriage on the road – rough, rough roads – building their business. For months at a time they traveled, usually by motorcycle, through Nepal, sleeping in tents, shopping for wool, getting to know about each other’s intestinal fortitude and comfort levels with darkness, strangers, insects and overheated engines.

    If they sank roots anywhere, it was into each other. “There were times when we’d pull into some small town on a motorcycle, and there’s just a little tea shop on the side of the road and people leering out at you in the darkness,” Mr. Munshin, 40, said. “You really become a team.” On the road they also honed a marital skill, he said: “to laugh at things that might normally end a relationship.”

    On the motorcycle they always took the long way because they loved talking. “We communicate better when we have wheels under us and we’re moving,” Ms. Morris, 39, said. “I’m not a real face-to-face person. I’m more comfortable side by side.”

    Even when they returned to Sag Harbor, they continued traveling, driving up and down the East Coast, selling their coats. “The coats were very cozy,” Ms. Morris said. “When we would travel around to do street fairs, we’d sleep in the back of our Trooper, on top of and under the coats. We’d have wool up our noses.”

    Mr. Munshin said: “It became a familiar sensation, not being at home, being in transition. In India you spend two or three hours driving from one place to the next. Travel is so slow. It’s an acceptable way to spend time as opposed to, ‘I’ve got to be there now.’ “

    Today they have slowed to a halt. Last year they quit designing clothes after re-examining their footloose life and business and asking, “Why are we burning all this fuel?”

    Their lives are now local rather than global, communal rather than just two on a motorcycle, and full of a different, domestic motion. They have two sons, Cecil, 10 months; and Milo, 4, who was born a fashion-conscious nomad. Ms. Morris describes them as “delicious little wise men living in our house who spread laughter and chaos wherever they go.”

    She helps create bee products for a local apiary, the Hamptons Honey Company, while Mr. Munshin delivers the honey to farm stands in what looks like an ice cream truck.

    “Stephen comes home with eggs and beautiful fresh greens and wines,” she said. “People shower him with gifts. He’s the honey man.”

    Mr. Munshin is also the publisher of a new magazine, Edible East End, which covers Long Island’s vineyards, farm stands, fishermen, potato farmers and potato chip makers.

    They now own a different house in Sag Harbor, filled with heavy hand-carved Indian furniture and other reminders of their travels. One of their favorites is a patchwork quilt made from dozens of pieces of Indian wedding saris. “It’s symbolic of our marriage,” Ms. Morris said. “You have glistening shiny bits, and you also have untextured pieces, very flat and cottony and just very everyday.”

    They also love everything that “home” suggests: knowing the neighbors, knowing when asparagus season begins. They are now the kind of people who sit on the front porch and invite friends in for lemonade (sweetened with honey).

    “I love my porch,” Ms. Morris said. “We’re getting to know a lot of people, which makes you feel grounded. We finally have roots here. We’re digging in.”

    Almost every summer evening they literally dig for food. “We get friends and friends’ children together, and we go out raking for clams on the beach,” she said. “We tend to hover close and converse and rake and split the occasional one open. You’re standing there in the sun on the water, eating a clam, and you can hear the kids laughing on the beach. It confirms the reasons we live here. It’s all said in a clam.”

    After clamming, they drive to Quail Hill, a communal vegetable farm in Amagansett, where they are members. The leeks, bok choy and tomatoes are still warm from the sun when they return home. Mr. Munshin cooks. “Lindsay likes to set the table and set the tone and light the candles,” he said, adding, “The domestic lines are blurred in this house.”

    They have few regrets about settling down, except that they don’t talk as much as they did in their motorcycle-riding years. “At the end of the day I feel like, ‘Oh, my God, I have five more things to say to Stephen,’ ” she said. “But, it doesn’t matter. We have all the time in the world.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • June 16, 2005
    Unveiling the Clues to a New Gucci Look
    By CATHY HORYN

    THE fashion world, at least those willing to venture out in the heat, got its first look on Tuesday at Frida Giannini’s new women’s collection for Gucci. She was showing resort clothes, at the Gagosian Gallery on West 24th Street, which had been outfitted with a polished wood floor and white deck cushions to help transport editors and buyers to a yacht off the Amalfi coast. The breeze was supplied by the air-conditioning system.

    Given the seven-year plan of Robert Polet, the chief executive of Gucci Group, to more than double the brand’s revenues to $4 billion, much is expected of Ms. Giannini, a 32-year-old Roman with a confident, if not tough, demeanor. A year ago, when Tom Ford and Domenico De Sole left Gucci, the job of women’s design went to Alessandra Facchinetti, while Ms. Giannini was put in charge of handbags and shoes, and John Ray continued as men’s designer. In March, Ms. Giannini replaced Ms. Facchinetti, whose two collections seemed to pay homage to Mr. Ford’s last years at Gucci.

    With accessories and women’s fashion now in Ms. Giannini’s control and a staff of nearly 40 assistants to supervise, she is responsible for 95 percent of Gucci’s revenues. Her handbags, especially the oversize snaffle-bit style, have been popular with consumers, but a challenge is how to restore growth to women’s fashion, which Gucci executives and store chiefs say has slowed from the peak years of the late 1990′s.

    In 2000 Mr. Ford split his interest between Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, and evening looks seemed to dominate at Gucci. It’s easy to forget that in the mid-90′s he created sexy day suits and embellished jeans, which later became bread and butter for companies like Roberto Cavalli and Dolce & Gabbana.

    “Sometimes we went too fast, sometimes we invented a lot of things, and then we kind of left them for the competition because we had moved on to other things,” said Mark Lee, the president of Gucci. “In ready-to-wear, you need a certain through line.”

    Ms. Giannini will present a complete spring collection in September, but Tuesday’s show gave a clue that she favors day clothes with a tailored sportiness: crisp white miniskirts and gold-buttoned jackets, silk shirts in archive-inspired prints with jeans, and bikinis with an up-to-date play on Gucci motifs like the horse bit and striped canvas webbing. The number of casual separates was a plus. For evening she proposed caftanlike dresses in hippie-deluxe patterns, which she generally showed with flat sandals.

    At first glance the clothes seemed to lack the sophistication of Stefano Pilati’s Saint Laurent resort collection (also shown in New York this week), but given time to develop her ideas she will likely sharpen her eye. And Mr. Pilati is 10 years older, with that much more experience. Certainly Ms. Giannini is sure of herself.

    “The most important thing I learned from Tom is to be very confident in my ideas,” she said. “I remember the first time I was editing a collection with him. I was showing him the prototype for the horse-bit bag, and I was really scared, waiting outside the door. But he was totally happy with it.” That fear seems to have dissolved.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top