87 replies to this topic

[eronrules]

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

it's a series owned by CVC, not FIA, what jurisdiction does FIA has and what can it do if the teams openly starts to disobey/discard the rules made by FIA altogether???? more importantly, why does the teams continue to suffer under the horrible management of FIA??? as far as i can guess, both the teams and the drivers have to pay hefty amount in-terms of license fee to make the fat bunch of the FIA even more fatter.

masochistic bunch !!!


case in point, Flavio briatore's ban, banned by FIA, ban over-ruled by french court (IIRC). Or what about Sirotkin's F1 super license??? if sauber decides to say '**** off FIA' and puts him in a car, what real authority (other than some written pre-historic nonsensical gibberish) does the FIA has to prevent this??? the earnings are paid by BE and CVC, not FIA.

INDYcar/nascar/autogp doesn't conform to FIA regulation, so why can't F1 self-govern itself???

atleast it'd cut down all the BULLSHIT by roughly 30 points (mclaren pt. system ) and improve the organisational/managerial speed by 20 pts.

Edited by eronrules, 19 July 2013 - 06:14.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Indycar and NASCAR interact with the FIA actuallly...

[artista]

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

...

If I recall correctly (please, somebody confirm or deny what I say), only series sanctioned by FIA can call their championship winners "world champion".
As silly as it sounds, it's a pretty good reason to be in good terms with the FIA

[SophieB]

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

it's a series owned by CVC, not FIA, what jurisdiction does FIA has and what can it do if the teams openly starts to disobey/discard the rules made by FIA altogether???? more importantly, why does the teams continue to suffer under the horrible management of FIA??? as far as i can guess, both the teams and the drivers have to pay hefty amount in-terms of license fee to make the fat bunch of the FIA even more fatter.

masochistic bunch !!!


case in point, Flavio briatore's ban, banned by FIA, ban over-ruled by french court (IIRC). Or what about Sirotkin's F1 super license??? if sauber decides to say '**** off FIA' and puts him in a car, what real authority (other than some written pre-historic nonsensical gibberish) does the FIA has to prevent this??? the earnings are paid by BE and CVC, not FIA.

INDYcar/nascar/autogp doesn't conform to FIA regulation, so why can't F1 self-govern itself???

atleast it'd cut down all the BULLSHIT by roughly 30 points (mclaren pt. system ) and improve the organisational/managerial speed by 20 pts.

Weight of inertia, I would guess. Regardless of how WELL the FIA do anything, getting rid of them wouldn't remove the need for the many functions they as an institution perform. You'd still need some body to cary out scrutineering, review and update technical regs, assess whether the competitors were running in the races fairly, judge who was qualified to drive in the races and yes, have some sort of disciplinary body to deal with serious offences. The fact it all seems so messy might even be the reason no-one's keen to seize responsibility for it all and start over.

Still, for all that, it is do-able, of course.

[eronrules]

Indycar and NASCAR interact with the FIA actuallly...

'interact' is not as same as being 'ruled' and most of the interaction is for 'safety purpose' only.

[eronrules]

Weight of inertia, I would guess. Regardless of how WELL the FIA do anything, getting rid of them wouldn't remove the need for the many functions they as an institution perform. You'd still need some body to cary out scrutineering, review and update technical regs, assess whether the competitors were running in the races fairly, judge who was qualified to drive in the races and yes, have some sort of disciplinary body to deal with serious offences. The fact it all seems so messy might even be the reason no-one's keen to seize responsibility for it all and start over.

Still, for all that, it is do-able, of course.

there is always FOM, FOTA,GPDA etc. teams even do TWG to discuss technical limits, 'gentlemen's agreement' etc.

If I recall correctly (please, somebody confirm or deny what I say), only series sanctioned by FIA can call their championship winners "world champion".
As silly as it sounds, it's a pretty good reason to be in good terms with the FIA

what's stopping others to develop a series and call it 'world championship'??? besides, F1 has no races in the whole african continent. so much for 'world champion'

the point i'm trying to make here is, why do the teams and drivers have to pay hefty sums to keep the FIA going??? who is the 'FIA' to grant 'super-licenses'??? or give 'teams slots'??? and why do the teams don't just stop 'giving a ****'???

Edited by eronrules, 19 July 2013 - 11:34.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because someone still needs to administer the championship and you'd have just as many problems with them as the FIA. You'd just be changing the name.

The FIA is the least of F1's problems.

[eronrules]

Because someone still needs to administer the championship and you'd have just as many problems with them as the FIA. You'd just be changing the name.

The FIA is the least of F1's problems.

i agree, but to me, FIA has too much say in all forms of motorsport, not just F1, it rules WRC, all the GP series, gt series, wec etc. the same goes for FIM btw. and most often than not, they make a hash of controlling/governing these series.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Very few series are directly run by the FIA though.

[Beamer]

Very few series are directly run by the FIA though.

Please define 'directly run'....

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well something like the DTM isn't run by the FIA, but disputes could go all the way to the FIA level.

[artista]

what's stopping others to develop a series and call it 'world championship'??? besides, F1 has no races in the whole african continent. so much for 'world champion'

Law.

the point i'm trying to make here is, why do the teams and drivers have to pay hefty sums to keep the FIA going??? who is the 'FIA' to grant 'super-licenses'??? or give 'teams slots'??? and why do the teams don't just stop 'giving a Fu*k'???

Let's use football to explain this in an easy way. You understand what FIFA is? The FIA is the automobile equivalent.

[ExFlagMan]

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

it's a series owned by CVC, not FIA, what jurisdiction does FIA has and what can it do if the teams openly starts to disobey/discard the rules made by FIA altogether???? more importantly, why does the teams continue to suffer under the horrible management of FIA??? as far as i can guess, both the teams and the drivers have to pay hefty amount in-terms of license fee to make the fat bunch of the FIA even more fatter.

masochistic bunch !!!
.
.

If F1 tried to go independent then the first thing the FIA could do would be exclude F1 from using FIA sanctioned tracks.
Any track that then ran F1 would be excluded from running any FIA or FIA affiliated organisation (ie national organisations like the MSA in the UK) run events.
There might be a few state sponsored/owned tracks that could say 'OK we will just run F1', but I guess the majority of circuits would have to think about the balance between running F1 or everything else.

I recall this was one of the main reasons that previous F1 breakaway series faltered.

[eronrules]

Law.


Let's use football to explain this in an easy way. You understand what FIFA is? The FIA is the automobile equivalent.

where is anti - monopoly law when u need one, although, a bit of wikipedia-ing shows it EU already had a dig at FIA's anti-competitive behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia....obile#Criticism

In June 1999, the EU commission opened an investigation into the FIA over anti-competitive behaviour in the protection of FIA sanctioned series. A settlement was reached in June 2001[7]


In 2008, accusations surfaced that FIA President Max Mosley was involved in scandalous sexual behaviour. Following a June 2008 decision of the FIA to retain Max Mosley as president, the German branch of the FIA, the ADAC (the largest European motoring body), announced, "We view with regret and incredulity the FIA general assembly's decision in Paris, confirming Max Mosley in office as FIA president." It froze all its activities with the FIA until Max Mosley leaves office.[10] Press reports also claimed that Bernie Ecclestone was investigating creating a rival to the Formula 1 series due to the scandal.

If F1 tried to go independent then the first thing the FIA could do would be exclude F1 from using FIA sanctioned tracks.
Any track that then ran F1 would be excluded from running any FIA or FIA affiliated organisation (ie national organisations like the MSA in the UK) run events.
There might be a few state sponsored/owned tracks that could say 'OK we will just run F1', but I guess the majority of circuits would have to think about the balance between running F1 or everything else.

I recall this was one of the main reasons that previous F1 breakaway series faltered.

are u referring to this??

On 24 June 2009, following a dispute between the FIA and the newly-created Formula One Teams Association (FOTA), the parties finally came to an agreement over the future of F1. Part of the agreement was that Max Mosley must step down as FIA President and must not stand for re-election (he stood down in October 2009). A new Concorde Agreement was subsequently signed on 31 July.[11]

regarding tracks, certain countries only have race tracks for F1 specifically (like korea/turkey/india/china/singapore/valencia/monaco/most desert tracks), surely if FOTA was to break away from FIA, those tracks would also follow suit, look what happened with CART and IRL in the states. yes i get the legal implications, but it seems that the current state of formula 1 has reached a certain level that it'd be better if F1 ruled itself, both commercially and management wise. just look at the latest mess created by FIA, tire-gate, and to name some few in the past

mclaren spy-gate
DDD-gate
liar-gate
crash-gate
blown-diffuser gate
engine map gate
Resource restriction cock-up
new teams cock-up

etc etc etc

Edited by eronrules, 19 July 2013 - 14:08.

[ExFlagMan]

regarding tracks, certain countries only have race tracks for F1 specifically (like korea/turkey/india/china/singapore/valencia/monaco/most desert tracks), surely if FOTA was to break away from FIA, those tracks would also follow suit, look what happened with CART and IRL in the states. yes i get the legal implications, but it seems that the current state of formula 1 has reached a certain level that it'd be better if F1 ruled itself, both commercially and management wise. just look at the latest mess created by FIA, tire-gate, and to name some few in the past

OK if you would like to watch F1 exclusively on F1 identi-kit 'Tilke dromes'.

All these new circuits have used FIA regulated infrastructure to get them up and running, such as race organisation, training/supply of marshals etc.
Bet CVC/FOM would be willing to foot the bill to create that infrastructure from scratch when they manage to sell a F1 race to somewhere in deepest Africa.

In addition I guess a breakaway F1 might be feasible for a few years on its existing drivers but where do the replacements come from.
Imagine you are an aspiring F1 driver racing in a lower formula. Your race licence is issued by the FIA and I believe it contains a clause that invalidates it if you take part in non FIA sanctioned events or those not sanctioned by an FIA accredited body.
Do you risk taking part in a breakaway F1 YDT, knowing that if you fail to make the grade, your racing career is probably over, as there will be nowhere else to race without that race licence.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 19 July 2013 - 15:12.

[Ross Stonefeld]

regarding tracks, certain countries only have race tracks for F1 specifically (like korea/turkey/india/china/singapore/valencia/monaco/most desert tracks), surely if FOTA was to break away from FIA, those tracks would also follow suit, look what happened with CART and IRL in the states. yes i get the legal implications, but it seems that the current state of formula 1 has reached a certain level that it'd be better if F1 ruled itself, both commercially and management wise. just look at the latest mess created by FIA, tire-gate, and to name some few in the past

mclaren spy-gate
DDD-gate
liar-gate
crash-gate
blown-diffuser gate
engine map gate
Resource restriction cock-up
new teams cock-up

etc etc etc

You really need to watch more than F1 to understand these problems occur in all series. But first you need to understand F1 better, to understand that those problems arent automatically the fault of the FIA.

[Beamer]

Well something like the DTM isn't run by the FIA, but disputes could go all the way to the FIA level.

Not trying to mock you... Really don't know / understand. What's the difference in FIA involvement in (let's say) DTM / GP2 / F1 / WRC?

[eronrules]

You really need to watch more than F1 to understand these problems occur in all series. But first you need to understand F1 better, to understand that those problems arent automatically the fault of the FIA.

regular F1 viewer since 2005

but you are right, in that most of those faults weren't FIA's and i wasn't accusing them, it's the handling of the incidents afterwards that i was referring to. e.g in the spygate saga ...

again from wikipedia

Martin Brundle wrote a column in the Sunday Times entitled "Witch-hunt threatens to spoil world title race" in which he accused the FIA of a witch-hunt against McLaren. The World Motor Sport Council responded by issuing a writ against the Sunday Times on charges of libel.[8] Brundle hit back saying that "I have earned the right to have an opinion" and suggesting the writ was a "warning sign to other journalists".[9] The 2007 Formula One espionage controversy involved accusations of theft made against McLaren, who was accused of stealing technological secrets from Ferrari.

[Ross Stonefeld]

F1 and WRC are 100% FIA championships. GP2 is its own series, but the FIA handles the tech inspection and stewarding of their series(makes sense, they're on the same weekend). DTM runs its own show completely, but if they kept appealing and appealing the Ekstrom DQ from the Norisring, eventually it could go to the FIA for final decision.

But of course DTM comes under the DMSB, which is Germany's connection to the FIA, etc.

[ExFlagMan]

F1 and WRC are 100% FIA championships. GP2 is its own series, but the FIA handles the tech inspection and stewarding of their series(makes sense, they're on the same weekend). DTM runs its own show completely, but if they kept appealing and appealing the Ekstrom DQ from the Norisring, eventually it could go to the FIA for final decision.

But of course DTM comes under the DMSB, which is Germany's connection to the FIA, etc.

Although the DTM 'runs its own show', the actual race meetings are run by organising clubs in the host country - certainly when there venture outside Germany. At the DTM meetings I attended in the UK, all that the DTM brought was their own race package. This included their own top levels of control such as Race Director etc. and even then they worked alongside the local teams. Supporting races were rounds of UK national championships and thus run under MSA and hence, by accreditation, FIA rules where appropriate.
The same system applies to most (all) international series, including FIA sanctioned championships such as F1, WSC, WTCC and WRC.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 19 July 2013 - 15:52.

[Ross Stonefeld]

But British F3 racing in Germany would come under DMSB and run to FIA outlines too. What I mean by running their own show is everything is delegated to the local authorities, it's not FIA blazers in the paddock.

[ExFlagMan]

But British F3 racing in Germany would come under DMSB and run to FIA outlines too. What I mean by running their own show is everything is delegated to the local authorities, it's not FIA blazers in the paddock.

If you do see them you know there is a pretty good chance of things going 't***-up'

[HaydenFan]

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

I'd say it's the other way around. F1 might be regulated by the FIA (like IndyCar/NASCAR,sportscars/touringcar/rally/everything with 4+ wheels that races technically falls under in some way or another), but the FIA is controlled by F1. You don't see the FIA with it's fingers really in F1. The FOM/CVC make the rules for F1, and have the FIA make them official.

Like said, on the nation level, you have the national branches of the FIA. They work to simplify things for the national touring series. Keep things consistent and organized. The FIA we all know and love to hate keep their hands on the world level series; F1, WTCC, WRC, etc. They more or less just operate to, like the national level, keep things organized.

Also, having a sanctioning body like the FIA keeps everything "so-on-so" legitimate. You know you have a consistent, accurate calender of events. Consistent and mostly happy entrant list. Rule packages which are not supposed to be bias, creating a level playing field (based on rules, not on actuality).

[SophieB]

there is always FOM, FOTA,GPDA etc. teams even do TWG to discuss technical limits, 'gentlemen's agreement' etc.



what's stopping others to develop a series and call it 'world championship'??? besides, F1 has no races in the whole african continent. so much for 'world champion'

the point i'm trying to make here is, why do the teams and drivers have to pay hefty sums to keep the FIA going??? who is the 'FIA' to grant 'super-licenses'??? or give 'teams slots'??? and why do the teams don't just stop 'giving a Fu*k'???

Well, for whatever reason, F1 seems to have a proud tradition of producing leaders who are effective at governing their individual teams but who are terrible at working together for the common good of them all. Just in my opinion, this is the main reason the power in F1 doesn't sit with the teams, where logically it might do, for the reasons you've outlined. They're too busy fighting among themselves to get anywhere, if you believe the weary interviews of people like Martin Whitmarsh, talking with his FOTA hat on.

I suspect F1's habit of infighting prevents much in the way of radical change. Difficult to start things happening but tons of people easily able to stop anything happening. To borrow a line from Yes Minister, this is the engine of a lawnmower equipped with the brakes of a Rolls-Royce.

[Sakae]

I've this thought for some time, if FiA with their current representatives would let go, and new regulatory body created instead. Something similar like referees in some other professional sports. Balanced representation at the table on technical and sporting regulations by a commercial rights holder, technical rep. (enforcer), sporting rep, legal rep., and the teams (first 5 from last year rating) could work.

[Szoelloe]

That is exactly what was happening. F1 was running itself. No Concorde, No FOTA. Demonizing the FIA will get you knowhere. If you seriously think any series ran by LdM would do anybody any good, you are kidding yourself.

[SpaMaster]

F1 is not a series owned by CVC, F1 IS A SERIES OWNED BY FIA. You should check the basic facts first. It is this FIA's series that CVC has gained contract for commercial rights for 100 years. So the main agreement is between FIA and CVC. Teams participate in this series under certain terms they have agreed with CVC. Previously it used to be Concorde agreement, now it is a much looser year-by-year or short span of years basis. The only thing that can be done in terms of running itself is F1 teams split from CVC and then as a result FIA as well. Now, the problem is most of the tracks have some sort of contracts with FIA in terms of priority running and running events only sanctioned by FIA. It is a power war. If some tracks would host events of a rebel series formed by the teams, they would lose all the events that comes under FIA control - that is pretty much every other car racing event. So the teams do generate lot of revenue, but the facilities, infrastructure, power, etc. are with FIA and commercial rights, sponsor contracts, TV contracts, etc. are with CVC. Remember the association is between FIA and CVC, and if there is to be a dump CVC would have to be dumped as well.

Besides, forming a rebel series is not that easy. You have to have that kind of unity among teams. That is almost impossible. It is here that Ecclestone has impressively controlled with 'Divide and Rule' policy. Teams are easily bought. Ecclestone has thrown some impressive money at Ferrari in the past and bought them to stay with him, hence FIA. Now I think different teams have different rates. So the teams have been bought against their own good that you want them to pursue!

So a lot of improbable things might have to happen for teams to run themselves. First their own unity and then the other difficulties I mentioned. Also, FIA is not the only culprit for the current state of affairs in F1. FIA, CVC and teams all have to take combined responsibility. They all have their own business/selfish reasons and they all deserve each other and what they get!

Edited by SpaMaster, 20 July 2013 - 10:38.

[artista]

where is anti - monopoly law when u need one, although, a bit of wikipedia-ing shows it EU already had a dig at FIA's anti-competitive behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia....obile#Criticism
...

what does name's rights have to do with monopoly and anti-competitive behaviours?
I'm an absolute disaster trying to understand economics and market things, but even I can understand that if I have a product with a name, nobody can use that name for his products. if the FIA has the rights on the 'world champion' title, they have the rights and nobody else.
Would you like to think you're buying a real Ferrari, just to discover you have bought a vehicle your neighbour built with an old Seat chassis and a motorbike engine that he decided to call 'Ferrari'?

You don't like the FIA, that's okay, everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion, but talking about anti-competitive behaviour for the 'world champion' name use is out of place.

You know what? I've decided I'm going to compete with myself walking up and down my appartment's corridor for five minutes, I will decide to call it 'Olympic championship' and from now on I will request to be called 'Olympic Champion', and the IOC better shut up or I will take them to court for anti-competitive behaviour.

[ensign14]

Why don't they dump the FIA? Why should they?

The top teams are making so much money that McLaren could withstand a nine figure fine without so much as a blink of a boycott. Ferrari and Red Bull get special treatment from the FIA that they wouldn't get anywhere else - and Ferrari is the franchise player in F1. The cost of joining Formula 1 is prohibitive - you can't start up a new team, you have to replace one of 11 franchise holders, so as soon as a 12th person wants to get into F1 the existing 11 have a ransom. And even then it might be fewer; I don't know how seriously Team X would consider buying out Marussia or Caterham when they could buy out Lotus with better resource instead.

[mattferg]

I think there's an FIA rule which states that if you interact with a series that's outside of FIA control you can't then participate in FIA series. So if F1 left, the drivers couldn't drive anything else during the year, like the race of champions, Le Mans etc etc.

[artista]

I think there's an FIA rule which states that if you interact with a series that's outside of FIA control you can't then participate in FIA series. So if F1 left, the drivers couldn't drive anything else during the year, like the race of champions, Le Mans etc etc.

Are you sure about that?
I mean, Räikkönen did WRC, two NASCAR races and WRC again in 2011, and he didn't get into any trouble because of that.

[saudoso]

If I recall correctly (please, somebody confirm or deny what I say), only series sanctioned by FIA can call their championship winners "world champion".
As silly as it sounds, it's a pretty good reason to be in good terms with the FIA

Nope. Anyone can claim to be world champions. MLB are world champions, even if it runs only in the U.S. of A.

FIA has the naming rights for F1, that's all. That's why Bernie killed F2 & F3 and came with GP2 and GP3, so he has to pay no royalties to FIA.

[saudoso]

Law.


Let's use football to explain this in an easy way. You understand what FIFA is? The FIA is the automobile equivalent.

This is not true. No one holds the rights for football (they do for "World Cup"), the 100m dash or javelin throw (they do for "Olympic Games") neither for world racing champion (they do for "Formula 1").

Anyone can start a rival series or governing body on any sports they wish, boxing being the one that comes to mind with 3 or 4 different world titles. Not that's good for the sport. And the reason why it does not happen that often was mentioned before, governing bodies tend to ban entities (teams, drivers, fighters, local federations) associated with new, parallel, ones.

[artista]

Nope. Anyone can claim to be world champions. MLB are world champions, even if it runs only in the U.S. of A.

FIA has the naming rights for F1, that's all. That's why Bernie killed F2 & F3 and came with GP2 and GP3, so he has to pay no royalties to FIA.

I'm talking about automobile championships not baseball, and I never said they have to compete all over the world to be champions

The reason why I said I recall the thing with the 'world champion', it's because it's one of the main reasons the German TV was giving (together with the circuits problems) for the split-up series not being a realistic alternative.

EDIT: Article 4 of the FIA statutes says "The General Assembly of the FIA shall be the sole international body governing motor sport, that is to say it shall hold the exclusive right to take all decisions concerning the organisation, direction and management of International Motor Sport"
Therefore, yes, it looks pretty probable, FIA are the sole holders of "world championship" rights in car racing

Edited by artista, 20 July 2013 - 12:32.

[ExFlagMan]

Are you sure about that?
I mean, Räikkönen did WRC, two NASCAR races and WRC again in 2011, and he didn't get into any trouble because of that.

All those are FIA recognised series, so there is no licence conflict. WRC is a FIA championship and NASCAR a series sanctioned by a FIA accredited national ASN and so if legal as far as the FIA is concerned.

[artista]

All those are FIA recognised series, so there is no licence conflict. WRC is a FIA championship and NASCAR a series sanctioned by a FIA accredited national ASN and so if legal as far as the FIA is concerned.

Thanks! I missed the FIA/NASCAR relationship

[saudoso]

Rest assured: no one holds naming rights to "World Champion" on anything but their own controlled series.

No one can claim to be "Formula 1 world champion" but those appointed by FIA.

Anyone can create a racing series and say "World Champions" as much as they want.

If memory serves me CART, the 80's/early 90's Indy sanctioners weren't FIA associated. And they had "World Champions".

[ExFlagMan]

Rest assured: no one holds naming rights to "World Champion" on anything but their own controlled series.

No one can claim to be "Formula 1 world champion" but those appointed by FIA.

Anyone can create a racing series and say "World Champions" as much as they want.

If memory serves me CART, the 80's/early 90's Indy sanctioners weren't FIA associated. And they had "World Champions".

It was not directly sanctioned by the American ASN, ACCUS, as it was a new organisation, but reached an arrangement with the SCCA, itself a ACCUS recognised club, and so became legal within the FIA framework.
I guess that as it was a 'national' series it got away with calling its winners 'World Champions' -they would just not be recognised as such by the FIA - not that that would mean anything to most of the series fans anyway.

[saudoso]

It was not directly sanctioned by the American ASN, ACCUS, as it was a new organisation, but reached an arrangement with the SCCA, itself a ACCUS recognised club, and so became legal within the FIA framework.
I guess that as it was a 'national' series it got away with calling its winners 'World Champions' -they would just not be recognised as such by the FIA - not that that would mean anything to most of the series fans anyway.

But they did race out of the FIA umbrella. I'm not saying it would be easy to survive like that. FIA threatens everyone of a ban from their sanctioned series if you run with the opposition. But that's all they can do. They do not hold rights to car racing. World championships or not.

On the bolded section, that being my point: FIA & F1 might like it or not, you name your champions whatever you want, even "World Champions" if it pleases you.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah but where would you race? Donington isn't going to let cars that don't meet international safety standards compete at their track. And why risk potentially pissing off the FIA and all the other series just to let the run series run? If current F1 managed to completely untangle itself from the FIA and run it's own show with no loss of appeal or credibility, maybe. But why would they?

The FIA is actually pretty good at what it does, it's just keyboard warriors that see it as the Great Satan. But it's like every sport. People always blame the refs and/or the governing body.

[saudoso]

Yeah but where would you race? Donington isn't going to let cars that don't meet international safety standards compete at their track. And why risk potentially pissing off the FIA and all the other series just to let the run series run? If current F1 managed to completely untangle itself from the FIA and run it's own show with no loss of appeal or credibility, maybe. But why would they?

The FIA is actually pretty good at what it does, it's just keyboard warriors that see it as the Great Satan. But it's like every sport. People always blame the refs and/or the governing body.

Again, I'm not saying it's easy or should be done. I'm just arguing that it is possible. No law against it.

[johnmhinds]

You want to give FOM complete control of the series with no accountability?

They'd still have to set up systems to replace everything that the FIA does.

How does creating FIA 2.0 benefit anyone?

[JHSingo]

Get rid of the FIA and the sport's problems get worse, not better.

Let the team's run the show? Yeah, like that is going to work. The problem with that is they only care about themselves, and no-one else.

Reminds me of the talk of a break away series in 2009, which all the manufacturers were apparently behind. Then, what happened at the end of the year? BMW and Toyota were gone, and Renault had majorly scaled back its involvement within the sport.

How long would that series have lasted, had it actually happened? A year? Two?

It wouldn't have been a success in the long run, that's for certain. And it'd be the same again if you got rid of the FIA.

I'm not saying the FIA are perfect, and a lot of F1's problems are self induced. But I still think it is better the devil you know...

[ExFlagMan]

Yeah but where would you race? Donington isn't going to let cars that don't meet international safety standards compete at their track. And why risk potentially pissing off the FIA and all the other series just to let the run series run? If current F1 managed to completely untangle itself from the FIA and run it's own show with no loss of appeal or credibility, maybe. But why would they?

The FIA is actually pretty good at what it does, it's just keyboard warriors that see it as the Great Satan. But it's like every sport. People always blame the refs and/or the governing body.

If a circuit such as Donington ran a series outside the FIA envelope it would almost certainly lose its FIA circuit licence and hence the right to run any race above national level, and I doubt the MSA would allow club racing there either.

As I posted earlier - main long term problem for a rebel F1 series, as I see it, would be getting new drivers in - see post 15

[Blackmore]

Start a new series with:

- a V12, 1000bhp, 22,000rpm, built by 1 manufacturer used by all
- a 50 million cap for every team which they can spend as they like on any technological gizmo and the design of the car (which would invite the best engineers pushing the boundaries, the way F1 used to)
- the F1 safety-centered car construction rules and some added
- the flag rules of F1 and some added
- European tracks only at first (to make the transportation relatively cheap and easy)
- the races held during the weekends after F1
- refueling allowed
- 1 compound of durable dry tyre that can last a race and 1 compound of wet tyre for when it rains
- free Live HD streaming online, paid by sponsors, with an option to pay for extra cams to choose from and have detailed data access

Call it Pinnacle Racing and instead of World Champion call it Universe Champion, beat that F1. Top drivers would follow if it really caught on because of it being considered to be the pinnacle of motorsport.

I have a dream...

[BRG]

Call it Pinnacle Racing and instead of World Champion call it Universe Champion, beat that F1.

Sounds like A1GP.

[Gyno]

Sounds like A1GP.

A1gp never set out to compete against F1 and they ran in the winter months with nations as teams.
Those 3 things were the death of A1gp.

Had they ran against F1 during the summer months and not had nations as teams, then they would have been bigger then F1 is today.

They should come back as a direct competitor to F1.

Atleast if I was in charge of A1gp I would do that.

[917k]

A1gp never set out to compete against F1 and they ran in the winter months with nations as teams.
Those 3 things were the death of A1gp.

Had they ran against F1 during the summer months and not had nations as teams, then they would have been bigger then F1 is today.

They should come back as a direct competitor to F1.

Atleast if I was in charge of A1gp I would do that.

One of the silliest things I have read here - ever.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Seconded.

[MikeV1987]

I have no problems with the FIA. it can't be easy to regulate F1 (or anything else) but I think they do a pretty good job overall, sure they made some questionable decisions but whatever, I don't expect them to be perfect. The thought of teams running the show is an absolute joke, surely the smaller teams would get screwed by the bigger ones.

Edited by MikeV1987, 20 July 2013 - 23:44.