Jump to content


Photo

FiA General Assembly decisions


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:57

http://www.fia.com/e...ges/fia_ga.aspx

The most important issues were the introduction of staff licenses IMO. So from next season persons with a history of cheating and criminal convictions like Briatore can be banned from F1. It is good to see that Bernie will not be able to influence such matters.

The new international tribunal should also be a good thing. The WMSC will not have to deal with rule infarctions directly. Independent judges will look at the issues like team order.

Advertisement

#2 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:01

Why do people write "FIA" as "FiA"? Is it because the logo has a dot in it? Because that's just ... well, stupid.

#3 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:17

Interesting read, thanks WhiteBlue. They all look like moves in the right direction, IMO.

Looks like the "rumoured" revolt/return of Max was all a bit overblown too. No surprise there.

And, err, thanks for the contribution Captain. I think.

#4 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:25

Why do people write "FIA" as "FiA"? Is it because the logo has a dot in it? Because that's just ... well, stupid.

It's just a logo with artistic freedom and possibly history!

Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile - > FIA, it is a correct abbreviation

The "FIA" is commonly used and a correct abbreviation, even if the FiA is correct too, but I'm not sure in the latter.

#5 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,955 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:25

They say nothing about the team orders regulation...

#6 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:36

They say nothing about the team orders regulation...

Was that expected? GA decisions are more fundamental FIA structure issues, than individual sporting regulations, I would have thought?

#7 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:36

FiA is French originally and in that language nouns are written with capital letters. Federation and Automobile are nouns. This is why they use capitals.

The general assembly is not tasked with things as F1 rules. This was delegated to the F1 commission which is basically comprised from the teams, Bernie and an FiA representative.

#8 katmen

katmen
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2010 - 09:51

important section for me:
Amendments to the International Sporting Code

The General Assembly approved the World Motor Sport Council proposed modifications to the International Sporting Code in relation to:
-Competitor’s Staff Licence: All those involved in the FIA World Championships are directly subject to the FIA’s jurisdiction. Those who are guilty of conduct contrary to the FIA regulations will be denied access to the areas under the control of the FIA in the events counting towards these championships. The procedure for implementing this system will be examined within the framework of working groups specific to each of the FIA World Championships.
-Road Traffic Offences: The FIA is allowed to impose sanctions on Super Licence holders who commit road traffic offences.
-Fines that can be imposed by the Stewards of the meeting in case of infringement: “…the maximum fine that shall be inflicted is 250,000 euros.”
-Sports betting: the FIA adopted regulations aiming to preserve and maintain the integrity of motor sport when it is endangered by improper betting.

#9 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,955 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:00

Was that expected? GA decisions are more fundamental FIA structure issues, than individual sporting regulations, I would have thought?

I would have thought that changes to the sporting regulations would have to be ratified by the GA.

#10 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:03

I would have thought that changes to the sporting regulations would have to be ratified by the GA.

That would be the role of the WMSC and not the GA.


#11 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,301 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:15

The staff license thing is a bit silly because it's an after-the-fact solution to give them the grounds to punish Briatores, Symonds, and Stepneys; where previously they didn't have a way to do it properly. But it wouldn't have really kept anyone out ahead of time.

I'm not sure I agree with restricting people for non-motorsport issues. Hell, we don't even punish racing drivers for their road car violations, and there's a much stronger argument that they need to keep a clean record in that area.

#12 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:20

Hell, we don't even punish racing drivers for their road car violations, and there's a much stronger argument that they need to keep a clean record in that area.

That is one of the things that has changed with this GA decision. So at least they are being consistent.

#13 MrAerodynamicist

MrAerodynamicist
  • Member

  • 13,697 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:01

Just watch out for over-eager nationalistic cops with speedguns ;-)