Indy F1 PR Damage Control

[Burt Munro]

With the fiasco that the Formula 1 race at Indy turned into, who was left with the biggest tarnishing on their image?  Who showed the least regard for the fans in trying to make the race come off as close to what was expected?

[K3 Chris Onwiler]

I missed it.  What the hell happened?

[Burt Munro]

Michelin concluded that the tires that they were using couldn't handle the speeds on the last corner coming onto the front straight.  Bottom line they had 3 suggested options:
-ship a new supply of tires that could handle the speeds
-install a chicane to slow the speeds thru the corner
-advise the team owners of their concern for safety using the current tires and track configuration.

Outcome:
6 drivers on Bridgestones competed - 14 drivers on Michelins pulled out.

Make your own assumptions on how enjoyable it was to watch a total of 6 cars on the track.

[Burt Munro]

The Ferrari aspect came into play because all the owners except Ferrari agreed to go along with installing the chicane - Ferrari effectively blocked that idea.

[tstruyk]

from what I have read FIA refused the change in tires (easy fix) because it was "against the rules", I really dont think that they would have allowed the chicane EVEN IF ferrari didnt block it...for the same reason.  I could be wrong  :-/

cant blame michelin in my mind for ascertaining that the conditions where unsafe on their tire.  Where they supposed to keep their mouth shut on a safety issue?  I dont know all the facts, just the few blurbs I have read... regardless, its messed up!!

tim

[Scott]

From what I've learned about the tires, Michelin did ship new tires.  Of course they only had about 12 hours to make and ship the tires, which they did.  While the tires were in transit they began testing some from the same batch and realized they suffered from the same problem as the original.  So, the teams had new tires on Sunday morning, but they were no better than the originals.

I don't blame the Bridgestone teams for nixing the chicane idea.  Basically, the Michelin teams said "we are uncompetative at this track, can we change the track so we are competative?"  

So, who's fault is it?  Not the teams that ran, not the Speedway or Tony George.  I think the teams, the FIA, and Bernie are so full of themselves they could give a crap what 150,000 US fans and millions watching on TV think.  

I just wish we could have snuck a commercial for the USGP in there to educate all those F1 fans to the fact there is real, world class racing going on!

[r1owner]

The Ferrari aspect came into play because all the owners except Ferrari agreed to go along with installing the chicane - Ferrari effectively blocked that idea.

Everything I've heard indicates that the FIA had already nixxed the chicane idea before even talking to the Ferrari team.

IMO, it all lies on Michelin.  They did not prepare for the race properly.  That being said, I think the FIA should have bent the rules and installed the chicane and let them race.  If any Bridgestone team was unhappy with the results, they could protest.

I'll ask the same question the commentators did.... Would this big of a deal have been made had Bridgestone had the tire problem instead of Michelin?  I doubt it.

[Zac]

I don't blame the Bridgestone teams for nixing the chicane idea.  Basically, the Michelin teams said "we are uncompetative at this track, can we change the track so we are competative?"  

If you show up with tires that don't work at the track, and the rules don't let you change - YOU LOSE!

It's the same as a team finding that their engines blow up at half race distance, and asking for the race to be shortened.  It's not going to happen.

Safety is most important and I can't blame the teams for pulling out after Michelin told them to.  But they still lose.  Bridgestone had a better tire (or maybe they didn't admit to a problem, but I won't go there) and deserved to win.  It would be unfair to Bridgestone to take that away.

I think the blame rests with Michelin.  The FIA just followed the rules.  It's too bad for everyone else (fans, sponsers, etc), but it's racing and that happens sometimes.  

Maybe the F1 teams will remeber this when the negotiate their tire deals for next year...

-z.

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

Anyone remember the F1 race in Spain in 03 when Bridgestone only brought intermediates to the race and it POURED? Michelin was the only ones who brought full rains. FIA had teh pace car out on the track holding their speed down until the track dried.

If this was Bridgestone that had the tire problems now, FIA would had done everything in its power to keep the Ferarri teams racing.

[Burt Munro]

from the FIA website)


FIA reveal Michelin team charges
 
The seven Michelin teams who pulled out of Sunday's race at Indianapolis are to face charges of breaching the International Sporting Code by committing "one or more acts prejudicial to the interests of a competition, namely the 2005 United States Grand Prix, and/or to the interests of motor sport generally."  
 
    
In identical letters to the seven team bosses published by the FIA on Tuesday, Formula One's governing body, who has summoned the teams to appear before the World Motor Sport Council next Wednesday, listed a number of charges.

The charges given are that, according to the FIA, each team:

• failed to ensure that they had a supply of suitable tyres for the race
• wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race
• wrongfully refused to allow their cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as they had available
• combined with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race
• failed to notify the stewards of their intention not to race, in breach of Article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Article 131 states: "The starting grid will be published four hours before the race. Any competitor whose car(s) is (are) unable to start for any reason whatsoever (or who has good reason to believe that their car(s) will not be ready to start) must inform the stewards accordingly at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, no later than 45 minutes before the start of the race."

The FIA told the teams they will be sent a full dossier of the charges within the next 24 hours and invited them to send any comments they should have in writing prior to their meeting with the Council in Paris on June 29.

[Burt Munro]

Jun 21, 8:42 AM EDT

F1 says Michelin teams damaged reputation

By JEROME PUGMIRE
AP Sports Writer
  
PARIS (AP) -- Formula One's governing body has charged the seven teams using Michelin tires with damaging the sport's image by pulling out of this past weekend's United States Grand Prix in Indianapolis.

The FIA, which has summoned the seven teams to a June 29 hearing in Paris, charged each team with a breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code.

The FIA released copies Tuesday of letters it sent to Renault, McLaren-Mercedes, Toyota, Williams-BMW, BAR-Honda, Sauber and Red Bull.

The charges include failing to ensure they had a suitable set of tires, wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to start the race, wrongfully refusing to allow their cars to race subject to a speed restriction and combining with other teams "to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race."
  
The teams also were accused of failing to notify stewards of their intention not to race.

Possible sanctions include fines, docked points or even an order to pay compensation.

Michelin provides seven of the 10 F1 teams with tires. Only six cars - using Bridgestone tires - started the race in Indianapolis on Sunday after 14 drivers left the track following the warmup lap. Ferrari's Michael Schumacher won, climbing from his car to a chorus of boos.

The same seven teams were among the nine teams that boycotted meetings called by FIA president Max Mosley in January and April to discuss regulations for the 2008 season. It was unclear whether they'll attend the June 29 meeting.
    
Two Michelin tires failed during Friday's practices - one causing a wreck that prevented Toyota's Ralf Schumacher from competing - prompting Michelin to rule its tires were unsafe for the Indianapolis track.

Michelin unsuccessfully asked FIA to ease its rule forbidding teams from changing tires after qualifying. FIA also refused to consider installing a curve that Michelin said would slow speeds and make the track safer for its tires. Michelin then advised its teams not to compete.

"We are absolutely not embarrassed about our decision, although we do have regrets for the fans of Formula One and for the racing drivers of course," Frederic Henry-Biabaud, Michelin's deputy director of competition, said Monday.

"We feel it is a reasonable decision and we were professional to bear in mind primarily the safety of the drivers," Henry-Biabaud said. "We had no other choice."

 

[Burt Munro]

The decision of 7 teams not to race Sunday could have as much to do with internal issues within F1 as anything.....

Formula One is starkly divided.

In one camp is Max Mosley, the president of racing's world governing body, the FIA. He is joined by F1's multibillionaire commercial director, Bernie Ecclestone, and by Ferrari - the sport's most powerful team.
  
In the other camp are the nine remaining teams, and key Formula One manufacturers BMW, Mercedes and Renault. The group is considering running a breakaway series in 2008, and also has the support of Japan's two manufacturers in F1 - Toyota and Honda.

After two Michelin tires failed in Friday's practice sessions for the U.S. Grand Prix - one causing a wreck that prevented Toyota's Ralf Schumacher from competing - Michelin said its tires were unsafe for Indianapolis.

Michelin wanted a curve installed going into turn 13, slowing the cars and sparing the tires. Nine of the 10 teams backed the French tire company. But Mosley and Ferrari were opposed. Seven of F1's 10 teams use Michelin tires, with Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi running on Bridgestone.

Mosley has been playing hardball with the nine renegade teams, and the five manufacturers, ever since they boycotted meetings called by him in January and April to discuss regulations for the 2008 season. On Monday, the FIA summoned the seven teams that use Michelin tires to a hearing June 29.

Minardi team owner Paul Stoddart, who serves as spokesman for the nine teams, has called for Mosley to resign. Ecclestone's former lawyer and friend, Mosley has been accused of being dictatorial. Stoddart has called for "more transparency in how F1 is run, a precise regulatory process and a stable and consistent way the rules are applied."

The teams also want a bigger cut.

Formula One teams have complained that Ecclestone shares too little of the sport's commercial rights income, which was estimated at $800 million in 2003. Teams receive about 23 percent. Ecclestone has amassed a fortune estimated at $3.7 billion in three decades of running F1.

Joie Chitwood, CEO and president of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, called Sunday's fiasco in Indianapolis a dark day for the sport.

"Obviously, we are as disappointed over this event as anything that we've had in our history," he said.

Asked how it would affect F1's future in the U.S, he replied: "I would say it is a major setback."

[gma]

To turn this back to the original question ...

"Who suffered the biggest black eye in Public Relations?"

The fans - for their reaction of entitlement.

There's a cultural problem that people think they're entitled to everything - including a show.

F1 is not a show.

It is a sporting competition operated by a private entity. We have the choice of attending or watching or not. Buying a ticket to the event obligates the event to nothing beyond granting you access to the event to observe what occurs - regardless of what occurs.

Human drama at events like this come in all forms - your hero wins, loses, becomes injured, doesn't compete due to the flu or has to depart before the contest to be with an ailing parent. It rains and events are cancelled or postponed. Terrorist threats alter or cancel events. Competing nearby events split the talent pool and there aren't enough entries to justify a full payback. Some rookie wins the race. It goes on and on. All of this is life and competition and human drama – embrace the privilege of experiencing it and learning from it – or not.

Our ticket is the action of being witness to what occurs - regardless of the outcome. It guarantees us nothing and it does NOT justify angry, irresponsible and juvenile reactions derived from the misplaced emotion of feeling disrespected, jaded or denied. We are entitled to nothing but the opportunity to spectate.

Everything that occurred made sense. Everything that occurred was right. Everything that occurred was fair. Though positions differ, these details will be sorted out in time, but it's not our affair other than to offer an opinion, discuss and learn ... learn ...

But to break it down, the first shortcoming was the Michelin teams' failure to bring adequate equipment. No one else in the situation was obligated to alter anything to accommodate this shortcoming. The rules - as they stand now - justify the actions of everyone else who disagreed to bend for the sake of the Michelin teams.

We can have the opinion that everyone else was mean in not making some change to permit all cars to start, but remember - the rules are what are right and 'right is fair'.

We can say that people were mean in not doing something in order to put on a 20 car show. Remember – as I wrote above, F1 is not a show. No party had the obligation to guarantee the audience a 20-car event.

In short, the losers on the PR end are the people who don't yet have their hands around the neck of the concept that we can control so little of what happens and only how we react to it.

I won't spew here beyond this. I'll be producing a cast on this and will offer the link here for those who would like to listen.

Thx for reading.

HW

[Burt Munro]

Buying a ticket to the event obligates the event to nothing beyond granting you access to the event to observe what occurs - regardless of what occurs.

 

I strongly disagree!

Yes, we buy a ticket to observe what occurs.  There is a certain level of expectation that creates the value of the ticket.  

You buy a ticket to a High School basketball game with a certain level of the performance you will witness.  The expectation is consistant with the cost of the ticket - say $4 for a HS game.

You buy a ticket to the College Final Four in Basketball and have a different level of expectation and consequently a higher price to the ticket - let's say $250.  

When you purchase a ticket to the Formula 1 US Grand Prix you have a certain level of expectation of what you will observe.  If 14 cars crashed out and there were only 6 cars running at the end, you have no control over that.  If 20 cars start the preview lap and 14 pull off in unison, prior to the green flag, it's another situation completely.  

How much information were the fans given regarding this situation prior to the start of the race?  My understanding is that it was a complete surprise to those outside of the pit area.  Did they have sufficient information to make a judgement call as to whether the price of the ticket matched the intended value? I don't believe so.

I could go on and on with analogies related to perceived value, but I'm sure you get my point.  Yes, we have no control over the ultimate outcome of a race.  But a ticket holder is entitled to view an event that meets the value of the ticket - not an orchestrated political statement that is in effect a boycott.

[gma]

Good points, RWB,

but ...

" How much information were the fans given regarding this situation prior to the start of the race?  My understanding is that it was a complete surprise to those outside of the pit area. "

They knew. No one I spoke with was in the dark leading up to the event.

Even as the pit lane opened 15 minutes prior to start, the six Bridgestone cars immediately took the sighting lap and stopped on the grid. The balance of the field took their time and came very close to the closure of the pit lane exit, but all formed on the grid. This created confusion with many fans as many thought the 14 wouldn't race at all, but again; the ones I spoke with knew and understood what the issue was. It was explained very clearly over the track PA and almost everyone is in cellular communication with people in front of a TV. They knew.

Now ...

Here's the weird thing ...

20 cars started the 2005 USGP.

'Starting the race' is defined as assuming your spot on the grid. Note that the classification listed the 14 as 'out' - not 'dns'. Technically, they competed. They simply retired of their own volition after concluding that their equipment was not fit for the contest.

So ...

We DID get a 20 car start ... technically.

Ticket value ...

It's worth what you can get for it.

Period.

Tickets to Lebron James' high school game were in the hundreds of dollars because that's what the market would bear.

At the end of the day, regardless of what was paid for a ticket, the reality of the ticket does not change - it represents your permission to be at the event. It is not a contract of obligation on the part of the event to the ticket holder to conduct the event in a manner to the liking or dislike of the spectator. F1 and the competitors conducted the USGP in accordance with what was permitted by the rules that govern the operation of F1 - a private entity.

BTW, ...

Should Champ Car have sent the drivers onto the Fort Worth oval even though some were blacking out just for the sake of putting on a show? Should they have reset the blow-off valves so everyone was down 100 HP? Should they have added three or four chicanes? The fans that weekend got what they paid for - a motorsports contest. The outcome and what transpired was unusual, but the event still happened.

Good point, though. I'm glad you raised it. Thank you for doing so.

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

The decision of 7 teams not to race Sunday could have as much to do with internal issues within F1 as anything.....

Formula One is starkly divided.

In one camp is Max Mosley, the president of racing's world governing body, the FIA. He is joined by F1's multibillionaire commercial director, Bernie Ecclestone, and by Ferrari - the sport's most powerful team.
  
In the other camp are the nine remaining teams, and key Formula One manufacturers BMW, Mercedes and Renault. The group is considering running a breakaway series in 2008, and also has the support of Japan's two manufacturers in F1 - Toyota and Honda.

After two Michelin tires failed in Friday's practice sessions for the U.S. Grand Prix - one causing a wreck that prevented Toyota's Ralf Schumacher from competing - Michelin said its tires were unsafe for Indianapolis.

Michelin wanted a curve installed going into turn 13, slowing the cars and sparing the tires. Nine of the 10 teams backed the French tire company. But Mosley and Ferrari were opposed. Seven of F1's 10 teams use Michelin tires, with Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi running on Bridgestone.

Mosley has been playing hardball with the nine renegade teams, and the five manufacturers, ever since they boycotted meetings called by him in January and April to discuss regulations for the 2008 season. On Monday, the FIA summoned the seven teams that use Michelin tires to a hearing June 29.

Minardi team owner Paul Stoddart, who serves as spokesman for the nine teams, has called for Mosley to resign. Ecclestone's former lawyer and friend, Mosley has been accused of being dictatorial. Stoddart has called for "more transparency in how F1 is run, a precise regulatory process and a stable and consistent way the rules are applied."

The teams also want a bigger cut.

Formula One teams have complained that Ecclestone shares too little of the sport's commercial rights income, which was estimated at $800 million in 2003. Teams receive about 23 percent. Ecclestone has amassed a fortune estimated at $3.7 billion in three decades of running F1.

Joie Chitwood, CEO and president of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, called Sunday's fiasco in Indianapolis a dark day for the sport.

"Obviously, we are as disappointed over this event as anything that we've had in our history," he said.

Asked how it would affect F1's future in the U.S, he replied: "I would say it is a major setback."
 

Gotta link to that story?

[Burt Munro]

Trying to find the link.... I remember that it was an AP story and that I couldn't copy the link because it was protected.  I'll keep trying to find it!

[Scott]

All I know is, I've never been more rivited to the TV for an F1 race than I was during the pre-race coverage up to the actual start of the race.  If nothing else, it was way more interesting than most F1 races!

[Burt Munro]

Actually the story was from CBS Sportsline

http://cbs.sportsline.com/autoracing/story/8581180

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

Actually the story was from CBS Sportsline

http://cbs.sportsline.com/autoracing/story/8581180

Thanks