22 replies to this topic

[Biggun]

Jackie Stewart in an interview has said that having the same stewards and the same driver at every race would improve consistency of stewarding.

"There should be a permanent F1 steward who is a driver with some experience. At the moment the steward is unpaid, he might get a business class ticket, he might be able to take his wife with him, but he is giving his time and expertise for nothing. It is odd that a sport as rich as F1 cannot afford to pay a permanent steward what he is worth"

Full interview HERE

Is Stewart right? should 1 ex driver be appointed to attend every event and the same stewarding team?

[Ross Stonefeld]

The driver steward thing is like the podium interviewer. More flash than substance.

[sharo]

Permanent - yes.
But not a driver unless he's educated in reading and interpreting rules written in a very peculiar way and making decisions in an appropriate way.
A driver is best as consultant. Some have lost touch with racing due to time, some have axes to grind on somebody on the track.

[ColchesterF1]

The only problem with a consistent full time driver steward would be that certain teams would claim bias shown in decisions made.

[stillOrange]

Kubica - any axes to grind? Don't think he forgot how to drive.
Just a thought

[Biggun]

The only problem with a consistent full time driver steward would be that certain teams would claim bias shown in decisions made.

Someone like Gerhard Berger would be a good choice, respected by McLaren and Ferrari, same country as Red Bull so no reason to favour any of those 3 teams

[Sakae]

Jackie Stewart in an interview has said that having the same stewards and the same driver at every race would improve consistency of stewarding.

"There should be a permanent F1 steward who is a driver with some experience. At the moment the steward is unpaid, he might get a business class ticket, he might be able to take his wife with him, but he is giving his time and expertise for nothing. It is odd that a sport as rich as F1 cannot afford to pay a permanent steward what he is worth"

Full interview HERE

Is Stewart right? should 1 ex driver be appointed to attend every event and the same stewarding team?

Question of this kind perhaps should be set aside until a few issues are addressed and clarified first.

1. Inclusion of a driver in the group implies that regulatory body recognized they have a problem of some kind. What was it in the first instance?
2. Discussion of upping up this change by choosing permanent driver-steward implies, that initial problem persist, and remains unresolved. What is the problem, and is inclusion of a former driver answer? Hard to tell, unless the problem is well defined.

I thought that with today's state of information technology group would have some expert system on the laptop available, which in simple language explains all what needs to be explained, including precedents.

Driver could be useful in interpreting data supplied by the teams, but that could be also done by an engineer who has proper training. Someone with formal training in investigation of accidents would be perhaps helpful as well to the group, interjecting forensic expertise into assesment. The team should consist of seven, not three experts.

Driver + 2 stewards is probably not an answer.

Edited by Sakae, 03 September 2012 - 20:51.

[garoidb]

It would have to be somebody willing to be criticised and ridiculed. I therefore think it would need to be somebody who does not have a public image to maintain and who needs a good job with the FIA. So, it would be someone who has good judgement, is analytical, and wasn't an absolute top driver.

I know this won't go down well, but I always thought Mark Blundell was spot on in attributing blame between drivers after incidents and was fairly impartial.

[Fastcake]

Well, if you had the same stewards you will obviously have more consistency. The question is whether they will be consistently good or consistently bad.

I will yet again call for professional stewards instead of the FIA committee members out for a jolly we have now. We must be the only top sport who doesn't make our officials work for years through the minor series, before being trusted to officiate on the top-tier.

[Clatter]

It would have to be somebody willing to be criticised and ridiculed. I therefore think it would need to be somebody who does not have a public image to maintain and who needs a good job with the FIA. So, it would be someone who has good judgement, is analytical, and wasn't an absolute top driver.

I know this won't go down well, but I always thought Mark Blundell was spot on in attributing blame between drivers after incidents and was fairly impartial.

I think all the drivers stewards have been.

Too many seem to think that the driver makes all the decisions and all penalties are down to him. It's simply not the case. Personally I don't think the should even have a vote and should only be there in an advisory capacity to enable the stewards to reach a decision.

[alframsey]

Permanent - yes.
But not a driver unless he's educated in reading and interpreting rules written in a very peculiar way and making decisions in an appropriate way.
A driver is best as consultant. Some have lost touch with racing due to time, some have axes to grind on somebody on the track.

This. I've thought this was the logical decision for a good while to be honest, it's so obvious it hurts.

[Tonka]

I will yet again call for professional stewards instead of the FIA committee members out for a jolly we have now. We must be the only top sport who doesn't make our officials work for years through the minor series, before being trusted to officiate on the top-tier.

You really want the Blazer Brigade involved in F1? Those of us who've experience of competitive sport know the type all too well. Those who reach the*top* have trodden on many others to get there, love playing politics, they revel in their power and for the most part are far too bloody old to understand what's going on around them.

If you want an example - try Max Mosley.

[Fastcake]

You really want the Blazer Brigade involved in F1? Those of us who've experience of competitive sport know the type all too well. Those who reach the*top* have trodden on many others to get there, love playing politics, they revel in their power and for the most part are far too bloody old to understand what's going on around them.

If you want an example - try Max Mosley.

Umm, but that's exactly who with have now. Apart from the driver steward everyone else is there because they're part of an old boy's club and sit on some FIA committee twice a year. All you have to do to become an F1 steward join that blazer brigade and get a nice day out observing the stewards at a race once. Then you're in.

[turssi]

Permanent stewards would belong to the highest bidder - be it Red Bull or Ferrari. So, no.

EDIT: On a second thought could be that the current ones are bought as well. Maybe two driver stewards and one permanent FIA good ol' boy might be the most non-partial mix.

Edited by turssi, 03 September 2012 - 23:44.

[Tenmantaylor]

I'd rather have consistent inconsistency than consistently bad decisions...

[pingu666]

series with 1 guy doing that role still are inconssistant. nearly always massively faster though.

[turssi]

I'd rather have consistent inconsistency than consistently bad decisions...

I think you nailed it. Consistent unfair decisions is not good stuff either.

[PaulC2K]

Id rather there was a panel of 3-4 officials who were elected, and a retired F1 driver whos regarded as being somewhat neutral.
The technical panel i'd have as a permanent role, with a new one being removed and one elected each season, so you only served for 4yrs perhaps (assuming 4 staff), and obviously they'd attend all races. The driver i'd be fine with being rotated in a capacity similar to how it is currently, or selecting 1 neutral for a season with the teams getting a say (ie if 3 teams believe he's not neutral, he's out).

At least then you'd see some consistency in the decisions, and you'd know where you stand. There wouldnt be any 'well that was them, not us' argument if a similar scenario occured and this weeks lot decided something unacceptable, when the previous races officials felt it was acceptable.
I'd rather they kept giving the same penalty for things *I* felt werent penalties, which they did, at every race, rather than different venues having different opinions, and its pot luck as to whether your punished or not, when these inconsistencies can have serious implications. These arent poxy club meetings, its a world championship at the highest level of motor racing.

[karne]

Not sure it's relevant in the weekend just gone, but I think it's absolutely vital that ANY driver steward should NOT have raced, ever, against any of the drivers they will be stewarding over.

Blind Freddie could see that at any race with Damon Hill as a steward the slightest incident from Schumacher is gonna get pounced on, for example. (No Schumacher fan here, btw.)

Lots of people have argued with me before that that sort of rule would exclude any F1 driver from after 1991 but really, who cares? If it means the driver steward has no on-track grudges against the drivers so be it.

[packapoo]

This driver steward touch is a relatively new innovation and I think a good idea overall.
Sometimes tho' it seems depth of contenders is lacking.

[wingwalker]

I actually think stewarding is much better now than it was in 2007/8m, but pernament stewards would a welcomed idea - decisions were so inconsistent in the past there is a precedence for almost anything and rules are vague so sometimes it's hard to blame different people for having a different view on a very similar situation.

Edited by wingwalker, 04 September 2012 - 07:14.

[garoidb]

I think you nailed it. Consistent unfair decisions is not good stuff either.

If decisions are consistent, people will know where they stand and come to understand the views and rules interpretation of the stewards. They can modify their behaviour to suit. If they know the interpretation, but choose not to adapt to that then ...

[turssi]

If decisions are consistent, people will know where they stand and come to understand the views and rules interpretation of the stewards. They can modify their behaviour to suit. If they know the interpretation, but choose not to adapt to that then ...

... Then they don't dig unjust dictatorships. I bet that was what you wanted to write before your fingers got tired?! (Just joking ;-)