Talk:2005 United States Grand Prix/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why remove "Farce"

Why remove the word "farce" from the intro?

Let's look at a few headlines:

I think there's a hint of consensus there - SoM 21:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably because leaving 'farce' in would violate Wikipedia's NPOV rules. CanSpice 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

English / Scottish vs UK flag

We've discussed this at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Flags, and the consensus seems to be that we should use the Union Flag. NickF 22:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi NickF.
I didn't know the WikiProjekt Formula One page, and therefore I had not read the discussion – I simply used the classification table from the previous race as a template for this race's table.
I'll revert my changes to the flags, and have a look at the (newly bookmarked) WikiProject page :-)
Regards, Fred Bradstadt 22:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Fred
Not a problem, I only went back to that discussion today, and it seems to be pretty much in favour of one flag, as used by the FIA (and other reasons on there). When I get a chance I'll go back and change older races... NickF 22:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews Link?

There's currently a Wikinews article on this race[1]. Would it be appropriate to add the link to the news article into this? Will => talk 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added it already. :) --Andylkl (talk) 06:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


Latest edit

Uh, the latest edit is just a liiiittle bit pov:

"The demand for a new chicane be installed in Turn 13 was not really a feasible option because the fault was clearly the tyre companies and not the circuits. This was not the only option in their hand. They could have changed their tyres at the start and faced a penalty or adviced their teams to slow down at turn 13 or changed tyres every 10 laps. The fact that they tried to bully their way out of their mistake by making unreasonable demands lead to a power struggle betweeen the governing body FIA and the teams. It was more like a planned boycott of rules to prove a point."

"One wonders whether what Mr.Stoddart said is really true though given the fact that Minardi's only chance of scoring points,if at all any, this season and thereby getting the premium hotel and accomodation benefits that the formula 1 management provided for teams scoring points during a season, would have been lost if they had not got those crucial points in the race. Moreover,blaming ferrari for what essentially is a huge mistake on part or Michelin is nothing but a cheap attempt at covering the real issue that lead to the farce of a race."

AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Penalty for tyre change, NPoV

Just to put in my 2 cents, I don't think "severe penalties" for replacing the tyres with a different set is the right wording, there would simply be penalties. The rules for F1 are that tyres can be changed, first to the practice set then to a spare set, and changing to a different batch altogether simply isn't legislated. I believe FIA/Chalie Whiting were willing to let it happen, but they had to penalize them somehow.

The options presented to the Michelin teams were to change tyres at pitstops every 10 laps, penalty free under safety rules, change to a different batch altogether (discussed above), or the FIA enforcing a speed limit, as specified by Michelin, through turn 13 for Michelin runners. JamesHoadley 18:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral view?

I am not sure this article represents a neutral view. To me it looks like its a bit favoring michellin cars. It looks a bit biased against ferrari. The blame mosley image also does seem to suggest this. povs are for blogs and information is for wikipedia. "The FIA refused to allow new tyres to be flown in or a chicane to be installed." Am not sure this was the only solution. Would it not be better if we presented the FIA's view here as well. Too much stress on Paul Stoddart and his team.

We are just reporting (with sources) what F1 people are saying - along with the (sourced) claims of others against the Michelin people (e.g. the FIA's charges). Noel (talk) 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further to the comment above, I would say that the bit about saying the Michelin teams didn't use the new tyres that Michelin flew in because of the FIA penalties wasn't actually the case. Whilst the FIA did say penalties might be imposed if the tyres were changed, they didn't say it was certain. Furthermore, the teams themselves did not object to being penalised in some way. The reason that the second set of tyres was not used was because Michelin said that they couldn't be sure that the same fault wasn't present in these (in fact they rather feared it was). This can be seen in the FIA press releases on the race. No solutions to the problem could be resolved because no solution could be found that both sides thought to be safe. The suggestion by Michelin to place a chicane in the final corner was rejected by the FIA on the grounds that to do so would not be safe as the cars would be incorrectly set up. In the current climate of litigation, changing the rules to include a chicane, without evidence that this would actually improve the situation, was never going to be a stance a huge organisation like the FIA could take. Likewise Michelin rejected the idea to change their tyres every 10 laps as they feared this would not solve the problem (Ralf Schumacher's tyre exploded in practice on his first flying lap). The final suggestion, that the Michelin runners should drive slowly round the final corner was never going to be satisfactory nor safe, because how could Michelin runners ensure they drove slow enough - and even if they did, driving round the final bend at 100mph less than the Bridgestone runners would of course be very dangerous. As such the situation stalemated, and the "race" was forced to go ahead with just six runners. I agree with the comment above that it would be unfair to blame Ferrari as, although they did not join the 9 team pact to get a chicane placed in the final corner, they never actually stated that they would object to such a change. It was just assumed from the fact that they weren't an active member of the pact, that they were therefore in a boycott. And of course Ferrari did really have to race because they had tyres with which they could do so - and sponsers would be less than pleased if they "needlessly" pulled out. Sorry about the length - just attempting to clear some of the events up slightly. Will => talk 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Adding to my previous comment, I would suggest that the second paragraph of the article ought to be re-written. It currently reads:
"Following several tyre failures, most spectacularly on Ralf Schumacher's Toyota during Friday practice, Michelin advised its six customer teams that they could not safely race. The FIA refused to allow new tyres to be flown in or a chicane to be installed, and the teams, unable to come to a compromise, did not participate in the race on safety grounds."
However this is a major oversimplification of the issue. As I mentioned above, the FIA did not prevent Michelin flying in new tyres - it was actually the case that Michelin decided that their new tyres were also affected by the same problem. Furthermore, the paragraph implies that the FIA were very rigid in their views (which indeed they were) without qualifying the issues that they had to consider. The main issue for the FIA was that, whilst they could build a chicane in turn 13, they had no idea whether this would actually solve the tyre problems as there was no time to test. As such it would have been impossible for them to change the rules - bearing in mind the potential cosequences had Michelin runners raced on the modified circuit and a tyre still blew up, possibly causing injury. I think the second paragraph should contain a line along the lines of "As neither Michelin or the FIA could come up with a solution that was deemed safe by both parties, the Michelin runners decided to pull out of the race, on the advice of the tyre company." (Obviously that needs re-wording but I'm too tired to make it work!) Will => talk 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with something like that (and we already do mention that the new tires didn't work; see below). Noel (talk) 18:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I have removed this line from the second paragraph of the pre-race controversy section, for want of a source:

(tyre suppliers almost never bring a extra set of inferior dry tyres to a Grand Prix)

... as well as this line:

In any event, the replacement tyres flown in by Michelin (which were of the type used in the Spanish Grand Prix), when actually tested at the Indianapolis track, turned out to have the same problem, meaning a switch to them (with or without penalty) would not have solved the issue.

— Dan | Talk 15:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The latter is now sourced. While we're at it, how is a switch to them - with or without penalties which would have applied to a last-minute change of tyres, for those using them - would not have solved the issue non-neutral? There was an issue where Michelin tried to get the penalties for a tire switch lifted, but it became a moot point when the new tires had the same problem. OK, so maybe the removing wording wasn't as poetic as one might like, but that's all it said - a blank statement of fact - the new tires wouldn't have fixed the problem. Noel (talk) 18:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relying on Stoddart

I'm a little bit uncomfortable relying so heavily on Stoddart's account of what happened in those morning meetings. It generally does accord with what we know from others (in those few cases where there is corroboration), but I am a little concerned that Stoddart has a real axe to grind with Mosley (as he does admit, making mention of the Australia/law-suit thing), and as such has an incentive to show Max in the worst possible light. Thoughts? Noel (talk) 22:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Stoddart's is the only account we have at the moment. I've included Todt's and Mosley's denials of certain assertions he's made, but unless someone else publishes another complete account, we'll have to rely on Stoddart. However, I think this should be okay as long as we make quite clear that this is his take on events and not necessarily The Facts. — Dan | Talk 22:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

DNS?

I could be wrong, but I think that the withdrawn cars are considered to have started since they did participate in the formation lap, so to write DNS (did-not-start) would be incorrect. Kevin M Marshall 7 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

The classification table originally sait "Ret" (Retired) and not "DNS" (as in the official result), but someone changed it. I believe there is no reason not to change it back to "Ret". -Fred Bradstadt July 7, 2005 08:00 (UTC)
I changed it back to 'Ret' as per the official result - CrispinFlowerday 17:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid to tell you guys that Ret are only for the cars that actually start the race. DNS stands for when a car does not take a a race start. Makes sense. By having Ret listed that mean the driver has actually started in that race. The formation lap does not count as a lap at all. For an example in the official F1 rule book states an good example on race starts. For when does a driver 'start' a Grand Prix? To my mind he does so only if he is on the grid when the flag drops or light goes green at the final start. Should a driver have failed to compete the formation lap, for instance (as was the case with Prost at Imola in 1991), he cannot truly be said to have started the race. In the case of restarted events such as the British GP in 1986, poor Jacques Laffite certainly did start the race, but this was declared null and void and he was not presented to take the restart, which is the only one that counts. For true official race results is best to get them off www.forix.com as they receive their race results from the officials. Yes I know formula1.com is official but not 100% official in statistics. If you decide to leave it as Ret then you must give all the drivers a race start count! Andreasu 09:41, 12 September 2005
If the FIA decides that "according to their rule book" that 20 cars started (as if there was less than X number of cars starting, I believe 10, the race would have been deemed null and void), then we have no choice than to report them as DNF/Ret. BTW, Re: Official, I think one should use FIA.com for "official" press release statictics. (forix might be nice, but not independantly verifiable without a subscription.)-slowpokeiv 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
In your words, when a driver does not take 50 races starts would that make him having started 50 races yes or no? You tell me. Its quite an easy answer. Also how come the FIA does NOT count for the drivers who didn't start the race in the USA as a race start... There is your answer its a DNS. Now here is a good example, all the F1 driver's profile on wikipedia have listed as race starts instead of participations which means to how many grands prix they have been to. Lets look at Nick Heidfeld for an example, he has started 92 races to the 2005 Canadian Grand Prix now is the question will he have started his 93rd race at the US Grand Prix, yes or no? No of course. Believe me I have researched 6 years into Formula 1 DNS and also have data given by the FIA how it works and they have the same answer that I am getting I don't know why they list as 'Ret' instead of DNS for the US GP. Another real good example is when Michael Schumacher qualified on pole for 1996 French Grand Prix, on the formation lap his Ferrari's engine let go on him so he didn't start the race because he didn't participate in the race when the lights when green, well and wikipedia actually doesn't count this race as a race start because then you end up having a race start extra on M Schumacher's profile, if you do the maths for yourself then he will have a extra race starts if you add the 1996 French GP as a race start. Andreasu 10:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Alright guys I have receive a email from someone who works for the FIA rule book and game up with this message "Thanks for the info. Apparently there are two distinct official criteria. Before 1994 a retirement on the parade lap was counted as a DNS - such as 91-San Marino-Prost - but after 1994 those retirements are included in the official classifications as DNF - such as 96-France-M.Schumacher or the recent USA GP." He will get back to me later on this week to confirm it. Andreasu 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have spend hours in researching and asking many F1 statisian who are famous and know more on Grand Prix. All the statisian I have contacted and got back told me it is actually DNS not Ret, they also have mention the formula1.com is not very accurate with their race results. The formula1.com is incorrect as listing as ret instead of DNS for 2005-USA. This were the responses from the following people. Renowned F1 statistians, like David Hayhoe or Autosport's Peter Higham agree that all Michelin drivers were DNS in 2005-USA, but consider a RET if a driver didn't made a re-start, for example. That was the common view in the past - no contemporary source listed Lauda as a DNS in 1976-Germany - and they simply ignore the current "null and void" FIA rule. I totally agree to change it as DNS not Ret as they didn't take part on the first lap. Andreasu 16:53, 01 October 2005

Please provide us with proof of your sources. I'm reverting it, again. If you so strongly feel you're right and the rest of the Wikipedia community is wrong, then please provide us with proof! Just throwing around "renowned" names means nothing to us, for all we know you made that up. --Andy Janata 14:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
How do you know how the system of Foruma 1 works? Oh yeah why don't you look at this link 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix and I have proven it already formula1.com made errors with the results. Just want to know if you know those F1 statistican David Hayhoe or Autosport's Peter Higham, they are very clever on F1 History and have written books of F1. Andreasu 02 October 2005.

By the way here are useful links that shows the real F1 stats of 2005 USA:

Here is a very interesting point of view. Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. Does this make sense to you. That means wikipedia will have for all the drivers who have no started in the 2005 USA have an extra race start which wouldn't be official to the drivers stats. Andreasu 03 October 2005 13:34

That's all very well. Now please link to an authoritative source (formula.com or the FIA, or perhaps a quote from one of these eminent statisticians you mention) to verify these claims. If a trustworthy source is present, no-one will object to your changing the classification. You might e-mail formula1.com to notify them that their records are wrong if you get the chance. — Dan | Talk 01:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have tones of books at home that have descibed how a race start works and a DNS occurs. I have done my home work for 10 years on race starts and I am happy what I have learned. I am going to wait until the season is over and see what you all going to do with the race starts count for each driver. Like I have mention before every driver who have "ret" from the USA race will have an extra race start so that means Button will have his 101st race start by the end of the year instead of 100 which has been stated on many web site Button will make his 100th race start in China as he did no start in the USA race. I have read the F1 sporting article and it clearly states the race classifications starts when the lights go green. The formation lap is also know as the warm-up which doesn't not count towads the race results as the lights are not green. Formation lap is also not counted towards the race lap counter. Here is a excellent error on the formula1.com web page, in the 1999 British GP the race was stopped after the accident of Schumacher and a new race started after, he should be classified as DNS as he didn't take part in the other race. Also have a look on the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, same example but formula1.com as it right this time.

Andreasu 04 October 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Note that the http://www.formulaone.free-online.co.uk/formulaone/history/2005/usa.html link Andreasu provided (on a free hosting site -- not particularly authorative) does NOT list the Michelin drivers as DNS. It lists them as Withdrew, instead. It's not clear to me if this is equivalent to RET. Pburka 03:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Did you actually check on the left hand side that the position of the drivers are DNS. The Withdrew part is the reason why the pulled out of the race. It certainly DOES list them as DNS, double check for yourself. Andreasu 12:57, 4 October 2005.

From autosport.com All the Michelin-shod Formula One teams have come into the pitlane following the formation lap for the United States Grand Prix. Only the Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi teams took the start of the race and so are competing in the event. Andreasu 09:41, 5 October 2005.

Last I checked autosport.com wasn't the official website of Formula One. Also, please add new stuff to the bottom of the section instead of sticking it into the middle like this, it makes it easier to find. CanSpice 01:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Andreas - I'm sorry, as much as we'd all like to have the correct information, your word isn't good enough (nor is any other editor's). I repeat, provide a reliable source for the correct result of the 2005 USGP. Another parallel situation won't do. — Dan | Talk 05:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

While I really don't think this issue is so large as to cause such a debate, firstly it is surprising that despite your insistance, you only found 2 (obscure) websites that support your claim, and you continue saying that the official site is "wrong". Please quote directly from at least one the "tones of books at home that have descibed how a race start works and a DNS occurs". Personally I don't mind or care whether you put DNS or Ret here, Wikipedia is not an official stats site and the description of the "race" is sufficient enough for readers to work out for themselves what happened. An interesting question is whether they will re-celebrate Button's 100th "start" at the first GP of the 2006 season if his car breaks down on the warmup lap. Just remember the Three revert rule. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Andreas, why have you felt the need to copy and paste your arguments into all our individual user pages?
I would suggest, in the absence of any other confirmed information, an encyclopedia entry on a sport should take its information from the official governing body for that sport, ie the FIA, ie the formula1.com website. NickF 19:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I think I got you all now the formula1.com is a waste of time. Been reading on the Honda site and others web site stating it will be the 100th race start with team BAR in this weekends Japanese race. That is excluding the 2005 USA race. In 2000 BAR-Honda started 17 races, 2001 started 17 races, 2002 also 17 starts, 2003 16 starts, 2004 18 starts and 2005 so far 14 starts. So that makes a total of 99 race starts since their partnership began in 2000. [[User:Andreasu|Andreasu] 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Something interesting: The FIA maintains its own classifications, independently of formula1.com (which is run by FOA, a Bernie outfit). The FIA's result for the USGP gives "DNF" (i.e. did not finish) and places a "not classified" banner above the withdrawing drivers. However, this appears to be analagous to Formula1.com's "Ret", because they use the same notation for cars who did not finish other races for normal reasons, such as accidents (see e.g. this years French GP result). I would take the FIA as the most authoritative source possible, and consider the discussion closed. — Dan | Talk 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Us guys on autosport.com and forix.com we are sticking to as DNS as we have accurate data on race starts for Drivers, Makes and Engines which will come into play in the last two grand prix at the end of year. J Villeneuve is to start is 150th race in Japan. Button is to start his 100th race in China. BAR-Honda will also make their 100th race start in Japan as a partnership. Keep your hears open when those two events are on. Those three milestones have been mention on media web sites and f1racing magazine. Believe it or not I have coorect formula1.com several times in the past with data errors and I am getting closer to the 2005 USA race as I am up to the Year 1989 ... End of discussion. Andreasu 13:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am back. Read this artlice on Button's 100th race start that will occur in this weekend's race if he takes the race start. And if someone does the math and could his race start it will be his 100th race start if the 2005 USA race is a DNS for Button.

BAR's Jenson Button makes Formula One history at the Chinese Grand Prix this weekend as the youngest driver to compete in 100 races.

But the 25-year-old Briton also knows that no man has won the drivers' crown without celebrating at least one victory before clocking up a century of starts.

Mika Hakkinen had to wait the longest of all the champions to date, without a win for 96 races before his triumph at Jerez in the 1997 European Grand Prix opened the floodgates. The Finn then won titles with McLaren in 1998 and 1999.

However, while Hakkinen was 29 when he finally climbed to the top step of the podium, Button can be confident that he has time on his side.

"It is very annoying that I have not won yet but it is no use talking about it, I just have to do something about it," he said. "When I do get my first win it will make it that little bit more emotional.

"I wouldn't change how my career has gone. I have made mistakes but I have learned from them. I have experienced a lot, more than most.

"Some drivers are lucky enough when they come into Formula One to get straight into a top team and win races and some people aren't."

Andreasu 14 October 2005, 10:57

Somewhere along the line DNS reappeared. Having both DNS and withdrew makes no sense at all because one excludes the other. Regardless of how the teams might be counting things for their internal statistics, they did start and they did withdraw as FIA sees it. If we can't trust the regulating authority on this, who can we trust? Hamstro 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem we have isthis. Well if they did start the race in the 2005 US race how come Nick Heidfeld didn't start is 100th race start in Bahrain 2006 instead of Australia 2006. As all the Michelin runners didn't take the race start that will make them one less race start. Nick Heidfeld did start his 100th race in Australia 2006 as the outcome of DNS in 2005 US. Also Michelin started their 200th race start in Australia instead of Bahrain, outcome of the DNS in the 2005 US for Michelin. Andreasu 09:18, 5 April 2006
Where do you get that information from? The teams themselves are poor sources of information. Give me an official source (like FIA) and I'll agree with you. DNS and withdrew cannot coexist. Hamstro 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Forget the official web pages, they have it all wrong anyway. I had to correct them so many times in the past with their incorret race data, now I don't bother anymore with them and only concentrate on autosport.com and forix.com Andreasu 06:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, but they are still the official source on race classifications. As long as the official race result is "DNF" there is no point in adding "DNS", since the result per definition was not "DNS". The race classification table in Wikipedia as I see it is a report of the official result, not a report of what actually happened. As silly as it may be, "DNF" is entered into the official FIA and as such is the race result, regardless of what actually happened. Hamstro 08:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra info

I've only skimmed through the article, but it struck me that two issues are missing from it:

  • The (potentially dangerous) reaction of the spectators.
  • The recent re-surfacing of the Indy circuit which apparently had an affect on the tyres.

--Mal 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, add them if you can find a source. Also with point 2 IIRC since the resurfacing, Bridgestone had run there in an Indy race and found problems with their tyres and subsequently were able to alter their F1 ones to be safe for the race. There was a slight murmur that B'stone should have perhaps passed the imformation about the tyre failures to Michelin for safety issues. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the information you supplied here should be added to the article. I will try to find sources when I find the time. --Mal 08:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not wishing to add fuel to the flames, DC and Red Bull recently celebrated his 200th Grand Prix. These 200 races included Indianapolis 2005.--Ryan86 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyre?

This is a US race, so it should be spelled "tire".

F1 is an international organisation. Few US people are particularly involved in it. --Mal 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Then standard international English should be used. Digismack 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

GA status

This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: stubby sentences, references need proper formatting--clean up all the external jumps and refs go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. The long quote needs to go to wikisource and be summarized into prose. Rlevse 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Refs done 4u1e 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Quote removed. I've summarised it, but didn't find there was much of interest, to be honest. 4u1e 07:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Had a stab at the writing as well. Didn't think the sentences were stubby - although some were poorly structured - but did feel the paragraphs tended to stubbiness. 4u1e 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Text of interview removed from article

I'll stick this here for now - what does it really tell us about the race anyway> 4u1e 07:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin: Bernie, there’s nowhere to go now, is there – you’re painted in a corner. What are you going to do? You’re the promoter, we look like we might have just four cars starting this race...

Bernie: Well, it looks like there’s a lot more cars here, uh? I’m not the promoter either, but, no, they’re all here…

Martin: But I’m told that even the Minardis may peel off and come into the pits at the end of the warm-up lap and only four cars will come down the start line. They may all be here at the moment...

Bernie: Well, you know so why are you asking me…

Martin: Well, I want to know if I’m right or not!

Bernie: You wait and see.

Martin: They’ve been told they can’t go flat-out around the track, and if they go slow it’s more dangerous. I mean, you can’t have 14 cars driving effectively a different racetrack.

Bernie: The problem has been caused by the tyres, obviously – Michelin brought the wrong tyres, it’s as simple as that.

Martin: But surely in the interests of Formula 1 you must have been screaming at the lot of them saying, “Sort yourselves out. This is what I’m going to do here, I’m taking charge here.”

Bernie: Yeah, but the difference is you can’t tell people to do something when the tyre company has said you can’t race on those tyres.

Martin: Did we need some more control of the paperwork that’s been flying about and the meetings? Could we not bang some heads together and just get this sorted out last night?

Why are we standing on the grid…you’re asking me what’s going on and I’m asking you what’s going on…

Bernie: I wish I knew. The problem is simple, as I say. There are not the tyres here where the tyre company feels confident that those tyres are OK, especially on that banking.

Martin: The future of F1 in America? The future of Michelin in F1?

Bernie: Not good.

Martin: On both counts?

Bernie: Both counts.

Martin: What will happen this week, will they be slapped in some court?

Bernie: We’ll have to see. It’s early days, we don’t know. I mean, I feel sorry for the public. I feel sorry for the promoter here. I'll stick this here for now. What does this really tell us about the race anyway?


Martin: I feel sorry for my eight million mates sitting at home looking forward to a good grand prix. Go and bang their heads together – but it’s too late now, we’ve run out of time, haven’t we?

Bernie: Well, let’s see what happens now. People shouldn’t give up on Formula 1 because of this one incident. The incident’s not the fault of the teams, to be honest with you.

What Michelin have said is that if they put a chicane in that corner then it would be OK, they could run. And it’s been decided not to put it in so that’s it.

Martin: Yeah, but they didn’t intentionally bring tyres that were not up to it. They’ve just obviously been caught out by something – a bad batch or this new diamond-cut surface. We saw Bridgestone having tyres fail in Barcelona with the safety car situation.

Surely we just have to have a sensible pill and say, OK, this is the situation we find ourselves in – let’s take a sensible solution and go motor racing.

Bernie: Tell me where we can buy the pills…

Martin: We need to talk to Mrs Ecclestone, maybe this needs a woman’s common sense here. Ah, Mrs Ecclestone – this needs a woman’s intuition on this, don’t you think?

Mrs Ecclestone: Nothing to say, nothing to say…

Martin: I think maybe you should have had something to say and given them a jolly good slapping!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_United_States_Grand_Prix/Archive_1&oldid=95584892"