78 replies to this topic

[Velocifer]

I have long been critical of FIA and the way it has ruled the sport in a dictatorial, draconian and often biased way to benefit commercial interests or what seems like petty power games more than its basic ideals, but only lately realized that it might be actually braking its own golden rule by putting the whole sport in general disrepute.

I always felt that it was mostly me and other hardcore followers who saw these nuances, and that the general audience were oblivious and regarded F1 favourably, but more and more I hear from even the most casual observers how they have issues with perceived bias and some of the rules, not to mention the scandals. A question that often comes up is how the top echelon sport can be so poorly run. In other words, the REPUTATION of Formula 1 is to a large degree tarnished, and as is the main concern of any sport and also the business side to have this intact, a rule exists for anyone who put this under threat to be rightfully punished. The governing body should be no exception to this rule.

I could make a very long list here of things here that FIA has done to harm the sport, but will limit to mention the sanctioning of clearly unsafe tracks that killed the great Ayrton Senna and almost Kubica this year all the while being the champion of safety and metering out harsh penalties to anyone who slightly tampers with this most basic of rules, to pushing Grand Prix giant Michelin out of the sport. I am sure more examples will be furnished by others in this thread but please be civil and constructive as this is meant as a serious look at the state of affairs by the ones who can truly judge the sport's reputation, namely us, the fans.

[Welsh]

I would say it was more Max who flip flops about - its his reputation that is putting the sport into disrepute more.

[Szoelloe]

no. It is not putting the sport in disrepute.

[Frogman]

I voted 'no' as I don't believe the FIA as a whole is putting the sport in disrepute. Just like the US, it's not the entity as a whole that's the problem, it's just the president.

[Owen]

It's being governed in an inconsistent and non-transparent way, some decisions and processes seem downright eccentric! so, yes.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by Velocifer
I have long been critical of FIA and the way it has ruled the sport in a dictatorial, draconian and often biased way to benefit commercial interests or what seems like petty power games more than its basic ideals, but only lately realized that it might be actually braking its own golden rule by putting the whole sport in general disrepute.

I always felt that it was mostly me and other hardcore followers who saw these nuances, and that the general audience were oblivious and regarded F1 favourably, but more and more I hear from even the most casual observers how they have issues with perceived bias and some of the rules, not to mention the scandals. A question that often comes up is how the top echelon sport can be so poorly run. In other words, the REPUTATION of Formula 1 is to a large degree tarnished, and as is the main concern of any sport and also the business side to have this intact, a rule exists for anyone who put this under threat to be rightfully punished. The governing body should be no exception to this rule.

I could make a very long list here of things here that FIA has done to harm the sport, but will limit to mention the sanctioning of clearly unsafe tracks that killed the great Ayrton Senna and almost Kubica this year all the while being the champion of safety and metering out harsh penalties to anyone who slightly tampers with this most basic of rules, to pushing Grand Prix giant Michelin out of the sport. I am sure more examples will be furnished by others in this thread but please be civil and constructive as this is meant as a serious look at the state of affairs by the ones who can truly judge the sport's reputation, namely us, the fans.

How you can write so well for 2 paragraphs and then use the nonesensical example of Kubicas crash as an example of your justification is beyond me?

Kubica survived largely because of the FIA's implimented safety standards. This is the one area where the FIA have got it right. Motor-racing, however, remains dangerous. It is not simply their fault then, that with hindsight of every freakish shunt they 'could have done more'. The logical conclusion to that would be to ban motorsport. The fact that they have demonstrably learnt from each incident and gone about improving safety in a progressive fashion leaves me more than satisified that the FIA are fine custodians of the sport in the safety context.

Don't get me wrong, the FIA have got a heck of a lot very wrong regarding questionable judgements, rule changes and media quates, but one thing the cars and tracks are is hugely safer than they once were.

But I think that the casual fan forgets that the FIA's only objective is not to make the action great. They have to consider the economics, the TV companies demands, the competing teams requirements and so forth.

It would be easy to simply jump 5 years forward on the safety path and add in even more chicanes, move more walls and tyre barriers back, slow the cars down further, add more crash structures and so forth. But this will damage the racing and cost a forture to implement all at once.

And who, I wonder, would be complaining about that...

[Alapan]

no.

Many of the 'disreputable' actions are hardly against the own laws and actions of the FIA. The FIA's reputation on safety has been amazing - esp with regards to Kubica's crash or to Ralf's crash two year back which lead to Michelin fiasco, and many other in between, not forgetting other series such as GP2.

In my opinion, the FIA has taken many a bold decision, often completely rational, but unpopular.

It is a governing body - it is not necessarily supposed to be popular.

[kyriakos75]

Originally posted by Rinehart

How you can write so well for 2 paragraphs and then use the nonesensical example of Kubicas crash as an example of your justification is beyond me?

Kubica survived largely because of the FIA's implimented safety standards. This is the one area where the FIA have got it right. Motor-racing, however, remains dangerous. It is not simply their fault then, that with hindsight of every freakish shunt they 'could have done more'. The logical conclusion to that would be to ban motorsport. The fact that they have demonstrably learnt from each incident and gone about improving safety in a progressive fashion leaves me more than satisified that the FIA are fine custodians of the sport in the safety context.

[Buttoneer]

Yes.

Either you're there to enforce rules and fairness or you're their to enforce your own agenda. Doing nothing against Toyota and something against McLaren shows that rules and fairness is not a concern; it is the happiness and commercial position of the teams.

I'll leave aside Max's role in the debacle, which IMO simply lends weight to the argument that the FIA is not a credible governing body at all.

[BlackCat]

was it really necessary to start one more poll about FIA? have a life, people - and use that life to find up how FIA really works and how much it is interested in your opinions etc.
every time i meet with FIA (local) functionaries i tell them that FIA has gone the wrong road as racing should be more dangerous: 1-2 fatalities and 5-6 permanent disablements a year should be normal in F1... have i had some influence on FIA desisions? sure not

[Velocifer]

Originally posted by Rinehart
How you can write so well for 2 paragraphs and then use the nonesensical example of Kubicas crash as an example of your justification is beyond me?

Kubica survived largely because of the FIA's implimented safety standards.

He survived because of HANS and hitting the wall head on which is one of the strongest points of the chassis, but it was mentioned together with Senna as it shows that even decades on from allowing races to be held on tracks with uncovered concrete walls right next to the tarmac which is demonstrably proved to be the main single risk factor in F1, who can possbly deny this.

To allow races at such tracks as governing body responsible for safety shows not only a worrying ignorance of reality when Berger just had a near death crash on Imola earlier, but when no lessons are still not learned years on as seen in Montreal, it can only be seen as serious neglect, nothing was learned as you want to have it. It was the teams that build a better car that saved him, FIA's approval of the track nearly cost him.

Maybe Ferrari bias or inconsistent rulings are more arguments for how F1's reputation has been lowered in your eyes by the FIA, for me it is the extreme incompetence and hypocrisy of FIA's safety standard that is the most glaring and the main reason they are in breach of the rule. You might see it as mute point, but I've heard it raised a number of times before and after Montreal, even by non-followers of F1.

The question of this thread is if F1's reputation is hurt by the FIA, and when people mock the sport for laughable safety standards by allowing tracks with obvious killer concrete walls in immediate proximity, it must be put at the door of the sanctioning body, where else.

Just think that the FIA itself has threatened team members for breach of the disrepute rule for just complaining to the media about penalties etc, so what would be an appropriate punishment for those responsible having the sport mocked on grounds of safety incompetence so bad it actually kills and at the same time be responsible for it?

[kyriakos75]

Originally posted by Velocifer
He survived because of HANS and hitting the wall head on which is one of the strongest points of the chassis, but it was mentioned together with Senna as it shows that even decades on from allowing races to be held on tracks with uncovered concrete walls right next to the tarmac which is demonstrably proved to be the main single risk factor in F1, who can possbly deny this.

So according to you, F1 should race exclusively on boring Tilkedromes with enormous run-off areas? Oh please...

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by Velocifer
He survived because of HANS and hitting the wall head on which is one of the strongest points of the chassis, but it was mentioned together with Senna as it shows that even decades on from allowing races to be held on tracks with uncovered concrete walls right next to the tarmac which is demonstrably proved to be the main single risk factor in F1, who can possbly deny this.

To allow races at such tracks as governing body responsible for safety shows not only a worrying ignorance of reality when Berger just had a near death crash on Imola earlier, but when no lessons are still not learned years on as seen in Montreal, it can only be seen as serious neglect, nothing was learned as you want to have it. It was the teams that build a better car that saved him, FIA's approval of the track nearly cost him.

Maybe Ferrari bias or inconsistent rulings are more arguments for how F1's reputation has been lowered in your eyes by the FIA, for me it is the extreme incompetence and hypocrisy of FIA's safety standard that is the most glaring and the main reason they are in breach of the rule. You might see it as mute point, but I've heard it raised a number of times before and after Montreal, even by non-followers of F1.

The question of this thread is if F1's reputation is hurt by the FIA, and when people mock the sport for laughable safety standards by allowing tracks with obvious killer concrete walls in immediate proximity, it must be put at the door of the sanctioning body, where else.

Just think that the FIA itself has threatened team members for breach of the disrepute rule for just complaining to the media about penalties etc, so what would be an appropriate punishment for those responsible having the sport mocked on grounds of safety incompetence so bad it actually kills and at the same time be responsible for it?

I can assure you you'll be very much batting on your own wicket if you think the FIA are negligent for allowing racing at Canada because its surrounded by walls right next to the track.

As American oval racing will show you, it is not just about the speed of impact, the material of impact or the proximity of the impact that cause fatal injuries, but the ANGLE of IMPACT and the deformation behavior of structures around the driver.

Yes, that part of the circuit in Canada will probably be 'improved' with triple tyre barriers for next year, but will that make it safer? Considering that Burti had a similar type and speed of accident to Kubica, but at Blanchemont in Spa which is protected by tyres - and that he suffered brain injuries but Kubica didn't despite hitting a theoretically 'softer' substance at lower impact G, shows that there is far more to the physics of a shunt than removing walls.

And regarding Senna, you are WAY OFF in any event. He did not have a single broken bone in his body. He was killed by the frekishly unlucky errant shard of metal piercing through his visor. That could just as easily have happened had the wall been 30ft further back.

Seriously mate, safety is the one area where the FIA have done a great job.

[polymath]

Originally posted by BlackCat
every time i meet with FIA (local) functionaries i tell them that FIA has gone the wrong road as racing should be more dangerous: 1-2 fatalities and 5-6 permanent disablements a year should be normal in F1... have i had some influence on FIA desisions? sure not

One of the most rational posts I've read thus far

[Rob]

Whether they have put the sport into disrepute or not, the fact that 50% of the audience perceive them to have done is a huge problem.

[pingu666]

pretty good on safty, pretty poor on the other stuff. id like them to make the saftey cell stronger tho

[Orin]

Originally posted by Rob
Whether they have put the sport into disrepute or not, the fact that 50% of the audience perceive them to have done is a huge problem.

The FIA needs to be well run and seen to be well run. My own view is that the current president suffers from power lust and gets his kicks from pushing the big players around, settling scores, etc. He also seems to be able to get the WMSC to agree to whatever he wants, and has changed the rules to ensure that he can't be easily ousted from office. In short, it's run more like a banana republic than a western democracy. There's so much money washing around in F1 that it deserves, actually requires, a governing body that is beyond reproach. I suspect other sports of comparable size are governed far better.

[Jodum5]

I voted no. However I do think the FIA could help themselves and the sport out alot if they reduced the vagaries in the regulations. For example this silly fuel temperature situation or the wheel diameter fiasco (depending on your perspective) from 2003. Also, the FIA's habit for sarcastic open letters to their detractors makes them come off as very petty.

[Enzoluis]

Originally posted by Rob
Whether they have put the sport into disrepute or not, the fact that 50% of the audience perceive them to have done is a huge problem.

You mean by the audience 70 guys wasting their time posting in stupid threats?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Frogman
I voted 'no' as I don't believe the FIA as a whole is putting the sport in disrepute. Just like the US, it's not the entity as a whole that's the problem, it's just the president.

Exactly.

[undersquare]

A year or two ago two lesser F1 drivers, or testers perhaps, were going to race in a non-FIA series, in South America. They were told if they did they would lose their FIA F1 superlicences. Anyone remember any details?

I can't find anything about it now, but I remember thinking how corrupt that was.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Velocifer
I have long been critical of FIA and the way it has ruled the sport in a dictatorial, draconian and often biased way to benefit commercial interests or what seems like petty power games more than its basic ideals,

You gave a good clue to your original question in the first sentence of your preamble.
F1 is no longer a sport, and the primary interest of the FIA is to promote the business and commercial interests of F1. The fact that this multi billion Euro industry has never been healthier than it is at present, attests to the fact that they are doing a great job. Do you honestly believe Max would still be at the helm if he wasn´t doing what was expected of him? Fat chance.

[ehagar]

I think the Renault spy case will be a litmus test. If the allegations are indeed true, then the FIA is obligated to come down hard on Renault, regardless if the end result is the manufacturer leaving the sport. Anything less would be a complete and utter joke.

[alg7_munif]

FIA should make a clearer rules and punishment from the start, not just create them along the way.

[John B]

It's been this way since I first seriously followed it around 1980/81, which was probably worse as far as the stuff that went on - as anyone who will remember the ridiculous ground effect in season controversies and rule adjustments, and periodic race boycotts will attest. In some ways it adds a degree of entertainment value and exposure, which are probably not viewed as bad things by those at the top.

Agree about the safety measures though - i've been reading the yearly retrospective that comes out in each Autoweek as part of their anniversary year, and the motorsports inevitably includes a list of drivers that didn't survive the season.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by Frogman
I voted 'no' as I don't believe the FIA as a whole is putting the sport in disrepute. Just like the US, it's not the entity as a whole that's the problem, it's just the president.

If the organization allows Max Mosley to rule it like Max Mosley, then it deserves at least some of the blame.

[Suntrek]

Originally posted by Orin




The FIA needs to be well run and seen to be well run. My own view is that the current president suffers from power lust and gets his kicks from pushing the big players around, settling scores, etc. He also seems to be able to get the WMSC to agree to whatever he wants, and has changed the rules to ensure that he can't be easily ousted from office. In short, it's run more like a banana republic than a western democracy. There's so much money washing around in F1 that it deserves, actually requires, a governing body that is beyond reproach. I suspect other sports of comparable size are governed far better.

For once we can agree on something, Orin!

This topic got me thinking. We so often talk about "the FIA" but who are they in fact? Who are the guys that run the sport we love?

F1 is govened by the FIA WMSC. It consists of Max, a deputy president, 7 vice presidents and 17 members. Three of the members are "members by right". These are: "The President of the CIK, the President of the FIA Sporting Manufacturers' Commission, and either a representative of the Formula One Constructors or the President of the Formula One Constructors Association appointed by the World Motor Sport Council."

http://www.fia.com/t...cle14_wmsc.html

NOWHERE on FIA:s website however, could I find any actual names or nationalities for any of the members. Who is President of the Formula One Constructors Association, for example? Who are the other 14 members? Who are these 7 (!) vice-presidents? What qualifications do they have? How are they elected? Why the secrecy, Max???!!

For comparison I checked the FIFA website. There all members of the executive committe and other standing committes are listed with names and nationalities.

To me FIA WMSC looks like an elderly gentlemen's secret club where back-rubs and status (and probably money) are more important than actual knowledge of and interest in motorsports.

Oh, I did find a pic of two of them - ladies and gentlemen - meet mr Nick Craw and mr Luigi Macaluso! (no nationalities given)



They rule our sport. :

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Frogman
I voted 'no' as I don't believe the FIA as a whole is putting the sport in disrepute. Just like the US, it's not the entity as a whole that's the problem, it's just the president.

58% voted for 'that' president last time...

[Go_Scotty_Go!]

I think anyone that has been paying attention and reading what has been going on should understand that the manufacturers are by far dictating what is happening more then the FIA.

The green formula with turbos and KERS got shot down because the manufacturers refused to supply affordable engines as part of that deal - the freeze was a counter offer - which they pounced on.

As far as the spy row goes, and the appeal of the results of the last race, well, the FIA has pretty much done all they can to make sure the sport continues. I for one am grateful that cooler heads seem to prevail in all of this - some of you really want to see the sport fall apart based on "principles" or some kind of "court of law means this should be done" stance. This is a sport, a game - not life and death. If the engine freeze gets us KERS and slicks in 2009, along with the OWGs recommended reduced down force rules - I'll be damn happy, the 1998 era will be over and we will get to see a whole new era - one that I would welcome. Damn excited to see what KERS, less down force, and slicks would do...and the ban of winglets will make the cars look much better...

[Orin]

Originally posted by Suntrek

For once we can agree on something, Orin!

This could be evidence of a tear in the space-time continuum!

F1 needs a real shake-up, as much as I dislike the direction the manufacturers are taking it in, I do feel that they will at least be able to run the sport much better than it is presently. For instance, I can't imagine Mercedes or BMW engineering the exit of Michelin with quite the same level of arrogance and gratuitous insult as Mosley managed.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by Orin
F1 needs a real shake-up, as much as I dislike the direction the manufacturers are taking it in, I do feel that they will at least be able to run the sport much better than it is presently. For instance, I can't imagine Mercedes or BMW engineering the exit of Michelin with quite the same level of arrogance and gratuitous insult as Mosley managed.

I'd tend to suggest the manufacturers running the sport would be a recipe for disaster.....granted, this is much, much bigger than the DTM/ITC ever was, but remember also the introduction of 3.5L NA engines for WSPC was at the manufacturers behest, and then they didn't put their money where their mouth was.....We've seen several high-profile series fall by the wayside over the years, from Can-Am through to ITC (and currently I fear the modern DTM looks close to implosion too) and, as a consequence I firmly believe that the FIA must stay in charge of F1. The current people can change (please!! lol) but the sport has to be run by an 'independent' body.....the manufacturers have shown themselves to be exactly what we'd expect, i.e. businesses who use the sport to promote themselves.....when times get hard, the manufacturers have some hard decisions to make and, on a human level I'd rather see a 'grandee' wind down their racing operation and lose 500 jobs than keep throwing money into the bottomless pit and end up in dire trouble for years and years and years to come.....

[Sébastien]

Originally posted by Orin
There's so much money washing around in F1 that it deserves, actually requires, a governing body that is beyond reproach. I suspect other sports of comparable size are governed far better.

Ha, ha how naive can you be; I would suggest you read Andrew Jennings' book "Lord of the rings" on the IOC or his book on the FIFA.

João Havelange and Juan Antonio Samaranch actually make Max Mosley look like an innocent puppy ;)

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by wrighty

I firmly believe that the FIA must stay in charge of F1. The current people can change (please!! lol) but the sport has to be run by an 'independent' body.....the manufacturers have shown themselves to be exactly what we'd expect, i.e. businesses who use the sport to promote themselves.....

If Manufacturers ruled the waves we would have no independents at all by now.

[Orin]

Originally posted by wrighty


I'd tend to suggest the manufacturers running the sport would be a recipe for disaster.....granted, this is much, much bigger than the DTM/ITC ever was, but remember also the introduction of 3.5L NA engines for WSPC was at the manufacturers behest, and then they didn't put their money where their mouth was.....We've seen several high-profile series fall by the wayside over the years, from Can-Am through to ITC (and currently I fear the modern DTM looks close to implosion too) and, as a consequence I firmly believe that the FIA must stay in charge of F1. The current people can change (please!! lol) but the sport has to be run by an 'independent' body.....the manufacturers have shown themselves to be exactly what we'd expect, i.e. businesses who use the sport to promote themselves.....when times get hard, the manufacturers have some hard decisions to make and, on a human level I'd rather see a 'grandee' wind down their racing operation and lose 500 jobs than keep throwing money into the bottomless pit and end up in dire trouble for years and years and years to come.....

Perhaps, but I'm not confident that the FIA can be reformed, Max will simply be replaced by another politicking power freak (Jean Todt? Yikes!!!). And don't the manufacturers actually have a stake in F1 now (or is it that they simply have leverage on the banks)?.

[Orin]

Originally posted by Sébastien

Ha, ha how naive can you be; I would suggest you read Andrew Jennings' book "Lord of the rings" on the IOC or his book on the FIFA.

João Havelange and Juan Antonio Samaranch actually make Max Mosley look like an innocent puppy ;)

Me naiive? Well at least I didn't fall for the '"The Lord of the Rings" as allegory' trap (and it's J.R.R. Tolkein BTW).

[FredF1]

Originally posted by Orin


Me naiive? Well at least I didn't fall for the '"The Lord of the Rings" as allegory' trap (and it's J.R.R. Tolkein BTW).

Naive?


Here


Let's face it - any sport where large sums of money are floating about becomes corrupted by it. F1 is no different.

[No No. 13]

We seem to be getting lost in an discussion about track safety rather than the FIA's administration of F1.

The FIA, because they are under Max's leadership, are guilty as charged.

Balance, transparency and consistency appear to be alien concepts when it comes to formulating and administering the rules and regulations used for the running of F1.

Rules are administered not in an uneven-handed manner but are biased towards Ferrari and Max has admitted as such endeavouring to justify his decision by saying that because there are more UK based teams than Italian based teams they need the additional support - would someone care to explain or justify the logic?

When it comes to matters of clarification, the issue is avoided - would it really have been that difficult for Max to ask McLaren if they would agree to withdraw their appeal if the matter of fuel temperatures was referred to the Technical Working Group - I'm sure Ferrari, Williams and BMW would have agreed ...... but Max isn't talking to Ron.

I wait with baited breath for the outcome of the FIA's inspection of the 2008 McLaren and for the hearing with regards to alleged inappropriate possession of McLaren IP by Renault - I am sure that there are designers and engineers up and down the pit lane who, if they told what they knew about the transfer and use of other IP would result in the FIA being very rich if McLaren's $100m fine is anything to go by.

The FIA will not change until there is a change in leadership and for as long as Max is in power then the "special relationship" that exists between the FIA and Ferrari and which is endorsed in the Concorde Agreement will continue to the detriment of balance, transparency and consistency which consequently brings the sport into disrepute.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by Orin


Perhaps, but I'm not confident that the FIA can be reformed, Max will simply be replaced by another politicking power freak (Jean Todt? Yikes!!!). And don't the manufacturers actually have a stake in F1 now (or is it that they simply have leverage on the banks)?.

in time, i believe the FIA could be reformed, mainly because 'politicking' and 'power freak' can be separated (David Richards is reputedly a power freak but he never really struck me as politically biased as such) and yes, i believe the manufacturers have a 'stake' in that they're signatories to an agreement on the technical and financial 'codes' of the sport through the FIA and FOM's Concorde agreement.....I tend to think it won't get sorted with the next chairman (post-Max) but i think there's enough baggage that the commission might have a good long think before they employed Mr. Todt.

Originally posted by Buttoneer
If Manufacturers ruled the waves we would have no independents at all by now.

I agree completely but the point remains that when the Manufacturers have ruled the waves in the past, more often than not the series has suffered in the end for it when the purse-strings start to tighten

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Go_Scotty_Go!

The green formula with turbos and KERS got shot down because the manufacturers refused to supply affordable engines as part of that deal .

No they didn't. Both back in 2005 - when the freeze was announced - and now - when the freeze was provisonally extended - there was an offer on the table, from the manufacturers via FOMAC (Formula One Manufacturers Advisory Committee) to do exactly this - supply 'affordable' engines. The problem has been - in each case - that the FIA decided what they thought was affordable, and what the manufacturers thought affordable, was different. to the the tune of 5million euro.

KERS, since you mention it, is a sticking point as it's very development is NOT affordable in any way - it's bloody expensive.

there is still an offer on the table, via FOMAC, to provide affordable engines. The FIA will never agree that it is the right price, however, and the manufacturers will continue to supply engines at their own agreed contract prices.

[Rob]

If they want a green formula then there's no need to restrict specific technologies - just put an upper limit on a car's emissions and let the teams do what they like around that.

[Rinehart]

The problem with the FIA is that they are trying to keep too many people happy.

The billions of casual TV viewers (on the whole) want cracking racing, loads of overtaking, random results, crashes and convenient TV times but they are certainly not interested in the politicking and rule-flip flopping.

The (unfortunately) small proportion of hardcore fans tend to be purists who want to return to many of the traditional things that made F1 great (such as slick tyres, great circuits). They don't necessarily need to see an over-taking fest, ala NASCAR, but action including the ability to overtake is vital. They generally are hacked off with the politicking and rule-flip flopping, but at least have a deep interest in it and view on it.

The (unfortunately) even smaller proportion of hardcore fans who support the position of F1 as the pinnacle of the sport in terms of technology want what the above lot want, including great racing, but still want teams to push the boundaries of technology - so this lot are incredibly difficult to keep happy because with technology so advanced these days, almost every invention or innovation is now expensive and harmful to racing because it tends to make another aspect of the car 'perfect' thus reducing the drivers input to racing.

The sponsors are only interested in boosting their brand image. To do this F1 must be popular and so it virtually does not matter how good or bad the publicity is, as the old saying goes. They are primarily concerned with TV audiences. Race attendance figures count for little in the overall scheme of things. It is a mis-conception to think that sponsors have to win. Currently the mere involvement in F1, as long as its strategically done with the right partners, is enough.

TV companies. They want as many people watching as possible. The keys to this are (1) convenient schedules (2) non-stop action (hence the TV generated changes to qualifying for example), (3) safety - the last thing most TV companies can afford is another live fatality on prime time TV. (4) Success of Ferrari - as they are by far the biggest draw card to F1 globally.

The teams actually want anything but great racing. They just want to win. Random variables in racing is not good for any of the top teams. They would much prefer it as it is, with incredibly complex rules that means that it is easier to stay at the top. So with the concord agreement requiring unanimous voting, the big guns block any change that slims their chances of maintaining the status quo.

The manufacturers. They want to draw as much out of F1 financially as they put in. They also cannot afford to stay if they are not successful due to the brand damage it causes. They want to use F1 to develop their technology to showcase it. The trouble is that different teams are better in different areas of technology and to keep the speeds of the cars in check it cannot be allowed for development to go unchecked in every area - hence they will never agree to anything unanimously, particularly if they were ruling the sport themselves. They also act as a large cartel would do in any other market and make it increasingly difficult for any newcomer to compete.

The FIA. As I said they need to keep everyone happy, plus make some more people happy who aren't even mentioned. The headline list is something like this, in no particular order.

(1) Safety. Ensure the cars are slowed, strengthened and the circuits improved for safety (these measures combined almost always reduce the racing spectacle).

(2) Reduce costs. Everyone wants this, but nobody can agree how to do it so the FIA have to make decisions such as long life engines.

(3) Slow technical development. This reduces safety and costs but usually pisses everyone off one way or another. The FIA try to stamp out needless development, without ever knowing what technical avenues lead to what since the point of the sport is based around INVENTION. To give an example, if the FIA had banned underbody development in the 60’s, they would not have know that they were preventing ground effect from being invented, because it did not exist yet.

(4) The Rule Book. The point of F1 is that it is a development sport. Rules must be written, but as per the above example, it is impossible to rule things out before they have been invented. Thus they are faced with having to adjust the rule book as new situations arise. There are far better and more consistent ways of doing this though. I suspect everyone agrees.

(5) Environmental considerations. F1 will come under ever-increasing pressure from the media and the world to go green due to the ill-informed frenzied agenda called Global Warming.

(6) Maximising profits. To do this Ferrari must be competitive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply in denial. The concord agreement which all the teams have signed specifically redistributes income to the teams partly in order of their value to the sport and Ferrari are on another planet to everyone else. Every team and manufacture has agreed to this because the commercial value of beating Ferrari is miles greater than not having them there to beat. The FIA also boost profits by prostituting F1 to suit the TV companies who bring the revenue in.

So, fundamentally, my point is that you cannot please all the people all of the time but certainly the FIA should by now have their priorities in order and be implementing them consistently. It’s in the lack of urgency, direction, contradiction, transparency and explanation that the FIA have been found wanting and in how they have conducted themselves I do beleive that they have put the sport in disrepute.

[wrighty]

Originally posted by Rinehart
....fundamentally, my point is that you cannot please all the people all of the time but certainly the FIA should by now have their priorities in order and be implementing them consistently. It’s in the lack of urgency, direction, contradiction, transparency and explanation that the FIA have been found wanting and in how they have conducted themselves I do believe that they have put the sport in disrepute.

an excellent assessment

[Velocifer]

Originally posted by Rinehart
I can assure you you'll be very much batting on your own wicket if you think the FIA are negligent for allowing racing at Canada because its surrounded by walls right next to the track.

When even F1 'rookie' Nico Rosberg's main comment after the Kubica crash was how they were allowed to race on a track with unprotected concrete wall right next to the road, that's enough for me.

It is not a question of allowing racing with walls around as you say, both Hamilton and Raikkonen as we saw also had massive shunts into these with basically no problems whatsoever as they were properly covered.

I mean how can you possibly have tracks with unproteced walls and especially where there is no proper runoff area since Senna? For me this is just basic, basic stuff. I wonder what you would have said had Kubica perished because there was no tyre wall there..

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer
F1 is no longer a sport, and the primary interest of the FIA is to promote the business and commercial interests of F1. The fact that this multi billion Euro industry has never been healthier than it is at present, attests to the fact that they are doing a great job. Do you honestly believe Max would still be at the helm if he wasn´t doing what was expected of him? Fat chance.

Hope you are not saying we are no longer to accept it as a sport as that would be reputation completely wasted then..

Originally posted by No No. 13
We seem to be getting lost in an discussion about track safety rather than the FIA's administration of F1.

Exactly..

Originally posted by Rinehart
The problem with the FIA is that they are trying to keep too many people happy.

The billions of casual TV viewers (on the whole) want cracking racing, loads of overtaking, random results, crashes and convenient TV times but they are certainly not interested in the politicking and rule-flip flopping.

I get concerned whenever I see people actually wanting crashes in F1, is this really true? If so, then according to the list FIA should please the blood thirst for good ratings and not really be that throrough with checking the tracks? Scary thought indeed... :

I find it anyway ironic that most of the good in TV viewing lately has come from the new tracks and evenly matched manufacturers, FIA contribution has only been to bend the rules to create close finishes, throwing away the sport's reputation in the process..

[FredF1]

Originally posted by Velocifer

I get concerned whenever I see people actually wanting crashes in F1, is this really true? If so, then according to the list FIA should please the blood thirst for good ratings and not really be that throrough with checking the tracks? Scary thought indeed... :

Not blood lust but a huge start line crashfest with everyone walking away unhurt is perfect for the casual viewers. ITV have such crashes as part of their opening titles since they first covered F1 and I've never heard a complaint. RTE used to have similar (Spa 1998) footage when they covered F1.

[Buttoneer]

Yup. I know people who will watch the start for the inevitable crashes and testosterone battle for position but then switch over (or off) until the end when they switch back to see Michael Schumacher* get the winners trophy.



*Oddly, despite Fernando, and despite retirement, this is still the overwhelming sentiment of most casual viewers I speak to.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Velocifer

Hope you are not saying we are no longer to accept it as a sport as that would be reputation completely wasted then..

Not at all velocifer, you are entitled to see F1 as you wish. But I think it is important to remember that ones point of view can easily be influenced by past perceptions.
F1 has traditionally been referred to as a sport, and up to a certain point in it´s history, that might have been the case. But with the advent of TV and viewing audiences that number literally hundreds of millions, money has, for better or worse, become the primary driving force behind what has evolved into a multi billion pound, dollar, euro, (chose your currency) enterprise, where decisions are based purely on business interests, and where the sporting side of things is now only of secondary iimportance..
Sad but true.

[Velocifer]

If money matters comes before the sporting it is then corrupt.

This puts the sport in disrepute.

FIA is to blame as it is responsible for the sporting values.


It's as simple as that.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Velocifer
If money matters comes before the sporting it is then corrupt.

This puts the sport in disrepute.

FIA is to blame as it is responsible for the sporting values.


It's as simple as that.

Yes, that is the purists point of view. Unfortunately purits don´t run our "sport". Bernie, Max and a few others do.

[Go_Scotty_Go!]

Originally posted by Lifew12


No they didn't. Both back in 2005 - when the freeze was announced - and now - when the freeze was provisonally extended - there was an offer on the table, from the manufacturers via FOMAC (Formula One Manufacturers Advisory Committee) to do exactly this - supply 'affordable' engines. The problem has been - in each case - that the FIA decided what they thought was affordable, and what the manufacturers thought affordable, was different. to the the tune of 5million euro.

KERS, since you mention it, is a sticking point as it's very development is NOT affordable in any way - it's bloody expensive.

there is still an offer on the table, via FOMAC, to provide affordable engines. The FIA will never agree that it is the right price, however, and the manufacturers will continue to supply engines at their own agreed contract prices. [/B]

The "offer" is ridiculous. Max is in fact looking after the bottom half of the grid - I wish some of you would see this.
The FOMAC is not F1, is it? No. The FOMAC is the result of the failed split.

Bottom line is that the bottom half of the grid must contain privateers, or F1 dies...

[oneGurneyfan]

Rinehart (quote)
"The FIA also boost profits by prostituting F1 to suit the TV companies who bring the revenue in."

The real audience for F1 IS the TV audience. Unfortunately, I can only watch F1 on TV, and I am grateful when the TV companies attempt to make each race...more enjoyable for the viewer. I would be interested in what you consider "prostituting" to entail?