Jump to content


Photo

FIA or FOM?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Poll: FIA or FOM? (96 member(s) have cast votes)

  1. FOM (57 votes [59.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.38%

  2. FIA (39 votes [40.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,615 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 25 June 2008 - 23:30

Between the two bodies, which one do you think is better to be the F1 governing body for you as a spectator?

I would rather have FOM for more entertainment as long as it is not down to the level of WWE. FIA and its ruling are becoming more and more of a joke to me.

Advertisement

#2 mach4

mach4
  • Member

  • 1,872 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 June 2008 - 00:05

The FIA is necessary otherwise F1 would quickly lose any resemblance of a sport. Indy 2005 is one recent example that comes to mind. I'm sure if it were up to FOM they would have found a solution so that the "spectacle" could go on.

#3 TARKUS

TARKUS
  • New Member

  • 27 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 26 June 2008 - 00:23

Originally posted by mach4
The FIA is necessary otherwise F1 would quickly lose any resemblance of a sport. Indy 2005 is one recent example that comes to mind. I'm sure if it were up to FOM they would have found a solution so that the "spectacle" could go on.


FOM it is then.....

#4 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 26 June 2008 - 00:46

I don’t think the FIA is interested in completely taking over the running of F1, including areas where the FOM is currently administrating i.e. the commercial side of things.

Nor do I think the FOM is interested in completely taking over the running of F1, including areas where the FIA is currently administrating i.e. scrutineering and safety car and medical car, etc

What they are “fighting” for is the middle bit where either side wants greater control – such as technical rules where currently there is a bit of overlapping. The teams would have a greater say if the FOM has more control in that area and the FIA is now saying we don’t want that to happen we want to keep our control over that as part of our governance.

#5 IOU 16

IOU 16
  • Member

  • 328 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 26 June 2008 - 01:00

It takes a mix of both. You have Bernie and the FOM giving us great personalities and many good races, but you need to offset some of that with Max and the FIA. You need the rules and regulations of the FIA, as if Bernie and the FOM had control, prices would skyrocket and F1 would only have about 8-10 cars.

#6 AyePirate

AyePirate
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 26 June 2008 - 01:07

Originally posted by mach4
The FIA is necessary otherwise F1 would quickly lose any resemblance of a sport. Indy 2005 is one recent example that comes to mind. I'm sure if it were up to FOM they would have found a solution so that the "spectacle" could go on.


Wow, you hold up the worst moment in FIA governance as a shining light.

You win today's "Max is that you?" award. :down:


yes, screw the unwashed masses that were foolish enough to fork out thousands of euros, dollars, yen or whatever the peasants use to exchange goods and services ...to pay for airfare, lodging, tickets etc. to attend a Grand Prix......please could you hit a little harder? I'm paying for a proper beating here




To me it's not an either or we need both the FIA and FOM to do their jobs. The FIA's job is to set an exciting formula and enforce safety and FOM's is to provide a good show (as tasteless as that might sound to elitist pricks).

If push came to shove I would go with Bernie although not by much.

#7 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,721 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 08:07

don't come back with the usgp failure stuff
it's not fia's fault that 2 thirds of the grid were unable to field cars capable of lasting the distance in one piece.
Michelin are the only ones responsible for this.
fia have made a lot of other mistakes during the years (regulations, impossible to solve the "no passing cars", etc)

#8 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 08:21

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing
don't come back with the usgp failure stuff
it's not fia's fault that 2 thirds of the grid were unable to field cars capable of lasting the distance in one piece.
Michelin are the only ones responsible for this.
fia have made a lot of other mistakes during the years (regulations, impossible to solve the "no passing cars", etc)


The USGP was a fine example of how corrupt and self-serving Max has become, and how competely he has taken over the FIA so that FIA=MAX. Michelin made a technical mistake, as happens in motor racing, and Max used it to heap maximum humiliation on them to help get them out of the sport. That was because Michelin had fallen out with him over the various rule changes blatantly designed to help Bridgestone and Ferrari.

Just the latest of many examples is the Abu Dhabi GP, given the prized finale placing in return for the votes to keep Max in power. Corrupt.

FoM are at least straightforward that they are after money. That's not great, but at least you know where you are with them.

#9 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:19

fia=sport

fom=dirty money show: buying fia, pit stops (refueling and tires), kart tracks, penalty's, pace cars, adds everywhere, big corporation business.

#10 JForce

JForce
  • Member

  • 13,840 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:32

Originally posted by undersquare


The USGP was a fine example of how corrupt and self-serving Max has become, and how competely he has taken over the FIA so that FIA=MAX. Michelin made a technical mistake, as happens in motor racing, and Max used it to heap maximum humiliation on them to help get them out of the sport. That was because Michelin had fallen out with him over the various rule changes blatantly designed to help Bridgestone and Ferrari.

Just the latest of many examples is the Abu Dhabi GP, given the prized finale placing in return for the votes to keep Max in power. Corrupt.

FoM are at least straightforward that they are after money. That's not great, but at least you know where you are with them.


With FOM they would have overidden the existing regulations because of the financial impacts.

I for one would rather the sport was governed by the FIA.

Does that mean I think the FIA's governance is perfect? Hell no.

However don't let your frustration with the FIA make you automatically side with FOM.

I love Bernie and all he's done for F1, but I would rather spend a lifetime trying to fix the FIA than give Bernie control over the sporting side.

#11 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,721 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:38

Originally posted by undersquare


The USGP was a fine example of how corrupt and self-serving Max has become, and how competely he has taken over the FIA so that FIA=MAX. Michelin made a technical mistake, as happens in motor racing, and Max used it to heap maximum humiliation on them to help get them out of the sport. That was because Michelin had fallen out with him over the various rule changes blatantly designed to help Bridgestone and Ferrari.

you're telling another story than the facts
michelin made a technical mistake..and they paid the price for it. if mercedes don't make engines that can last the whole straight line in barcelona nobody is going to modify the track for them. just lift the gas there or don't drive a t all. it's as simple as that, it's a sport, not a circus.
If Atomic or Head don't bring skis that can last for the downhill nobody will change the course intro a slalom just for the show. Even if this means that only 5 of 50 skiers race.

#12 Tigershark

Tigershark
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 26 June 2008 - 09:54

Originally posted by undersquare
Michelin made a technical mistake, as happens in motor racing, and Max used it to heap maximum humiliation on them to help get them out of the sport.

If they were humiliated, it is because of their own faulty preparation. The United States Grand Prix was scheduled to be raced at Indianapolis, not Indiana-changed for Michelin-polis.

Originally posted by undersquare
That's not great, but at least you know where you are with them.

Unless, apparently, your competitors mess up their pre-race preparations and suddenly the track you worked to prepare for is changed to suit their needs.

Both the FIA and the FOM have their negative sides, but just because the FIA now looks especially silly it doesn't make the FOM perfect. :)

#13 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:07

Hmm...

Amoral money-grubbing shyster

Or...

Caustic vindictive Hitler fantasist.


Tough call, but surely the little man wins.

#14 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:12

Originally posted by undersquare
The USGP was a fine example of how corrupt and self-serving Max has become


Actually the USGP is a prime example of why it is good that the commercial and regulatory powers are split up.

Had Bernie had his way at Indy and there had been a race it could have proven disasterous on many levels.

What if the reconfigured track caused an accident? What if the Michelin tyres failed in the race and there was an accident? How was having a race for less / no / points fair to the bridgestone runners which had suffered at the hands of michelin all season by going too conservative? Why should they suffer when they were finally set to reap the benefit of that conservatism? How would it have been fair to have a race on a modified circuit where the michelin runners were effectively disqualified but still racing - you know if they crashed into a bridgestone runner still running for points?

What happens at the end of the race when all manners of protests kicked off from either the michelin runners o the bridgestone ones?

And worse, what if someone in the crowd got hurt in an accident caused by making unsanctioned, tested or fully understood changes to the circuit? And even worse, caused by a failure of a tyre everyeone knew was dodgy from the start?

Max made a very tough decision to basically say no, no changes to the circuit. It was for the good of the sport ironically that he did that. The fans were very much hurt though, and the image of the sport damaged too. But that was minor damage compared to the risks of having ran a jury rigged race that day. F1 has moved on from Indy 2005, but had there been an accident at a modified circuit one wonders if F1 could have survived the legal firestorm that would have ensued.

And that's not even considering the political bickering over any race results.

#15 Sneezy

Sneezy
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:22

There is no F1 without FIA. Last time a checked it's was still the FIA F1 Championship. It's been like that since 1950. It better stay like that or it will become a complete joke with Bernie as the ringmaster.

#16 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:24

Originally posted by alg7_munif
Between the two bodies, which one do you think is better to be the F1 governing body for you as a spectator?

I would rather have FOM for more entertainment as long as it is not down to the level of WWE. FIA and its ruling are becoming more and more of a joke to me.


You could argue that WWE is more entertaining than F1. At least you don't know what's going to happen next. :rotfl: :lol: :p

#17 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:25

Originally posted by Tigershark

If they were humiliated, it is because of their own faulty preparation. The United States Grand Prix was scheduled to be raced at Indianapolis, not Indiana-changed for Michelin-polis.


Unless, apparently, your competitors mess up their pre-race preparations and suddenly the track you worked to prepare for is changed to suit their needs.

Both the FIA and the FOM have their negative sides, but just because the FIA now looks especially silly it doesn't make the FOM perfect. :)


Well the poll is EITHER FIA OR FoM. Hobson's choice! The Michelin runners did not deserve to win the US race, fair enough. But 130,000 fans had travelled there. There was the option to run the race with a chicane and no points for the Michelin runners, that would have been fair to the Bridgestone runners AND looked after the fans. But Max had other priorities, revolving as so often around a vindictive desire to inflict pain on someone he'd made an enemy of.

For me the vote for Max shows the FIA is structurally wrong, 5% or so of the global membership keeping him in power, for various bribes to the small clubs, one of which we now know was the Abu Dhabi GP as the 2009 finale, for 41 votes.

I would dismantle the FIA and start again because the structure invites corruption, and the people who benefit from that are, as usual, able to prevent it changing. FoM are also imperfect but slightly less so, at least they would run F1 as a business, a sporting spectacle that people want to watch and be involved in.

But a fresh start led by ADAC/AAA would be better.

#18 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:33

Originally posted by kar


Actually the USGP is a prime example of why it is good that the commercial and regulatory powers are split up.

Had Bernie had his way at Indy and there had been a race it could have proven disasterous on many levels.

What if the reconfigured track caused an accident? What if the Michelin tyres failed in the race and there was an accident? How was having a race for less / no / points fair to the bridgestone runners which had suffered at the hands of michelin all season by going too conservative? Why should they suffer when they were finally set to reap the benefit of that conservatism? How would it have been fair to have a race on a modified circuit where the michelin runners were effectively disqualified but still racing - you know if they crashed into a bridgestone runner still running for points?

What happens at the end of the race when all manners of protests kicked off from either the michelin runners o the bridgestone ones?

And worse, what if someone in the crowd got hurt in an accident caused by making unsanctioned, tested or fully understood changes to the circuit? And even worse, caused by a failure of a tyre everyeone knew was dodgy from the start?

Max made a very tough decision to basically say no, no changes to the circuit. It was for the good of the sport ironically that he did that. The fans were very much hurt though, and the image of the sport damaged too. But that was minor damage compared to the risks of having ran a jury rigged race that day. F1 has moved on from Indy 2005, but had there been an accident at a modified circuit one wonders if F1 could have survived the legal firestorm that would have ensued.

And that's not even considering the political bickering over any race results.


Too much "what-iffing" here kar. You could say "what if" just about anything. They had enough technical knowledge by Saturday to know the Michelins would be OK with a chicane. If anything, it was more of a risk to keep the track as it was..."what if" the Bridgstones had in fact started to fail in a race situation with sustained maximum g on a rubbered-in track?

You could tell by Max's vitriolic attack on Michelin, who after all had supported F1 and motorsport for a long time, that he wasn't thinking about anything but victimising them. That's who he is, it's a disgrace he's still there, and proof that the FIA will never be a good institution.

#19 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,408 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 10:39

So in the divorce, which parent do you want to live with? Do you want Mum, who likes to regularly beat you, changes the time supper is served every day so it's often cold, and gives you a fork to eat the soup with, or do you want Dad who says he likes you but really he's nicking half your pocket money each day to feed his new family and who, if push came to shove, only really likes your brother.

Advertisement

#20 Sbastien

Sbastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:09

Originally posted by undersquare
for various bribes to the small clubs, one of which we now know was the Abu Dhabi GP as the 2009 finale, for 41 votes.

Making up conspiracy theories as we go now undersquare, keep it up I am loving it :lol:

Originally posted by undersquare
But a fresh start led by ADAC/AAA would be better.

Yeah good idea, let's have a bunch of noobs from a carclub rule global motorsport :rolleyes:

Anyway as many stated before both organisations have their imperfections but we would be best served with both of them provided they do a better job.

But hysterically promoting any alternative to the FIA, just because you perceive them to be anti-McLaren, isn't the way to go either and frankly a bit silly.

#21 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:16

Originally posted by Orin
Hmm...

Amoral money-grubbing shyster

Or...

Caustic vindictive Hitler fantasist.


Tough call, but surely the little man wins.

Agree, the lessor of two evils.

#22 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,210 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:17

Can't vote, since I would vote for none of them.

Institutions are helpful to get over a crisis, and they tend to get progressively inefficient, if they are not reinventing themselves in due time. At other times it's better without them, unless one benefits from the institution.

#23 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:18

Originally posted by Buttoneer
So in the divorce, which parent do you want to live with? Do you want Mum, who likes to regularly beat you, changes the time supper is served every day so it's often cold, and gives you a fork to eat the soup with, or do you want Dad who says he likes you but really he's nicking half your pocket money each day to feed his new family and who, if push came to shove, only really likes your brother.

:lol: Very good.

#24 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:20

Originally posted by Sébastien
we would be best served with both of them provided they do a better job.


Oh yeah, lets ask them to do a better job, then :rotfl:

#25 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:29

Originally posted by undersquare


Oh yeah, lets ask them to do a better job, then :rotfl:


Why oh why hadn't anyone thought of this until now? :clap: :rotfl:

#26 tidytracks

tidytracks
  • Member

  • 1,569 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 26 June 2008 - 12:35

Originally posted by Sneezy
There is no F1 without FIA. Last time a checked it's was still the FIA F1 Championship. It's been like that since 1950. It better stay like that or it will become a complete joke with Bernie as the ringmaster.


Similarly there can be no F1 without FOM.

The EU was quite clear that the FIA was allowed to have no dealings whatsoever with the commercial aspect of Formula 1. They were to be regulators alone under anti-competition legislation. FOM / FOA / Bernie / SLEC whatever was the CRH, 75% of which is now owned by CVC.

#27 Tigershark

Tigershark
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 26 June 2008 - 12:45

Originally posted by undersquare
The Michelin runners did not deserve to win the US race, fair enough. But 130,000 fans had travelled there. There was the option to run the race with a chicane and no points for the Michelin runners, that would have been fair to the Bridgestone runners AND looked after the fans. But Max had other priorities, revolving as so often around a vindictive desire to inflict pain on someone he'd made an enemy of.

Fair point, but I have to wonder if it would really have made a difference. Perhaps in terms of spectacle, but I'm guessing the crowd would still feel robbed of a true race.
Oh well, it's history now. The best those involved in F1 can do is prevent it from happening again.

Originally posted by undersquare
I would dismantle the FIA and start again because the structure invites corruption, and the people who benefit from that are, as usual, able to prevent it changing. FoM are also imperfect but slightly less so, at least they would run F1 as a business, a sporting spectacle that people want to watch and be involved in.

But a fresh start led by ADAC/AAA would be better.

There is a lot to be said for this idea, I agree. :)

#28 Sneezy

Sneezy
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 12:48

Originally posted by tidytracks


Similarly there can be no F1 without FOM.

The EU was quite clear that the FIA was allowed to have no dealings whatsoever with the commercial aspect of Formula 1. They were to be regulators alone under anti-competition legislation. FOM / FOA / Bernie / SLEC whatever was the CRH, 75% of which is now owned by CVC.


True!

Therefor it should stay as it is. But the original question in this thread was about who should be the governing body of the sport. There can only be one answer and the answer is the FIA.

We can't have Bernie tampering with the sporting side. It would be a disaster.

#29 AyePirate

AyePirate
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 26 June 2008 - 19:15

Originally posted by Sneezy

We can't have Bernie tampering with the sporting side. It would be a disaster.


Yes the next thing you know we'll have people pouring fuel into hot, still running race car in the middle of races for no good reason other than to spice up the show......oh wait :lol:

#30 blackgerby

blackgerby
  • Member

  • 532 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 June 2008 - 19:54

Originally posted by Tigershark

If they were humiliated, it is because of their own faulty preparation. The United States Grand Prix was scheduled to be raced at Indianapolis, not Indiana-changed for Michelin-polis.


Unless, apparently, your competitors mess up their pre-race preparations and suddenly the track you worked to prepare for is changed to suit their needs.


except that Bridgestone knew that the track surface had been changed because they'd raced their firestone brand on it and Michelin didn't. Surely a little thing like a different more abrasive track surface made no difference at all :rolleyes:
Level playing field there - NOT.

#31 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,761 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 June 2008 - 20:06

Originally posted by Sneezy
Last time a checked it's was still the FIA F1 Championship. It's been like that since 1950.

Maybe just a detail, but actually, it hasn't. The FIA Formula One World Championship was only created in 1981. Before that, there were the World Championship of Drivers and the International Cup for Formula 1 Manufacturers. :cool:

#32 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 June 2008 - 20:10

I despise both of those corrupt and rotten organisations.

#33 Sbastien

Sbastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 20:17

Originally posted by blackgerby

except that Bridgestone knew that the track surface had been changed .........

Well just a wild suggestion but wouldn't you as a tire manufacturer contact the different venues before actually producing the tires for the race?

You know send an e-mail like:
"hello boys, did you perhaps repair/change/resurface (part of) the track and if so could you please inform us about where/how/what?"

I think Michelin is a great company and they are great for motorsport in general but that weekend they ****ed-up completely.
But well who cares it's all water under the bridge, Michelin is no longer part of F1, end of story.

#34 Sneezy

Sneezy
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 21:10

Originally posted by lustigson

Maybe just a detail, but actually, it hasn't. The FIA Formula One World Championship was only created in 1981. Before that, there were the World Championship of Drivers and the International Cup for Formula 1 Manufacturers. :cool:


From Wikipedia.

In 1946 the true history of Formula One began in with the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile's (FIA's) standardisation of rules.

In 1950, the FIA organised the first World Championship for Drivers, known today as the Formula One World Championship for Drivers.

:cool:

#35 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 21:16

Originally posted by Sébastien

Well just a wild suggestion but wouldn't you as a tire manufacturer contact the different venues before actually producing the tires for the race?

You know send an e-mail like:
"hello boys, did you perhaps repair/change/resurface (part of) the track and if so could you please inform us about where/how/what?"

I think Michelin is a great company and they are great for motorsport in general but that weekend they ****ed-up completely.
But well who cares it's all water under the bridge, Michelin is no longer part of F1, end of story.


I'm sure Michelin knew the surface had changed and took it into account when designing the tyres, however there was no way to quantify the change except by running on the track and analysing the results. Bridgestone got that chance and thereby the opportunity to feed the results into their computer models, Michelin didn't. The FIA should have foreseen that drastically changing the track parameters on a uniquely demanding circuit was inviting disaster. When that disaster occurred Mosley could have accepted the FIA's part in the fiasco, rather that directing a childish tirade against Michelin and then kicking them out of the sport. Typically, the urge to humiliate proved too great.

#36 Sbastien

Sbastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 21:29

Originally posted by Orin

I'm sure Michelin knew the surface had changed and took it into account when designing the tyres, however there was no way to quantify the change except by running on the track and analysing the results. Bridgestone got that chance and thereby the opportunity to feed the results into their computer models, Michelin didn't. The FIA should have foreseen that drastically changing the track parameters on a uniquely demanding circuit was inviting disaster.

So both the FIA and Michelin knew about the changed track parameters, but only the FIA is to blame. :lol:
Michelin ****ed-up, especially if they knew about the resurfacing.

#37 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 June 2008 - 21:42

Originally posted by Sébastien

So both the FIA and Michelin knew about the changed track parameters, but only the FIA is to blame. :lol:
Michelin ****ed-up, especially if they knew about the resurfacing.


I never said that. Even if the majority of the blame lay with Michelin, a significant portion lay with the FIA: two companies engaged in a ferocious tyre war (and the tyres were the deciding factor in the championship back then), they're not going to bring hopelessly uncompetitive tyres to the race, and it would be unrealistic to expect them to do so - unrealistic, meaning the FIA ought to have foreseen the potential for problems. Bridgestone were able to evaluate how the track had changed, Michelin had to make an educated guess. Michelin guessed wrong. Mosley wasn't interested in the whys and wherefores, he just wanted to absolve the FIA of any blame and give a few big wigs a gratuitous kicking.

#38 Sbastien

Sbastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 22:29

Originally posted by Orin
I never said that. Even if the majority of the blame lay with Michelin, a significant portion lay with the FIA:

So the majority of the blame lays with Michelin, but still you want to blame the FIA for it :rolleyes:
Come-on Orin, Michelin ****ed-up and the FIA chose the solution least favourable to your team.
That's what's eating you and several other maczealots here, get over it or yourself.

#39 rolf123

rolf123
  • Member

  • 2,331 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 22:45

There should be a 3rd option for "this is a stupid poll".

Advertisement

#40 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,700 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 June 2008 - 22:45

Originally posted by Sébastien

So the majority of the blame lays with Michelin, but still you want to blame the FIA for it :rolleyes:
Come-on Orin, Michelin ****ed-up and the FIA chose the solution least favourable to your team.
That's what's eating you and several other maczealots here, get over it or yourself.


the FIA chose the worst option for the fans, both on track and at home. As an organiser they should have found a solution once the problem was identified. Not even helping to find a solution shows what a poor institution the FIA has become.

Like I said in anotherthread, I compare it with a situation like this:

I agree to drive a friend of mine to a verry important meeting. Suddenly we run out of gas, I forgot to fill the car up. This is MY fault, MY mistake and mine alone. I am to blame for this situation. However, I spot a train station and say:" lets take the train, we'll get there, maybe 5 minutes late. I pay because I am responsible for this mess. My friend refuses, he says I promised to take him by car so he won't take the train. Now who's fault is it we don't attend the meeting? Mine or my by then former friend?

Basically he is right, I promised to take him by car MY mistake created this problem, but the situation changed and he could have helped solving it. by not doing so, we end up with the worst possible solution.


I voted FOM. Bernie is honest about his goals and willing to change bad situations because he understands who brings in the money :)

#41 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:09

Originally posted by DarthWillie


the FIA chose the worst option for the fans, both on track and at home. As an organiser they should have found a solution once the problem was identified. Not even helping to find a solution shows what a poor institution the FIA has become.

Like I said in anotherthread, I compare it with a situation like this:

I agree to drive a friend of mine to a verry important meeting. Suddenly we run out of gas, I forgot to fill the car up. This is MY fault, MY mistake and mine alone. I am to blame for this situation. However, I spot a train station and say:" lets take the train, we'll get there, maybe 5 minutes late. I pay because I am responsible for this mess. My friend refuses, he says I promised to take him by car so he won't take the train. Now who's fault is it we don't attend the meeting? Mine or my by then former friend?

Basically he is right, I promised to take him by car MY mistake created this problem, but the situation changed and he could have helped solving it. by not doing so, we end up with the worst possible solution.


I voted FOM. Bernie is honest about his goals and willing to change bad situations because he understands who brings in the money :)


The FIA is not there to pander to the fans, they are there to make sure the race goes ahead according to the rules. And that certainly happened despite the mockery the Michelin teams tried to make of the sport.
F1 would be long dead if every time a team was behind the track would just get adjusted in their favor.

Michelin teams had a few options, a chicane that changes the track that the Bridgestone teams prepared for was the only one that was never going to happen.

The only bad thing about that weekend was that it happened in a country which can't seem to separate "the show" from sport anymore. Maybe the "fans" should realize that they actually bought tickets to a sporting event that happened just as promised according to the rules.

#42 Sneezy

Sneezy
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:09

Originally posted by DarthWillie

I voted FOM. Bernie is honest about his goals and willing to change bad situations because he understands who brings in the money :)


Bernie honest about his goals? Now that has to be a first over here. :rotfl:

Bernie has never been honest about a thing regarding F1. He's flip-flopping on numerous issues all the time. That's the story of Bernie.

#43 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,097 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:30

Bernie represents his and his owners interests, whereas the FIA should represent clubs. Unfortunately though the FIA has been taken over by its own leadership, and while it talks about reforms needed, its actions have resulted in the opposite happening to its reforms (such as KERS greatly increasing costs, and there's more but it will waste time to list them all).

I would rather have a clean FIA, but from listening to the pro Mosley fans over the Mosley debate, I think now that clean FIA is not ever likely. Do we really want an organisation that can be manipulated by friendship with club voting lobbies, such as the Emirates Prince who manages 41 or almost 20% of the votes?

Is it better to have the enemy you know (Bernie IMO) or something changeable and that acts differently to its proclamations of intent and is untrustworthy (the FIA)? Neither is any good IMO.

If the car manufacturers had of setup their own series, then at least we'd know it would be equal between the teams. One might remember that Ferrari were all for a separate manufacturer run series for some considerable time. I never liked the idea because I felt for the Williams type outfits, but they are all screwed so badly anyway I know think a manufacturer based series would be the best of all.

Stuff the corrupt and incompetent FIA and stuff Bernie's greedy interests I reckon.




#44 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,761 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 27 June 2008 - 07:34

Originally posted by Sneezy


From Wikipedia.

In 1946 the true history of Formula One began in with the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile's (FIA's) standardisation of rules.

In 1950, the FIA organised the first World Championship for Drivers, known today as the Formula One World Championship for Drivers.

:cool:

Exactly. ;)

#45 CeeDas

CeeDas
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 27 June 2008 - 15:05

Am I allowed to vote for FOM because I used to work there?

#46 Bernd Rosemeyer

Bernd Rosemeyer
  • Member

  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 28 June 2008 - 13:27

Originally posted by mach4
The FIA is necessary otherwise F1 would quickly lose any resemblance of a sport. Indy 2005 is one recent example that comes to mind. I'm sure if it were up to FOM they would have found a solution so that the "spectacle" could go on.

Indy 2005 was a desaster and as a consequnse Michelin lost their spot in F1 and us lost a race. Will it come back?