78 replies to this topic

[smitten]

I don't think that is a good example. I don't think that many of us saw the errors Perez made in Singapore when they happened and I think that if they are to make a decision that might take away a win, they need to make sure they get it right. In Japan, the situation was much simpler and while Binotto felt that Leclerc should have been allowed to argue his case, there was no argument there. Even Leclerc said the penalty was fair. 

On the other hand, maybe they should have penalized Perez directly, during the race, after the first offense (if they had clear pictures/data) and ignore the reasons, but racing is different from, for example,  football.

 

But isn't that a different problem again?  The judges of fact (the Stewards) are increasingly inviting people to come and argue their cases - with certain notable exceptions.  Name another sport where the judges enter into negotiations on those they are ruling over quite so readily?

[AnR]

I think attributing causation to Merc dominance or wrong sounding cars is overly simplistic.  According to that logic, Merc dominance ended after 2017? 

 

don't know what figures you are showing? tv? what I read was on premise audience is at it's highest level, I will check

[jcbc3]

I don't think that is a good example. I don't think that many of us saw the errors Perez made in Singapore when they happened and I think that if they are to make a decision that might take away a win, they need to make sure they get it right. In Japan, the situation was much simpler and while Binotto felt that Leclerc should have been allowed to argue his case, there was no argument there. Even Leclerc said the penalty was fair. 

On the other hand, maybe they should have penalized Perez directly, during the race, after the first offense (if they had clear pictures/data) and ignore the reasons, but racing is different from, for example,  football.

 

 

the bolded: Yes, we did. Hamilton pointed it out on his radio. Even if that was about going beofre the lights went out or not, it should have alerted race direction to look closely at the next re-start. And there it was blindingly obvious that the rule wasn't followed.

the Italic: Yes, that is a rant Binotto should take back. The transgression was clear and obvious and Race control did the absolutely right thing in handing out the penalty ASAP.

[Primo]

But isn't that a different problem again?  The judges of fact (the Stewards) are increasingly inviting people to come and argue their cases - with certain notable exceptions.  Name another sport where the judges enter into negotiations on those they are ruling over quite so readily?

Yes, that is what I meant, maybe better to dish out the verdicts quickly and maybe get it wrong, but my main argument was that Gareth's example showed two completely different situations rather than two different FIA behaviors in similar situations.

[FirstnameLastname]

How many worldwide motorsport governing bodies are there? Many alternatives?

[Risil]

How many worldwide motorsport governing bodies are there? Many alternatives?

 

What service does the FIA provide that F1's owners couldn't do themselves? Leaving aside competition law for a moment.

[FirstnameLastname]

Also - isn’t F1 an FIA championship? Liberty have been sold the commercial rights but it’s still an FIA championship… not sure it would be as easy as just hiring someone else to do the rules side

[Risil]

There would be a painful break as they wouldn't retain all the trademarks and relationships, and there's also the possibility that the FIA would keep a series running that would drain credibility and focus from Formula Liberty.

 

But it's not an impossibility and is certainly a good bargaining chip for negotiations. If you have cars, teams, circuits and the ability to broadcast to the world, you have a championship. Think about how in soccer UEFA are using the Nations League and the prospect of inviting South American teams to compete as a way of fighting off FIFA's plans for more World Cups, a club world championship, etc. UEFA couldn't literally run the World Cup but they could run something close to it, and that is a big enough threat for the world governing body.

[MinardiCrashDummy]

Quite frankly, what's turned me off F1 more than anything has been the reaction from Mercedes (Wolff) after their rein of domination has ended.  It's as if they (he) can't imagine a team being better than them, and looking for any excuse to bring RB down.

 

This after seven years of powertrain advantage, curiously minor penalties for severe accidents (see Silverstone 2021), and more.  Take a break, Toto - the Championships are not owed to you!

Good forbid people actually want the rules of the sport to be followed.

[BelievableNonsense]

Is it?

 

This is a chart doing the rounds and I've no reason to doubt it's accuracy, but have no way of checking myself.

 

 

Of course, you may measure popularity in other ways, but by this measurement it's not "more popular than ever".

In the UK I wonder how much that dip around 2015-2017 was due to the drop from it leaving FTA

[smitten]

In the UK I wonder how much that dip around 2015-2017 was due to the drop from it leaving FTA

 

They are global figures, and I'm sure the withdrawal of FTA across multiple territories will have had an impact.  I'm also not sure they didn't change they way they counted "unique viewers' around '18 either.

[MasterOfCoin]

It was literally the only mess up comparable to Abu Dhabi out of a whole season of mess ups. He changed the rules in the middle of the race which impacted the end result. If we focus on AD then we also have to equally focus on Bahrain

If you remember Max still had an opportunity to win in Bahrain, he just didn't get it done....He needed to do what he did in France a few races later, and save his tires until the end of the race.....The two ruling are incomparable....

[RedRabbit]

I think attributing causation to Merc dominance or wrong sounding cars is overly simplistic. According to that logic, Merc dominance ended after 2017?

Well,2014 to 2016 was a period where Mercedes won all but 9 races in total, and those losses were driver error or reliability.

2014 also brought us some of the most hideous cars we have ever seen, powered by the absolute worst sounding F1 engines.

The product as whole was completely unappealing.

From 2017 we had a resurgence from Ferrari with Vettel mounting at least something of a title challenge for most of the season.

2017 also saw the return to 2m wide cars, with much wider tires and more proportional front and rear wings, some of the nicest looking cars we had seen in almost a decade.

3 years of engine development and changes in exhaust regs also brought a better engine sound.

So, I don't believe it's simplistic to believe that an improvement in the overall product of F1 led to an increase in viewers.

[Risil]

Well,2014 to 2016 was a period where Mercedes won all but 9 races in total, and those losses were driver error or reliability.

 

Not quite -- in two of the races Mercedes lost in 2015, Ferrari were simply quicker in Singapore, and Vettel outraced Hamilton and Rosberg in Malaysia, right?

[Widefoot2]

Good forbid people actually want the rules of the sport to be followed.

And Goood forbid people notice the advantages "baked in" that one team was able to carry for years, all while the rules expressedly made it difficult to catch up with them? And remember the team principal saying the other teams must "do better" (while his team got unfair advantages)?

 

They did. And now that guy's not happy about it.

 

I have my Nano-violin around here somewhere...

[pdac]

Excellent article by Alex Kalinauckas in Autosport this morning. Evidence, were it ever needed, that the written press still have teeth, sometimes.
The FIA were given the opportunity to respond before publication, presumably, they couldn't be bothered.
https://www.autospor...de-f1/10383284/

 

I can't read the article in full because it's behind a paywall, but I'm not sure I understand where the idea that the press has teeth comes from. It seems to me that it is just an article highlighting what we already know - that the FIA do not have any desire to seriously punish any incidences of a party breaking their rules. It's not putting the sport in jeopardy and it's not going to stop. That's just how it is. F1 purports to have rules and regulations, but none of them are mandatory and if one or more parties decide to ignore or abuse them, the outcome is entirely dependent on what the FIA wishes it to be.

 

BUT EVERYONE DIRECTLY AFFECTED SEEMS TO BE HAPPY WITH THIS.

[William Hunt]

Liberty having the commercial F1 rights is a bigger problem as the FIA

[BigCat]

If you remember Max still had an opportunity to win in Bahrain, he just didn't get it done....He needed to do what he did in France a few races later, and save his tires until the end of the race.....The two ruling are incomparable....

That's like saying that Mercedes had the chance to pit Lewis in Abu Dhabi... And what does Max having an opportunity even has to do with the fundamental issue that Masi took a dump on the procedures in the middle of the race?! I'd say that if he had the chance to track extend for the remaining 30 laps or so like it was agreed according to the race director notes before the start of the race he would have surely won. And again - the issue here is that the procedures were violated by the race director - just like in Abu Dhabi 

Edited by BigCat, 13 October 2022 - 21:48.

[MasterOfCoin]

That's like saying that Mercedes had the chance to pit Lewis in Abu Dhabi... And what does Max having an opportunity even has to do with the fundamental issue that Masi took a dump on the procedures in the middle of the race?! I'd say that if he had the chance to track extend for 30 laps like it was agreed according to the race director notes before the start of the race he would have surely won. And again - the issue here is that the procedures were violated by the race director - just like in Abu Dhabi 

Because you said it had an impact on the end result in the post above.....But in reality the outcome was in Max's hands and less in Masi's in Bahrain......We can't say the same about Abu Dhabi.....

[BigCat]

Because you said it had an impact on the end result in the post above.....But in reality the outcome was in Max's hands and less in Masi's in Bahrain......We can't say the same about Abu Dhabi.....

Haha okay - so it's not about integrity after all but rather about having a "moral" chance. Well Mercedes should have made the call brought Lewis in. Tough luck

[MasterOfCoin]

Haha okay - so it's not about integrity after all but rather about having a "moral" chance. Well Mercedes should have made the call brought Lewis in. Tough luck

Saying Mercedes should have brought Lewis in is disingenuous and you that.....and integrity still applies.....

[Gravelngrass]

Part of the problem is that many of the fans care more about the scandals and personality cults than racing itself. And Liberty, being in it to make money, maybe don’t see this negative publicity as necessarily bad. But yeah, once the new short attention span fans move on to the next shiny object, they’re going to be in trouble.

[BigCat]

Saying Mercedes should have brought Lewis in is disingenuous and you that.....and integrity still applies.....

What you said is disingenuous too. You said it yourself - someone having a theoretical opportunity is more important than honouring the procedures and thus maintaining integrity. So following your logic Mercedes had an opportunity to make a pitstop and they blew it. So one way or another Max wins this championship fair and square 

Edited by BigCat, 14 October 2022 - 03:21.

[smitten]

What you said is disingenuous too. You said it yourself - someone having a theoretical opportunity is more important than honouring the procedures and thus maintaining integrity. So following your logic Mercedes had an opportunity to make a pitstop and they blew it. So one way or another Max wins this championship fair and square 

As this thread is not about AD21 specifically, I'll gloss over.

 

But sport (and especially pro-sport) is tried in the court of public opinion.  What is damaging that fact that Verstappen has won back-to-back WDC, and neither of them have the optics of "fair and square" to large sections of the fan base and casual viewer.  '21 is particularly tainted, and it's not getting any cleaner with recent events.  And one of the underlying problems is the FIA does not give the appearance of treating everybody equally.   The reporting of F1 is just full of chaos and controversy, but not the good kind - it's the kind that comes from a weak and inconsistent FIA which does not project an image of integrity.  They come across as petty and biased.

[Dimocash]

As this thread is not about AD21 specifically, I'll gloss over.

 

But sport (and especially pro-sport) is tried in the court of public opinion.  What is damaging that fact that Verstappen has won back-to-back WDC, and neither of them have the optics of "fair and square" to large sections of the fan base and casual viewer.  '21 is particularly tainted, and it's not getting any cleaner with recent events.  And one of the underlying problems is the FIA does not give the appearance of treating everybody equally.   The reporting of F1 is just full of chaos and controversy, but not the good kind - it's the kind that comes from a weak and inconsistent FIA which does not project an image of integrity.  They come across as petty and biased.

Well, besides some (not all!) Lewis fans, i've heard nothing about this....
So I think it has to do with your environment.

[cjm321190]

Lets put it this way we should be all annoyed regardless of team or driver we support. There should have been a table with penalties already set out.

Basically every year the FIA can see the past results and adjust the penalty to suit their narrative and who they want to win.

Also this look at after the race bull crap, if the penalty is not served in the race then it is not served. Unless it is a technical car issue.

Employ a team that just go through and make a decision. Again a published penalty table we can all see.

[MasterOfCoin]

What you said is disingenuous too. You said it yourself - someone having a theoretical opportunity is more important than honouring the procedures and thus maintaining integrity. So following your logic Mercedes had an opportunity to make a pitstop and they blew it. So one way or another Max wins this championship fair and square

Look both calls lacked integrity, but I gave you an example of why the two calls were not comparable...why is that such a difficult concept to understand, remember your key argument was about the calls being comparable when they are obviously not.... that's the meaning of disingenuous...

[smitten]

Basically every year the FIA can see the past results and adjust the penalty to suit their narrative and who they want to win.

II see the problem slightly differently,  It will appear as you say, even if they aren't actually doing that.

[HP]

Basically teams can talk and use their political power to get out of trouble, even if what they have been doing is breaking rules to win titles and gain big advantages over their rivals. 

Take the power away from the teams and control them properly, enforce the rules and put the correct punishments in place without hesitation regardless of the outcome of past or future results. 

Lets be careful what we are asking. For example the current tyre regulation and specification are in the hands of the FIA. Back then Max Mosley used the partnership between Bridgestone and Ferrari and the unhappiness of other teams about it to bring that change.

 

What really concerns me is that before the change tyres were deems a choice of the teams and being a supplier to individual teams. Now FIA controls everything about tires. Some issues are still being raised about other technological aspects of F1. If these things go the same way, F1 ends up being a spec series. Nothing against spec series, but there are fewer and fewer Formulas left, where different designed cars can compete against each other.

 

Also the way financial things are structured, more and more people with no interest in racing will govern the sport.

 

Also, we have to ask ourselves was the time when Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley governed the sport a little bit like dictators, any better than it is now? Besaue their way of governing didn't go down well with mutli national companies, they were forced to give more power to the teams.

 

From my POV they issue is not so much who holds the power, but are they living up to their responsibilities as holders of said power? And the way FIA is structured right now, to me it looks as if they can get around their responsibilities, by having their own tribunal. Multi national companies are still responsible to external courts, the FIA seems to live in their own bubble. This is a rather an unique model. Is that really good for the future of the sport? I doubt that. There is no perfect solution ever.

 

Winston Churchill comes to my mind:

 

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…