Jump to content


Photo

What is happening to the GPDA?


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,173 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:00

Massa is the latest driver who leaves the GPDA:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/67239

"I agree with the good things the GPDA does and I was part of it, but I left because I didn't always like the way it was run," Massa was quoted as saying by Gazzetta dello Sport.



For more than a decade the GPDA was doing fine. Will it collapse now? Maybe the directors don't do their job well enough, or simply don't have the natural authority to lead and represent the others in this?

Advertisement

#2 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:07

Gosh. So that's another ******* for Kar to villify.

#3 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:14

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Gosh. So that's another ******* for Kar to villify.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

#4 kismet

kismet
  • Member

  • 6,997 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:21

Judging by the tone of Trulli's comments the other day, and assuming his words represent the general atmosphere within the GPDA, I can totally see why some drivers would want nothing to do with the organisation.

#5 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:23

Massa at least has a reason, Hamilton says he's too busy (being strung around like a fairy :)), Raikkonen I don't think even bothers with an excuse he just doesn't want to be involved.

Massa specifically cites an issue with the 'running' of the organisation be it politics or whatever.

It's interesting though. One wonders, perhaps, if the organisation is getting too politically involved in things for some members.

#6 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:26

Originally posted by kar
Massa at least has a reason, Hamilton says he's too busy (being strung around like a fairy :)), Raikkonen I don't think even bothers with an excuse he just doesn't want to be involved.

Massa specifically cites an issue with the 'running' of the organisation be it politics or whatever.

It's interesting though. One wonders, perhaps, if the organisation is getting too politically involved in things for some members.


Maybe the other drivers feel the same, but are too polite to say it. IMHO I don't see why one drivers reason is any more or less valid than anothers.

#7 K-One

K-One
  • Member

  • 5,908 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:27

There might be some rift between Alonso and Massa - Webbo and Pdlr are pro Alonso as well

#8 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:31

Originally posted by kar
Massa at least has a reason, Hamilton says he's too busy (being strung around like a fairy :)), Raikkonen I don't think even bothers with an excuse he just doesn't want to be involved.

Massa has an entirely bogus 'reason'. If he doesn't like the way it is run, but has no other issues, then the thing to do is to speak up and try to ensure it is run the way he likes.

#9 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:34

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Massa has an entirely bogus 'reason'. If he doesn't like the way it is run, but has no other issues, then the thing to do is to speak up and try to ensure it is run the way he likes.


That is not too unfair a point I guess.

That said, if you feel like your voice is a 'lone one' of dissent it can feel futile arguing against those that are in the more prominent positions of power.

Either way, I think the lid now is slightly off to something going on, one way or another, inside the organisation.

#10 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:37

My guess? The GPDA leaders want to say something about Spankygate and Massa wants to maintain the Ferrari company line.

Speculation of course.

#11 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:40

I dont see what the problem is, if you dont want to be in it, dont be in it,

I dont think you you need any others drivers whining at you about it tho, just seems like a bunch of old women to me

#12 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:50

Originally posted by Buttoneer
My guess? The GPDA leaders want to say something about Spankygate and Massa wants to maintain the Ferrari company line.

Speculation of course.


I thought the same and was going to post along those lines but didn't want to derail this topic toward that one at all :)

#13 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:56

I'd be quite surprised if the GPDA did speak out on it to be honest, I think they'd leave that to the individual team bosses to be involved in the political side of matters. Since the team bosses can't agree on a joint statement, I doubt the GPDA would stick its head above the parapet and do it for them. Just my humble opinion.

#14 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 12:57

Originally posted by Buttoneer
My guess? The GPDA leaders want to say something about Spankygate and Massa wants to maintain the Ferrari company line.

Speculation of course.


That's exactly what we need - another political entity. Wonder how long it will take before GPDA demands to be one of the signatories of the Concorde-agreement...

Just taking the speculation a bit further.

Motormedia

#15 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:00

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Massa has an entirely bogus 'reason'. If he doesn't like the way it is run, but has no other issues, then the thing to do is to speak up and try to ensure it is run the way he likes.


He's too small, they wouldn't hear him.

#16 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:01

Originally posted by Chiara
I'd be quite surprised if the GPDA did speak out on it to be honest, I think they'd leave that to the individual team bosses to be involved in the political side of matters. Since the team bosses can't agree on a joint statement, I doubt the GPDA would stick its head above the parapet and do it for them. Just my humble opinion.

Webber has already come out and said something for himself. Since he's pretty influential, I wouldn't be surprised if he was pushing the matter to the fore.

The GPDA is already somewhat politicised though, because they need to have an influence with the track owners, the teams and the FIA. There's a balance to be struck and what is that if it is not political?

Quite what they might have to say about spankygate is anyone's guess but I suppose they could mention that their safety concerns are not being listened too while the FIA tries to sort out its own house(?)

#17 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:12

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Webber has already come out and said something for himself. Since he's pretty influential, I wouldn't be surprised if he was pushing the matter to the fore.

The GPDA is already somewhat politicised though, because they need to have an influence with the track owners, the teams and the FIA. There's a balance to be struck and what is that if it is not political?

Quite what they might have to say about spankygate is anyone's guess but I suppose they could mention that their safety concerns are not being listened too while the FIA tries to sort out its own house(?)


Who do they usually take issues up with Max or Charlie Whiting? I thought it was Max (well he's always coming out the woodwork to tell them to shut up) so I suppose in the context of the current situation there might be an issue with their safety concerns not being acted upon.

However, why would Felipe feel the need to leave? it's not like its going to have his name at the top of a joint statement is it?

My opinion on the Ferrari thing is that LdM and Jean Todt have already nailed their colours to the mast on behalf of Ferrari, but Stefano Domenicali has side stepped making comment and I believe that is more to do with the fact he doesn't see its his place and has no interest in making comments on other people's behaviour, his primary interest is running his team and keeping out of personal politics. Didn't Norbert Haug make some comment to that effect about him?

#18 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,715 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:12

Originally posted by Buttoneer
My guess? The GPDA leaders want to say something about Spankygate and Massa wants to maintain the Ferrari company line.

Speculation of course.


The GPDA has no business making comments on this issue, not if they stick to what is written in their constitution.

#19 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:12

What ever the reason, the GPDA now has the top three drivers not part of its organisation. Given that those top three drivers would overwhelmingly bankroll the organisation, that's a pretty big deal to its balance sheet.

Whether for pragmatic, political, or simply financial reasons the GPDA needs to address whatever concerns these three drivers have (and perhaps Sutil's too) if it is to be a truly 'Grandprix Drivers Association'.

After all, if the three most competitive drivers in your sport are too busy, don't care, or don't like the management that is a must-fix problem for the organisation to resolve.

Advertisement

#20 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:17

What does the GPDA actually do with the cash?

#21 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:19

Originally posted by Hacklerf
What does the GPDA actually do with the cash?


[Joke]Hire people to set up max maybe ;)[/joke]

#22 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:21

Max and the GPDA 2006 (my bolding)...

"Angered about the GPDA’s complaints concerning the Monza circuit earlier this year, the FIA president wrote the driver union a letter warning its directors to leave the issue of safety to experts.

“We will always listen to drivers, but the decisions must be ours,” Mosley wrote in his latest column for the British magazine F1 Racing, amid drivers’ new threats to boycott tests because of lagging safety.

“And if we have to lose a race or two or a few licences to make a point, we will. It will be better for the sport in the long run.”

66-year-old Mosley hit out at some drivers’ response to his initial warning about interfering, presumably including David Coulthard’s insistence that the GPDA would not be “intimidated” by the FIA.

Mosley wrote: “Not the most intelligent of responses, you may think, to a gentle warning. "

http://formula1sport...ip-f1-licences/

#23 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:21

Originally posted by Hacklerf
What does the GPDA actually do with the cash?


I think until last year they were the ones paying for circuit safety marshals at tests.

They also have a full time secretary and office somewhere.

They must have a budget of about a million or so $, so since most of their expenses are in £ or € that isn't actually a lot of money.

#24 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:23

Originally posted by kar


I think until last year they were the ones paying for circuit safety marshals at tests.

They also have a full time secretary and office somewhere.

They must have a budget of about a million or so $, so since most of their expenses are in £ or € that isn't actually a lot of money.


I thought marshals were all unpaid.

#25 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:24

Originally posted by Josta


I thought marshals were all unpaid.


I should have been clearer, I'm thinking like safety personnel, ambulances, medical experts, etc.

#26 prxty

prxty
  • Member

  • 427 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:29

Actually Massa thinks that he would get like Kimi and Lewis if he is not in the GPDA. :lol:

In any case, if three of four of the drivers of the best two teams are not part of the organization and only one other driver is not in I see it more a problem of this drivers / teams than the other way round.

Probably they should be given a Force India and start in the middle of the pack with plenty of monkeys around in order to care more about safety.

For me it shows only how selfish and stupid are some of the drivers that want "the others" to do the work for them. :down:

But at least Massa was in and he has an alibi. The others that never joined it don't merit much sympathy if they broke their legs in an accident. Like Germans say "selber Schuld".

#27 intelligentsia

intelligentsia
  • Member

  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:32

Originally posted by kar
Massa at least has a reason, Hamilton says he's too busy (being strung around like a fairy :)), Raikkonen I don't think even bothers with an excuse he just doesn't want to be involved.

Massa specifically cites an issue with the 'running' of the organisation be it politics or whatever.

It's interesting though. One wonders, perhaps, if the organisation is getting too politically involved in things for some members.


I seem to recall a while back Kimi said that he didn't want to join the GPDA because he is not interested in politics.

#28 FonzCam

FonzCam
  • Member

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:35

Originally posted by kar

They must have a budget of about a million or so $, so since most of their expenses are in £ or € that isn't actually a lot of money.


A million? I thought it was $1,000 (maybe now euros) per driver then $200 per point. (see http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/67196)

So with a 20 car grid and all drivers as members it would be

$20,000 for drivers then
39 points a race * 18 races = $140,400

So a total budget of $160,400. Even if it's now Euros not USD then it's still quite a bit short of a million USD

So for last year you can remove the 3 drivers ($3,000) and the 220 points ($44,000) so last year it was just over $110,000. You can knock another $20k off for Massa so I can see why they might be worried about their finances since most of it comes from the drivers who score points.

#29 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:35

Originally posted by kar


I should have been clearer, I'm thinking like safety personnel, ambulances, medical experts, etc.


I believe the medical personnel/equipment at each event is paid for out of the FIA funds actually. Part of the cost of a drivers super license probably.



#30 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,457 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:36

Originally posted by prxty

But at least Massa was in and he has an alibi. The others that never joined it don't merit much sympathy if they broke their legs in an accident.

Nice attitude. None of them have a reasonable excuse, not even Massa.

#31 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:40

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/67196

Trulli the other day more ore less said, they want the money from drivers, even if those don't want to make any decisions for the GPDA. Frankly, I'd left as well. Showing a bit more respect for others would not hurt at all.

And one still needs only 26 soldiers (the alphabet, for those who don't know) to bring change

#32 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:46

Originally posted by Chiara


I believe the medical personnel/equipment at each event is paid for out of the FIA funds actually. Part of the cost of a drivers super license probably.


I think that was a bone of contention between the FIA and the GPDA until recently, the lack of real safety resources at tests. The interim solution was the GPDA would pay for it out of their own pockets. Later the FIA came to the party.

The FIA's initial position was testing was outside its jurisdiction. But with the introduction of testing limits the FIA could see a reasonable way to bankroll the safety side of things at group tests.

I'm unsure what happens at private tests such as the one Ferrari conduct at Bahrain from time to time.

#33 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:47

I had to refresh my memory, Pedro de la Rosa is chairman, with directors Webbo and Fernando.

They each have their reasons for disliking Max, so maybe that is it. Or maybe they are a bit of a clique?

Surprising to me, anyway, that Felipe was so fed up. Pedro seems such an easygoing guy. But Felipe has a bit of a temper doesn't he (Fernando...) so perhaps there was a bit of a row over something.

I suppose they are rather like the team principals - in F1 because they are strong, aggressive, determined etc., so not surprising really if they have occasional bust-ups too :p .

#34 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:49

Just to reference my comments above

Formula One drivers have succeeded in their plans to get improved safety at tests after agreeing a plan of action at a meeting of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) on Friday.

The drivers have been pushing teams and the FIA to improve medical facilities at tests, because they are worried that safety is not as good as it is at Grands Prix.

Following recent meetings with teams, the GPDA have now agreed to pay for the improvements themselves in the short term before the costs are passed onto the teams.


http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/52302

#35 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:50

Originally posted by prxty
Probably they should be given a Force India and start in the middle of the pack with plenty of monkeys around in order to care more about safety.

Interestingly there are 2 drivers that had an accident almost every race this season. Sutil, and DC. DC is the interesting one. DC vs. Wurz accident last year are part of the reason for this years race accidents of DC. So safety improvements are not always a real step forward. Regardless who promotes them.

If I could do one thing for the GPDA then to suggest that Kovalainen becomes president. His comments on his accident showed regard for what has bee done by others bodies as sufficient for his accident and at the same time pointing out, that there is always room for improvements, without coming across pushy. That indicates to me that he has some diplomatic skills, which the GPDA IMO had been lacking for the last few years.

After all improving saftey is a work that involves many different bodies, expertises, working withe ach other, not against each other. The drivers obviously are those who find out if the latest concepts work, but that doesn't mean that they are experts at demanding or designing track improvements. There is more than F1 racing going on on mnay tracks. And what might be great for F1 is very often wrong for MotoGP for example.

#36 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 13:57

Originally posted by HP
Interestingly there are 2 drivers that had an accident almost every race this season. Sutil, and DC. DC is the interesting one. DC vs. Wurz accident last year are part of the reason for this years race accidents of DC. So safety improvements are not always a real step forward. Regardless who promotes them.

If I could do one thing for the GPDA then to suggest that Kovalainen becomes president. His comments on his accident showed regard for what has bee done by others bodies as sufficient for his accident and at the same time pointing out, that there is always room for improvements, without coming across pushy. That indicates to me that he has some diplomatic skills, which the GPDA IMO had been lacking for the last few years.

After all improving saftey is a work that involves many different bodies, expertises, working withe ach other, not against each other. The drivers obviously are those who find out if the latest concepts work, but that doesn't mean that they are experts at demanding or designing track improvements. There is more than F1 racing going on on mnay tracks. And what might be great for F1 is very often wrong for MotoGP for example.


I thought Kovy was far too nice! The barrier failed. Massa actually was much closer to saying what needed to be said, I thought.

#37 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:01

Originally posted by kar
Just to reference my comments above



http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/52302

It is no secret that certain things the GPDA suggested and finally did were bankrolled by Michael Schumacher for quite a long time. Once he left F1, that source of money stopped (AFAIK). It seems obvious to me what is going on at the moment in regards of the money. No GPDA director willing to step into the shoes of MS in that area. I doubt that the current approach of the current directors accusations pays dividends. Right now they lost with Massa leaving.

#38 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:06

Originally posted by HP
It is no secret that certain things the GPDA suggested and finally did were bankrolled by Michael Schumacher for quite a long time. Once he left F1, that source of money stopped (AFAIK). It seems obvious to me what is going on at the moment in regards of the money. No GPDA director willing to step into the shoes of MS in that area. I doubt that the current approach of the current directors accusations pays dividends. Right now they lost with Massa leaving.


The difference between when Schumacher was in charge and now is the degree of politicisation of the body. I think some critics accused Michael of running the GPDA ostensibly to suit himself, most pointedly after he failed to back the Michelin drivers at Indy in 05. The merits of that are up for debate, but regardless post Indy 05, saw a marked increase in the public combativeness/aggressiveness of the GPDA.

In some respects they have achieved an immense deal in such a short time, the increase in test safety, circuit changes etc. But they've also isolated themselves to a degree from the FIA and indeed it increasingly seems from the top drivers in the sport.

There's a kind of parallel one could draw between the leadership of the FIA of Mosley and his aggressive stance getting things done, but at the expense of harmony, and the similar approach of the GPDA of the last couple years.

I think for things to move forward the result in both instances will probably be the same - a clearing of the decks at the top.

#39 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:10

Originally posted by undersquare


I thought Kovy was far too nice! The barrier failed. Massa actually was much closer to saying what needed to be said, I thought.

Have you read Charlie Whitings take on it? He obvious represents the other side of the issue, but nevertheless, from his interview in Autosport I learned much more about the issue than from the drivers unquantified demands for improvement. It's no surprise in his assessment he says everything worked as it should, but at first he also thought the barrier failed. By closer inspection however he claims, it did exactly what he thought it was supposed to do. And he also said they will study it more and see how they can improve. That seems to be reasonable, if they follow it up. I guess will see it in Canada, how much the FiA and track owners are following up.

And again, I don't think I want to get near that barrier with a motorbike.

Advertisement

#40 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:11

Forgive me for sounding dumb, but i'm not really sure what the point of the GPDA is.... Would't it be better to just have 2-3 drivers (all form different teams) work with charlie whiting? Or just be powerfule voting representives on F1 saftey with him?

#41 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:15

Originally posted by Mika Mika
Forgive me for sounding dumb, but i'm not really sure what the point of the GPDA is.... Would't it be better to just have 2-3 drivers (all form different teams) work with charlie whiting? Or just be powerfule voting representives on F1 saftey with him?


It's effectively a union. A union derives its power through universal membership. Otherwise all they can do is 'suggest', they have no real power to force any issue. If the GPDA say okay we're not going to race at Montreal because the circuit is an antiquated joke not safe for racing then the FIA is going to have to do something, or appear to do something, otherwise it will have, at best, 4 drivers on the grid.

If it's just Coulthard, Webber and Trulli getting misty in a sit down with Uncle Charlie he can take what they say under advisement, but no more than that.

#42 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:18

Originally posted by kar


The difference between when Schumacher was in charge and now is the degree of politicisation of the body. I think some critics accused Michael of running the GPDA ostensibly to suit himself, most pointedly after he failed to back the Michelin drivers at Indy in 05. The merits of that are up for debate, but regardless post Indy 05, saw a marked increase in the public combativeness/aggressiveness of the GPDA.

Indy 2005 what was MS supposed to do? To say it's alright that they race with tires that might blow up anytime? After all his brother had a big shunt in practice because of them.

Anyway Indy 2005 was about Max Mosley vs Michelin. Mosley previously never could control tire companies, because they had a supplier status to the teams. Now he has Bridgestone directly under his control. That was the opportunity Max was waiting for. When companies push the envelope, then one just needs to be patient until something happens to take advantage. He as a barrister will know that.

#43 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:22

Originally posted by HP
Indy 2005 what was MS supposed to do? To say it's alright that they race with tires that might blow up anytime? After all his brother had a big shunt in practice because of them.

Anyway Indy 2005 was about Max Mosley vs Michelin. Mosley previously never could control tire companies, because they had a supplier status to the teams. Now he has Bridgestone directly under his control.


I think it was rather than letting them race, it was his insistence that he would race no matter what and refused to join the Michelin teams in parking it after the parade lap.

That and refusing to put his name to a jury-rigged circuit alternation.

He was right, but the suspicion at the time (and probably still is) that his stance was about self-interest, not driver safety interest.

#44 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:25

Originally posted by kar


It's effectively a union. A union derives its power through universal membership. Otherwise all they can do is 'suggest', they have no real power to force any issue. If the GPDA say okay we're not going to race at Montreal because the circuit is an antiquated joke not safe for racing then the FIA is going to have to do something, or appear to do something, otherwise it will have, at best, 4 drivers on the grid.

If it's just Coulthard, Webber and Trulli getting misty in a sit down with Uncle Charlie he can take what they say under advisement, but no more than that.


Being a member of the GPDA does not give the driver any protection in the way a union would. If the drivers were concerned enough about a circuits safety that they felt they should not drive, then they can all get together and present a united front without being a member of the GPDA.

#45 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:29

That's true clatter, but when safety issues and negotiations are ongoing, it would be less politically expedient to have to sit down every five minutes to conduct a straw poll about whether or not you will race if this specific change isn't made or taken into account.

Having a group of permanent representatives with the pre-agreed backing of all the racing drivers presents a much more powerful negotiating force.

Although now that the GPDA no longer represents the three highest profile drivers in the sport it's power, I think, is somewhat diluted.

#46 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:36

Originally posted by HP
Have you read Charlie Whitings take on it? He obvious represents the other side of the issue, but nevertheless, from his interview in Autosport I learned much more about the issue than from the drivers unquantified demands for improvement. It's no surprise in his assessment he says everything worked as it should, but at first he also thought the barrier failed. By closer inspection however he claims, it did exactly what he thought it was supposed to do. And he also said they will study it more and see how they can improve. That seems to be reasonable, if they follow it up. I guess will see it in Canada, how much the FiA and track owners are following up.

And again, I don't think I want to get near that barrier with a motorbike.


Heikki had a direct head contact on the barrier, because his car penetrated into it instead of indenting it on the surface. FIA know this is a risk with single-seaters and know it's dangerous, and they have developed a countermeasure with a 4mm steel band behind the conveyor belt. But they haven't implemented it.

So FIA knew how to improve the barrier, and hadn't got around to doing anything. Heikki was lucky, and FIA are claiming a great phoney success.

That's where the GPDA should come in, once Max isn't threatening to withdraw their licences.

Felipe said something closer to this than any of the other drivers, so maybe that's the source of the dispute.

#47 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:41

I don't think Massa's problem has anything to do with the Mosley saga, rather that he sees what many see - the GPDA lacks direction, and it is sometimes difficult to see what the agenda of the organisation is.

kars comments above about drivers showing a unitd front in the face of danger - how many times have we had high profile drivers - membersof the gpda - publically stating that this corner or that track is too dangerous, or the like, and yet nothing is taken any further? It's a docile set up with little respect due as it stands.

#48 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:51

Originally posted by kar

It's effectively a union. A union derives its power through universal membership. Otherwise all they can do is 'suggest', they have no real power to force any issue. If the GPDA say okay we're not going to race at Montreal because the circuit is an antiquated joke not safe for racing then the FIA is going to have to do something, or appear to do something, otherwise it will have, at best, 4 drivers on the grid.


I don't get why they just can'nt work togther with the FIA, doenst seem healthy to have too many union all trying to do the same thing weach with their own intrests...

Purely My opninion.

#49 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,228 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 09 May 2008 - 14:52

Originally posted by kar


I think it was rather than letting them race, it was his insistence that he would race no matter what and refused to join the Michelin teams in parking it after the parade lap.

That and refusing to put his name to a jury-rigged circuit alternation.

He was right, but the suspicion at the time (and probably still is) that his stance was about self-interest, not driver safety interest.

Of course the first paragraph in my previous reply was ridiculous. I do that sometimes and then point out where I think the real issue is. MS could have done anything, and someone would have vilified him.

Indy 2005 is 3 years later mostly being remembered for the spat between Michelin (and most teams and even BE) vs. one Max Mosley. In the end the decisions made, were IMO correct, but how it played out, didn't make anyone involved look good. Wonder what Trulli or DC in the Ferrari would have done? It was a lose lose situation. One thing could have changed things though. Had the Michelin teams made good on the idea to hold an exhibition race after the season was over. I think McLaren suggested something like this. They could have earned a lot of good will there. But I rather not start speaking about Mclaren's gestures of good will.

But that's what the GPDA needs. Actions that earn them good will. Funding the medical care at test days is in the end a selfish pursuit. It showed their determination to have it, but did it earn good will? As sad as it is, if a driver gets killed in testing, there's not much public outcry. And it's amazing that even under race fans, Imola 94 is mainly about Senna. But Ratzenberger died as well, and Rubens Barrichello was also rather lucky to escape his shunt alive. It's sad, but the way how things are. They need the big names in the GPDA.

But the GPDA fails to gain the support from some of the biggest starts in F1. And what does Trulli do? Further alienate the GPDA from them. Not smart. He's just displaying frustration about being unable to be a good ambassador for their cause and win important people over, and then goes on saying it's only the money we need from them. Trulli mentioned something about those drivers not wanting to join being insane. Hmm..

#50 Devero

Devero
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 09 May 2008 - 15:13

I think GPDA is OK but we have a few miserable kids called top drivers who don`t care of anything appropriate for grown-up people. :rolleyes:
I would suggest them re-watch Imola, Monaco 1994 to begin with.

But I suspect that those childish, petty minded selfish species will collapse while watching that. :o