81 replies to this topic

[noikeee]

There's too many variables for the results to be micro-managed, but often they make the convenient decision when a controversy comes up. The team at the top of the standings usually gets the decisions against them. At the same time they're very very reticent of throwing away someone from a championship, or taking away a championship after it's been won.

1994 is the ultimate example. They banned Schumacher for 2 races which was way over the top because he was far ahead in the table. However when Benetton was caught with wrongdoing, or when a seemingly-on-purpose shunt decided the title, nothing happened. They didn't want to damage an already fragilized F1 (from Senna's death) by disqualifying a champion.

2007 they threw a blind eye to the fuel issue of Williams after the final race too, because that would've meant changing the champion which would be awful PR. I admit at a point I also thought about the merits of that huge conspiracy of Hamilton beaching it on purpose in China, then turning the car off on purpose in Brazil. I think at the time it was Brundle who commented something among the lines of "there's huge skeletons to come out yet", which sounded like it may have been a hint at that. However Kimi was so far behind in the standings, anything could happen at any time to ruin his races, it was impossible to stage a conspiracy that deep. That level of interference I think is impossible.

[Jacobss]

Then you could say that Lotus manipulated the WDC in Seb's direction as well. Would it be worth another title for Renault?

Well it's impossible, since Alonso threw himself out of the race at Suzuka. He should be happy not getting a penalty for pushing another driver off the track like Grosjean in Spa.

[jstrains]

Is the other driver off the track? Because I can see him in the picture...

[TurboF1]

Alonso said it perfectly back in 2007, when spanish press claimed that FIA had decided to make Hamilton a champion by manipulating results: "it's impossible for FIA or for anybody else to manipulate the outcome of the races or championship. there is too many variations in races that can happend that no human can control...car breaking down suddenly, driver errors or weather changing, getting a puncture etc."

plus Bernie hasn't watched a race for many many years!

Oh I dont know... Singapore 2008 comes to mind, but i'm sure a driver of Alonsos' calibre, who is so often used to dictacting strategy from the cockpit, didnt question stopping earlier than anyone else that race at a time that wouldnt've made sense if he didnt know about the predetermined "crash" by his teammate.

Suuuurrrrreeeee...

[Seanspeed]

There's too many variables for the results to be micro-managed, but often they make the convenient decision when a controversy comes up.

I think thats about the extent of it, too.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, though. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[DanardiF1]

What about Jerez qualifying in 97... that HAD to be 'managed'...

[Seanspeed]

What about Jerez qualifying in 97... that HAD to be 'managed'...

Why?

[Atic Atac]

What about Jerez qualifying in 97... that HAD to be 'managed'...

i think that was more of a computer glitch than anything else ;)

[DanardiF1]

Why?

3 cars all doing the exact same pole lap time, conveniently with two of the title rivals being in those 3?

[solochamp07]

What about Jerez qualifying in 97... that HAD to be 'managed'...

Nah, on that day they showed a real-time split-screen replay of JV's and MS' laps from their onboard cameras, and you could clearly see both cars crossing the line at the same time.

Anyway, who would could have benefitted from such manipulation? What would have been the motive?

[Seanspeed]

Anyway, who would could have benefitted from such manipulation?

The fans and the sport.

I'm guessing the 3rd person was just included in the conspiracy to not make it too obvious?

I dunno. I guess I can see why somebody would think it was staged, but its just not in me to jump to conclusions like that without enough evidence.

[DanardiF1]

The fans and the sport.

I'm guessing the 3rd person was just included in the conspiracy to not make it too obvious?

I dunno. I guess I can see why somebody would think it was staged, but its just not in me to jump to conclusions like that without enough evidence.

My thoughts were that it was an 'experiment' by Bernie etc. to see how adding in 'extraordinary' events would add to the media coverage of the final race. There's 2 guys in the hunt for the title with one race left, both do the same laptime in qualifying but how the race might go is made even more uncertain as an interloper the form of Frentzen, doing the same laptime as well, is added to get people thinking...

[AlexS]

I can imagine manipulation inside teams to favor a driver over other.

I also can imagine "manipulation" if there is a gentleman agreement of some sort due to a specific issue, for example a team is caught with an irregular car that won 2 races and then loses 2 races on propose to not have a punishment.

I can imagine manipulation for entertainment.
For example if a car dominates the first half of championship than FIA asks Pirelli(or other manufacturer) to came with a different tire.

[Wander]

3 cars all doing the exact same pole lap time, conveniently with two of the title rivals being in those 3?

Let us think of this in terms of probability mathematics:

Those two cars, Schumacher in a Ferrari and the Williams were obviously very close in performance that day. I am not going to factor Eddie Irvine being half a second slower than Michael, cause he was no Michael, but let's assume that under normal variation, those three cars were going to be within 2 tenths of each other that day, and the rest comes down to luck. Car number one sets a time. Now the two other have to hit it.

The chance of car number 2 hitting that time is 1/200 = 0.005 = 0.5%

The chance of both cars number 2 and 3 hitting that time is:
1/200 * 1/200 = 0.000025 = 0.0025% = 1/40 000

That is a very low possibility to be sure, but it isn't impossible! This kind of calculation is actually also misleading, cause it is going to give the same probability for any split difference of those 3 cars.

The fact is, If three cars of similar performance range were to do qualifying sessions time after time after time, chances are that eventually one day each of them would post the exact same time.

Let's see. I think there has been about 900 F1 race weekends so far. If we count the possibility of top three cars sharing the exact same time at least once in any practice session in the history of formula 1 with the same method, we actually come to a rather reasonable possibility.

1-(1-0.000025)^900 * 4 = 0.08607 = 8.607%

Ok, now I know that this possibility has not been the same for every single weekend, but the point is to demonstrate that eventually it is going to happen, and I find this explanation of chance more convincing than some sort of conspiracy theory. Note also that if we were to count the possibility of any three cars having the exact same time, not just the top three cars, the possibility is actually much much bigger. It has probably happened in some sessions in history, not sure if anyone has kept count.

[Kucki]

Didnt he once admit Ferrari always got special treatment from the FIA

[undersquare]

I would like to know who, ultimately, decided that the McLaren floor this year could not use the tolerance specified in the rules.

Whereas by introducing new FW tests for next year it's been admitted that the RBR has won the 2012 wcc with a movable aero device.

[jjcale]

F1 is [somewhat] staged and [sometimes it seems to be] as much a Sport as Wrestling. So what? It's Entertainment. Once you start to take it seriously you're screwed.
It is not as bad as is was during Ferrari's bought championships in the early 2000's, but not much better either.

This.

[August]

I don't think there's direct manipulation from Bernie/FIA. That would require drivers knowing what to do, which would demoralize them.

Another thing is that Bernie/FIA may well try manipulate the season. Rule interpretations and stewards' decision may be made to lead to a desired outcome of championship. I think that has happened. And rules are changed between seasons. That can be done to improve racing but I have my own suspects about rules being made to favour certain teams. I wouldn't be too surprised if FIA wouldn't like to restrict aero. It's less road-car relevant than e.g. engine technology, and it being the most important thing in F1 doesn't give too much advantage for car manufacturers' team, e.g. RBR can challenge car manufacturers in F1.

And my inner conspiracy theorist wouldn't be too surprised if sometimes a team sabotaged their drivers' performance because of pressure from FIA or Bernie. I remember there were theories Macca had to lose '07 WDC because of the Spygate.

[HP]

I doubt there is control. If there was they'd have done something to stop Schumacher from repetitively winning titles and causing the fanbase of F1 to dwindle.

If that were true then Seb wouldn't be on his way to winning his 3rd WDC in a row. Red Bulls domination has probably done more to damage the sport viewership wise than good. Unless you're saying they've bought the championship.

The dwindling of the fan base has other, more global, more serious reasons behind it, than one team dominating.

Dieter Rencken had an article about it. There are many young people these days that don't get a drivers license and don't buy cars. Being able to drive a car isn't a necessary skill to brag/show off these days anymore.

Global sale of cars have also been going backwards, especially in Europe, the home base of F1.

Now on some level (environmental concerns) that might be positive, but it means auto racing in any form will attract less viwership than in the past. And no manipulating (if they really do) of the powers in F1 will be able to change that by making F1 less predictable. If someybody isn't interested in auto racing in general, then it doesn't matter if the same team wins or not.

IMO there is also a correlation between the raise of the Internet, social media, online shopping, online entertainment and less interest in cars. Why drive if you can buy things from home, connect to family/friends from far away, etc.

At first glance it may seem unrelated, but today's cinemas have also a harder time to survive, because of dwindling number of people go to a theater to watch a movie. They have some of the same reasons for that as in auto racing.

So in the end auto racing has to look at a bigger picture of how is stays relevant in today's world. Manipulating results would be the worst road to take in this regard.

Edited by HP, 25 November 2012 - 13:03.

[jjcale]

The dwindling of the fan base has other, more global, more serious reasons behind it, than one team dominating.

....
So in the end auto racing has to look at a bigger picture of how is stays relevant in today's world. Manipulating results would be the worst road to take in this regard.

Is fan base actually dwindling?

[Juan Kerr]

Circumstances has 10 times bigger effect on everything than anyone could ever have. You'd be better off complaining about natural circumstances.

[Skinnyguy]

I remembered this topic during today´s race. Thought a couple of times: wait, wait, this is TOO epic, maybe it´s true what that maniac said on Autosport forum

Just in case it IS scripted, a message for the guys writting it: you´ve gone too far

[Dolph]

I remembered this topic during today´s race. Thought a couple of times: wait, wait, this is TOO epic, maybe it´s true what that maniac said on Autosport forum

Just in case it IS scripted, a message for the guys writting it: you´ve gone too far

I'd say its so ridiculous you can't imagine someone scripted it.

[engel]

I'd say its so ridiculous you can't imagine someone scripted it.

you can't script Senna/Vettel. The margin of error is so tiny you can easily end up with Vettel out of the race. We are literally talking about millimeters here

[Skinnyguy]

you can't script Senna/Vettel. The margin of error is so tiny you can easily end up with Vettel out of the race. We are literally talking about millimeters here

Yeah, of course, just joking. Wouldn´t watch if I thought otherwise (or maybe I would, today was just too good to miss, fake or not )

To add insult to injury, Spanish TV guys claimed that Bruno had told them his uncle would have liked Alonso winning this one. He came close to make it happen

[beute]

why would I believe in something that I have no evidence for?!
I can certainly accept that the possibility exists, but that doesnt make anymore true...
And you dont seem to have any real evidence either, hence why you wont tell us WHY you believe it to be true.

[tabovilla]

I believe it's pretty epic by it self, only needs to keep the boat moving forward, away from the coral reefs, nothing else

[Mr.Wayne]

In which way the 2008 championship?

I am not sure what he is onto, but I would guess that maybe by ignoring the alleged concerns raised from the Piquet Sr. camp at the time of the Singapore GP, and then allowing the race result to stay?

[Jejking]

Didnt he once admit Ferrari always got special treatment from the FIA

Yes, he did once. In your imagination.

[Lazy]

Force India says 1st SC period was a joke

Have to agree, SC's normally only occur for cars in dangerous positions.

I certainly don't think it's scripted but they do seem to take a chance to spice things up when an opportunity presents itself.

[choyothe]

Renault was clearly trying to win the title for Ferrari with the alternator-saga, I demand an investigation on this.

[readonly]

My thinking:

1) Tyre rules: Having a single supplier opens the possibility of an agreement to do (indirect) manipulations. Having compulsory bad tyres for everyone opens the possibility to secretly give one team a good tyre.

2) DRS rules: Limiting the use of DRS to certain parts of the track opens the possibility that a team uses it outside of this zones without us or anyone else noticing it and that the FIA simply does not punish it.

3) KERS: Same as DRS. Exceeding the limits that the rules impose can't be judged by us nor rival teams. If the FIA want, they can allow selected teams to use some extra power.

4) Miscelaneous interventions: Banning mass dampers mid season, allowing flexible wings for some teams, deployment of SC whenever their favourite driver is too far behind, etc.

5) as some other forumers have suggested: the FIA might have agreed with teams some results due to political situations or simply to share the benefits of being part of F1.

6) Controlling results (but making them look as if they were not) is very lucrative at betting. And I have the feelling that BE bets and earns a lot of money from that.

In general, rules are made to allow the fia to cheat. There is no transparency in them. Rules can certainly be transparent but the FIA (Bernie) do not want to make them more transparent simply because they think they can earn more like this.

NOW. THERE IS A SOLUTION.

The FIA can earn a lot of money too if they do things right. I think that even more money. Doing things rightly, producing a real technology race, would involve a lot of real investors that would produce real technology to win races. This could involve newly emergent technologies that could also boost new industries around the world. With the interest of the best tech developers in the world, F1 would return to its former glory of the 60's 70's 80's.

That is how I think...

Edit: I forgot to mention the stupid DRS rule of forbidding its use if you are not 1 second or closer to the driver ahead. It certainly produces more overtaking but it is simply too easy. Look how easily Vettel got past in abu dhabi for instance. This simply manures to results manipulation because their favourite driver can always go to the front regardless any eventual setbacks.

Edited by readonly, 14 January 2013 - 17:18.