News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:15 pm**

IMHO that would be something competely separate from what the FIA rules. Those class actions would be in the civil courts and they may go after Bernie as he's got the most money

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:46 pm**

JayVee wrote:IMHO that would be something competely separate from what the FIA rules. Those class actions would be in the civil courts and they may go after Bernie as he's got the most money

They will go after any one involbved, but if the 6 teams were aquitted, then the only "guilty" party left standing would be red Bull, and they would therefore be the obvious one to sue under the legal systems in place in the states of USA.

It may be trivial, but it is none the less, the reason that Red Bull had to appeal as well.

Any suit brought against a party having been found not guilty, will have little credence in the eyes of a court. The way that the system is set up, meant that the FIA could only go after the teams, and not after Michelin.

I am sure we can disagree about the 2005 USGP for many many years, my view is that it was 100% the fault of Michelin.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:56 pm**

I concur

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:58 pm**

I agree with K-D here,that it was Michelin's fault in the first place.

Anyway,let not start that discussion here.

Can anyone tell me,what if the 6 teams were acquitted & Red Bull werent involved in that hearing,& so the entire blame would be transfered to them -
Would Red Bull get a chance to appeal for themself seperately?? Or its mandatoy to appeal together???Or is there a time frame in which all the teams found guilty should make an appeal??

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:10 pm**

You guys are getting mixed up.

It is like the Criminal court and civil court. A party can be guilty in one but not guility in the other.

The FIA's rules have no effect whatsoever in a civil court.

K-D you still can't explain why Red Bull took 5 days to appeal if that was the reason as you claim.

And the discussion wasn't about Michelin's fault or not. I don't know why you bring it up. But since you have, did you notice the change in the regs to the tyres proposed by the FIA. That is a clear acknowledgement that they stuffed up.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:17 pm**

Can some1 answer my question also??

what if the 6 teams were acquitted & Red Bull werent involved in that hearing,& so the entire blame would be transfered to them -
Would Red Bull get a chance to appeal for themself seperately?? Or its mandatoy to appeal together???Or is there a time frame in which all the teams found guilty should make an appeal??

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:52 pm**

Kapel wrote:Can some1 answer my question also??

what if the 6 teams were acquitted & Red Bull werent involved in that hearing,& so the entire blame would be transfered to them -
Would Red Bull get a chance to appeal for themself seperately?? Or its mandatoy to appeal together???Or is there a time frame in which all the teams found guilty should make an appeal??

Damn, there is never a K-D, or a JV when you really need one.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:57 pm**

so True

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:03 pm**

Kapel wrote:so True

Perhaps they are scared. Legal arguments and all

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:59 pm**

Red Bull can chose either appealing own their own, or go with the other six this time.

It is not about the entire blame being transferred to them. Red Bull did not show at all at the first hearing, they had no representatives present, and initially noted the peanlties handed out, and did not appeal immediately. There were a number of mixed signals from Red Bull, they would, they would not, they might appeal.

I expect that they have had their corporate legal team read up on the relevant Indiana State laws, as well as the federal laws dealing with collusion. The legal team have then recommended an appeal, as by not appealing they could become the only party left standing with a penalty meeted out for the various problems at the 2005 USGP.

This would make Red Bull the most obvious party to challenge in a court in the USA, and Red Bull have therefore decided to appeal, like the other teams did.

JayVee the reason that I bring Michelin in, is that the start of the problems were the tires supplied by Michelin, and had Michelin brought in tires that could have been raced at the track, inthe configuration of the track, there would not have been a problem.

This case degenerated down to the teams, as the FIA can not challenge Michelin under their own rules and regulations, they can only go after the teams.

Michelin have admitted a certain degree of culpability by suggesting to refund the tickets for the 2005 USGP. This in my personal views makes them culpable in the matters outside the original scope of the USGP, and I see them possibly opening themselves up for a class action suit in the courts of Indiana.

Yes I have seen the suggestions to the tire regulations, and not I absolutely do not agree that this show the FIA admitting any guilt at the 2005 USGP:

The FIA steadfastly refused to break the rules and regulations covering the 2005 F1 championships, but they can obviously see that a change of the rules, can avoid a similar case in the future.

I think that covers the questions.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:20 pm**

K-D wrote:This case degenerated down to the teams, as the FIA can not challenge Michelin under their own rules and regulations, they can only go after the teams.

Who allows Michelin to be in F1 in the first place ? Who sets the tyre rules ? The FIA has the ultimate responsibility and in Indy they were caught out and they just want someone to blame.

K-D wrote:Yes I have seen the suggestions to the tire regulations, and not I absolutely do not agree that this show the FIA admitting any guilt at the 2005 USGP:

The FIA steadfastly refused to break the rules and regulations covering the 2005 F1 championships, but they can obviously see that a change of the rules, can avoid a similar case in the future.

See they set the rules but avoid responsibility then go and quietly change the rules. Did the FIA ever claim they stuffed up with anything ?

If you have the power to set the rules, you are also responsible for those rules. Simple really and that applies everywhere except for the FIA

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:39 am**

..
Who allows Michelin to be in F1 in the first place ? Who sets the tyre rules ? The FIA has the ultimate responsibility and in Indy they were caught out and they just want someone to blame.

Any tire manufacture will be allowed to supply tiers to the F1 teams, if they abide by the rules and regulations governing F1. The FIA have the responsibility to have the races performed according to the rules and regulations in place, they have to reject suggestions to the rules and regulations, suggested by a parts manufacture during the race meeting.

It is the responsability of the tire manufacturer to supply it's contracted teams with tires that can perform during the race meeting, according to the rules and regulations governing F1.

If the tire manufacturer discovers thatr it's tires can not perform accordingly, the rules in place governing F1 explain how the manufacturer can withdraw it's tiers.

Michelin DID NOT FORMALLY WITDRAW ITS TIRES; THEREFORE IT IS 100% MICHELINS FAULT AN RESPONSABILITY. It seems that your dislike for some of the persons involved in this matter, cloud you better judgement. You continue to fault a regulatory body, for insisting that the even is conducted according to the rules in place.

See they set the rules but avoid responsibility then go and quietly change the rules. Did the FIA ever claim they stuffed up with anything ?

If you have the power to set the rules, you are also responsible for those rules. Simple really and that applies everywhere except for the FIA.

They have to insist on the rules being followed, the parts manufacturer wanted the rules changed, and they did no follow the rules in place. It is obvious (or should be to most), that the FIA would rather have had an option, whereby the farce at the USGP was avoided, and in order to give th stewards more leeway, were a similar situation to ever occur again, that have suggested new rules.

NO!! The FIA can not just implemnet rules, they need the rules to be suggested, discussed and agreed upon by the teams, this is part of the current Concorde agreement, and most changes can only be implemented through the unanimous agreement of all teams.

The FIA did not fail at the USGP, the rules and regulations AND!! the failure of Michelin combined in the farce. But the rules and regulations were there to be followed, and Michelin would not let the rules of "Force Majeure" come into play.

Posted: **Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:16 pm**

K-D wrote:It is the responsability of the tire manufacturer to supply it's contracted teams with tires that can perform during the race meeting, according to the rules and regulations governing F1.

If the tire manufacturer discovers thatr it's tires can not perform accordingly, the rules in place governing F1 explain how the manufacturer can withdraw it's tiers.

Michelin DID NOT FORMALLY WITDRAW ITS TIRES; THEREFORE IT IS 100% MICHELINS FAULT AN RESPONSABILITY. It seems that your dislike for some of the persons involved in this matter, cloud you better judgement. You continue to fault a regulatory body, for insisting that the even is conducted according to the rules in place.

Before getting into excuses of being clouded and what not, kindly point me to those rules in place by the FIA that explain how the manufacturer can withdraw it's tyres ?

K-D wrote: They have to insist on the rules being followed, the parts manufacturer wanted the rules changed, and they did no follow the rules in place. It is obvious (or should be to most), that the FIA would rather have had an option, whereby the farce at the USGP was avoided, and in order to give th stewards more leeway, were a similar situation to ever occur again, that have suggested new rules.

Exactly what I am saying, the FIA in their infinite wisdom can only react after the fact.
Remember earlier this year when the FIA didn't think they needed to close the loophole of teams retiring their cars for a fresh engine.

K-D wrote:NO!! The FIA can not just implemnet rules, they need the rules to be suggested, discussed and agreed upon by the teams, this is part of the current Concorde agreement, and most changes can only be implemented through the unanimous agreement of all teams.

Seriously K-D, the FIA have forced many rules as for 'safety' reasons. But only when Max wants

K-D wrote: The FIA did not fail at the USGP, the rules and regulations AND!! the failure of Michelin combined in the farce. But the rules and regulations were there to be followed, and Michelin would not let the rules of "Force Majeure" come into play.

Again kindly point me to what the rules of "Force Majeure" are in this case ?

Posted: **Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:09 am**

JayVee wrote:
K-D wrote:It is the responsability of the tire manufacturer to supply it's contracted teams with tires that can perform during the race meeting, according to the rules and regulations governing F1.

If the tire manufacturer discovers thatr it's tires can not perform accordingly, the rules in place governing F1 explain how the manufacturer can withdraw it's tiers.

Michelin DID NOT FORMALLY WITDRAW ITS TIRES; THEREFORE IT IS 100% MICHELINS FAULT AN RESPONSABILITY. It seems that your dislike for some of the persons involved in this matter, cloud you better judgement. You continue to fault a regulatory body, for insisting that the even is conducted according to the rules in place.
Before getting into excuses of being clouded and what not, kindly point me to those rules in place by the FIA that explain how the manufacturer can withdraw it's tyres ?

I need to go look for it again, it's there though - I will revert on that.

K-D wrote: They have to insist on the rules being followed, the parts manufacturer wanted the rules changed, and they did no follow the rules in place. It is obvious (or should be to most), that the FIA would rather have had an option, whereby the farce at the USGP was avoided, and in order to give th stewards more leeway, were a similar situation to ever occur again, that have suggested new rules.
Exactly what I am saying, the FIA in their infinite wisdom can only react after the fact.
Remember earlier this year when the FIA didn't think they needed to close the loophole of teams retiring their cars for a fresh engine.

The FIA like any regulatory body have to insist that the rules and regulations in place are followed.

They did this.

There is nothing wrong in finding a need for differently worded rules, or re-written rules caused by the interpretation being to open.

According to the current Concorde agreement, technical regulations can ionly be changed by the teams technical directors.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

K-D wrote:NO!! The FIA can not just implemnet rules, they need the rules to be suggested, discussed and agreed upon by the teams, this is part of the current Concorde agreement, and most changes can only be implemented through the unanimous agreement of all teams.
Seriously K-D, the FIA have forced many rules as for 'safety' reasons. But only when Max wants

No sure what you mean.

K-D wrote: The FIA did not fail at the USGP, the rules and regulations AND!! the failure of Michelin combined in the farce. But the rules and regulations were there to be followed, and Michelin would not let the rules of "Force Majeure" come into play.
Again kindly point me to what the rules of "Force Majeure" are in this case ?

I am repeating myself from the beginning, and will need to find it once more. I will revert.

Posted: **Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:26 am**

shouldn't all this be in the Indy thread, so the rest of us can keep on getting over it ?

News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

Coulthard signs with Red Bull for 2006