The Italian GP Thread
Discussion
t1grm said:
People complaining that the decisions always go Schumacher’s way seem to have short memories. Anyone remember in 94 when Schumacher was running away with the championship at the expense of Damon Hill? He was banned for three races for ignoring a black flag at the British GP – which in itself was given for the trivial offence of overtaking on the parade lap – and then disqualified from 1st place at the Belgian GP because his underfloor skid block showed excessive ware.
The former offence was a little known rule that had not been enforced for some years but hey-presto, when Schumacher seemed to be running away with the championship plus Hill was on pole at the British GP they decide to wheel it out and the slap on a three-race ban to boot.
Te FIA and its stewards taking controversial decisions is nothing new and it’s not always been in favor of Schumacher.
The former offence was a little known rule that had not been enforced for some years but hey-presto, when Schumacher seemed to be running away with the championship plus Hill was on pole at the British GP they decide to wheel it out and the slap on a three-race ban to boot.
Te FIA and its stewards taking controversial decisions is nothing new and it’s not always been in favor of Schumacher.
It's notable that those incidents happened before he joined Ferrari. I suspect that after Schumacher leaves, the FIA will continue to favour Ferrari.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/54445
Hope Alonso doesn't get any sh!t for his comments. He is absolutely right and respect for having the nuts to say so, but then we know the FIAsco won't approve.
Hope Alonso doesn't get any sh!t for his comments. He is absolutely right and respect for having the nuts to say so, but then we know the FIAsco won't approve.
flemke said:
Yes Ferrari are "competitive, clued up and clever", but are you saying that the folks at Renault, McLaren and Williams are not? Why should so many of the decisions go Ferrari's way and so few go to the others?
Not at all. I just think that we focus on Ferrari because (recently) they are reliable championship contenders, and often either defending their regulatory position or questioning that of their rivals'. I'd agree that a goodly number of decisions go their way, but attribute that to (a) persuasive arguments and (b) the desire of the management to see the championship go to the wire. Perhaps they have amassed undue influence with the management - I honestly couldn't comment, but certainly their approach appears much less antagonistic than, say, McLaren's or now Renault's...
flemke said:
To cite but one of numerous possible examples, how can the mass damper be an moving aerodynamic device although it had already been allowed by the FIA for a year, but the rear wheel frisbees not be moving aerodynamic devices? How in hell does that make sense?
I don't understand or defend it, but then I see the whole vehicle as a moving aerodynamic device
Cheers (ciao?)
WilliBetz
flemke said:
To cite but one of numerous possible examples, how can the mass damper be an moving aerodynamic device although it had already been allowed by the FIA for a year, but the rear wheel frisbees not be moving aerodynamic devices? How in hell does that make sense?
Cheers.
Not only that, but the wheels are supposed to be manufactured from a homogenous material. The Ferrari wheel discs are different material and attached to the wheel. (Must be true 'cos Brundle said so)
flemke said:
willibetz said:
It's great to see Max being doorstepped (his face was a picture!), and great to see him on form. Of course he may not have supported the decision, but I agree that he defended it brilliantly. I think he used one of his favourite plays:
"We used data that will never be public domain, and would be meaningless to all but a handful of people, so you can't argue with us". Of course, the only non-partisan observers with recent relevant experience (Brundle, Blundell) thought the decision stank (Alonso posted a fastest sector time ffs!) but as Max could reply "hey, what can I say, we have the data, you're wrong, rules is rules".
Other plays that you may be familiar with are:
"All but one or two of the teams have managed to get along without using unobtainium, so we're going to outlaw it". This one works because teams and suppliers are loath to share intellectual property. Cunningly, even if they talk to one other team they still can't disprove the claim.
and if that one fails, there's always the trusty standby:
"on safety grounds, we're going to do what we want"
WilliBetz, "We used data that will never be public domain, and would be meaningless to all but a handful of people, so you can't argue with us". Of course, the only non-partisan observers with recent relevant experience (Brundle, Blundell) thought the decision stank (Alonso posted a fastest sector time ffs!) but as Max could reply "hey, what can I say, we have the data, you're wrong, rules is rules".
Other plays that you may be familiar with are:
"All but one or two of the teams have managed to get along without using unobtainium, so we're going to outlaw it". This one works because teams and suppliers are loath to share intellectual property. Cunningly, even if they talk to one other team they still can't disprove the claim.
and if that one fails, there's always the trusty standby:
"on safety grounds, we're going to do what we want"
Would you really call it being "doorstepped" when the guy is swanning around in amongst dozens of cameras at the event (this was one of those rare ones that he attended) of which he is the chief regulator?
You will not have forgotten that Mosie's a barrister, and a barrister's mission in life is to make the most persuasive and compelling possible case on behalf of the cause of the moment, completely irrespective of the underlying truth and common decency.
willibetz said:
I don't think all decisions favour Ferrari (could I be in a minority of one?) but certainly think Ferrari are adept at forming and putting forward a case to the powers that be.
You're not in a minority of one. There are millions of people in Italy who agree with you. The population of the rest of the universe, however...
willibetz said:
From the management perspective, it's important that the teams remain competitive with one another, and great if the championship is decided at the last race. And a bit like Wogan on the radio, as he gets the last song to merge seamlessly into the 8am pips, the most elegant way to manipulate the final result is to manipulate the previous tracks...
Except that if Radio 2 were holding a competition for best new song, and one of the songs entered were truncated before it was finished in order to accomodate the pips and make for a "better show", we wouldn't consider that to be equal a fair competition. If F1 were like, say, NASCAR, in which there are rules (such as yellow-flag restarts that bunch the field back up and erase the leading gap) that are good for the show BUT are applied equally to all competitors, one would not mind.
The fact that the rulings that favour Ferrari are grossly disproportionate to what a normal distribution of outcomes would be suggests either favouritism or that they've got themselves a very good barrister.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. Spend your time being involved with a form of motorsport that you feel able to trust, and thus enjoy. It is beyond me why people continually criticise F1, yet continue to watch it. However, it is always easier to criticise than be positive.
willibetz said:
(b)...the desire of the management to see the championship go to the wire.
If that were true - that management (FOM or FIA, or both?) were making ad hominem rulings with the specific purpose of benefiting whatever driver or team was in second or third place - that would be an outrageous breach of integrity and fair play.Great thread - I thought Max was as ever very eloquent and totally reliant upon the man in the street not reading such well informed and well argued websites (and threads) such as PH. I must admit, when I saw Alonso duck in for tyres, I estimated he'd make the line by 3 seconds...and that there might be a problem with Massa being held up...but given the distance between the two I was totally convinced that there'd be no way anyone would protest...I got that wrong though.
I love Willi Bettz's quotes too - spot on in translating the Maxisms
Don't forget, that the FIA have been quoted as putting McLaren's name forward re the Mass Damper protest too though.
I love Willi Bettz's quotes too - spot on in translating the Maxisms
Don't forget, that the FIA have been quoted as putting McLaren's name forward re the Mass Damper protest too though.
JonRB said:
SamHH said:
For me it's because I've developed level of interest in F1 that I don't have for any other form of motorsport. Much like people devotedly follow their football or rugby team however badly they play, I care about what happens in F1 and that's what keeps me watching it despite the fact that the action is pretty poor. When I watch MotoGP, GP2, F3, BSB or BTCC I enjoy watching the racing - it's usually much better than F1 - but I couldn't give a damn who wins.
I imagine it's the same for a lot of other people.
Yep - is for me. I've been following F1 for close to 20 years. I know who the drivers are, who the teams are, the circuits, the commentators (I remember Brundle and Blundell racing) and everything. That counts for a lot. I imagine it's the same for a lot of other people.
Sure, MotoGP is great if the lead changing every few seconds is your thing, and BTCC if bumper cars is your bag, but F1 has and will continue to have a special place in my heart regardless of how dire the racing itself is (sad, but true).
And as Sam says, it's no less understandable to follow a race series through thick and thin than it is for football or rugby supporters follwoing their team.
Sums it up for me, really. It's great watching other races when you can't get F1 but they are no substitute. No doubt we all hope F1 will get better but will continue to watch regardless. I felt a certain empathy with Colin Firth as Paul Ashworth in Fever Pitch when he moaned about Arsenal. I remember thinking that he was tacking the micky out of me and F1.
flemke said:
willibetz said:
(b)...the desire of the management to see the championship go to the wire.
If that were true - that management (FOM or FIA, or both?) were making ad hominem rulings with the specific purpose of benefiting whatever driver or team was in second or third place - that would be an outrageous breach of integrity and fair play.So let me see if I've got this ad hominem thing right...
Flemke asserts that Ferrari derive undue benefit from a lot of management decisions
but... Flemke isn't an FIA appointed lawyer
therefore... Ferrari are a model of integrity and fair play
WilliBetz
rubystone said:
Don't forget, that the FIA have been quoted as putting McLaren's name forward re the Mass Damper protest too though.
I've yet to see a precise timeline laid out by a credible source. Putting pieces together and leaping to an inference, what seems to have happened was something like:
- early '05: Renault develop system after conferring with FIA and getting the normal FIA provisional approval,
- mid '05: Renault begin to use system in car with no objection from FIA,
- late '05: McLaren hear about it and enquire with FIA. FIA says "Approved" and McLaren do not press the issue further,
- early '06: Ferrari hear about it and argue intensively with FIA to get it banned.
IMO.
flemke said:
rubystone said:
Don't forget, that the FIA have been quoted as putting McLaren's name forward re the Mass Damper protest too though.
I've yet to see a precise timeline laid out by a credible source. Putting pieces together and leaping to an inference, what seems to have happened was something like:
- early '05: Renault develop system after conferring with FIA and getting the normal FIA provisional approval,
- mid '05: Renault begin to use system in car with no objection from FIA,
- late '05: McLaren hear about it and enquire with FIA. FIA says "Approved" and McLaren do not press the issue further,
- early '06: Ferrari hear about it and argue intensively with FIA to get it banned.
IMO.
Renault have been racing with mass dampers since late 2004, first on the front only then front and rear.
Saw the R25 at Donnington yesterday, had a bit of a laugh with the mechanics about it running with mass dampers. Anyone else think the French driver (Johnathan Cauchet?) was'nt really giving it full welly despite near perfect conditions later one?
corozin said:
CommanderJameson said:
corozin said:
Oh look.. somebody ate a dictionary today. Zero points, smartarse
. <-- You are here <---------------- 1 mile ----------------> The point is here --> .
Apologies to you. I am without dicshunary
Accepted graciously. I'm just jealous that I watched an F1 GP and you watched a hillclimb event...
festernath said:
If you don't like it, don't watch it. Spend your time being involved with a form of motorsport that you feel able to trust, and thus enjoy. It is beyond me why people continually criticise F1, yet continue to watch it. However, it is always easier to criticise than be positive.
Isn't that a bit like my saying, "If you don't like my posts, don't read them and certainly don't waste pixels by replying to them."? We're participating here on PH to share ideas. Occasionally one may gain an insight or actually learn something - I do, all the time. That can only happen by keeping an open mind and being willing to entertain propositions that are initially contrary to one's predispositions.
Those of us on PH who are contemptuous of much of what the FIA has done - and this includes the pre-Mosley incarnations as well as more recent times - express our views precisely because we love motorsport and have done for many years.
We criticise as we do partly because interested parties have the right and perhaps the duty to speak up when a noble and beautiful thing is being defiled.
We criticise also because F1 isn't just the few guys with the yachts in the Monte Carlo harbour and the nightclubs called "Billionaire" and the mansions in tax havens. Much more it is the fans, the motor racing aspirants, and the thousands of behind-the-scenes workers who put in eighty-hour weeks for a tiny fraction of what Kimi and Michael take down, and to whom no one is offering endorsement contracts or the best table when they dine - at the local chippie.
All these people deserve an open, honest competition that is run for the sake of sport. Modern F1 seems to be light years away from that.
If you have a problem with people who express criticism of F1, you might well find a friend in Max Mosley. I suspect that he would like nothing more than a huge, homogeneous community of F1 sycophants...a master race, if you will.
flemke said:
festernath said:
If you don't like it, don't watch it. Spend your time being involved with a form of motorsport that you feel able to trust, and thus enjoy. It is beyond me why people continually criticise F1, yet continue to watch it. However, it is always easier to criticise than be positive.
Isn't that a bit like my saying, "If you don't like my posts, don't read them and certainly don't waste pixels by replying to them."? We're participating here on PH to share ideas. Occasionally one may gain an insight or actually learn something - I do, all the time. That can only happen by keeping an open mind and being willing to entertain propositions that are initially contrary to one's predispositions.
Those of us on PH who are contemptuous of much of what the FIA has done - and this includes the pre-Mosley incarnations as well as more recent times - express our views precisely because we love motorsport and have done for many years.
We criticise as we do partly because interested parties have the right and perhaps the duty to speak up when a noble and beautiful thing is being defiled.
We criticise also because F1 isn't just the few guys with the yachts in the Monte Carlo harbour and the nightclubs called "Billionaire" and the mansions in tax havens. Much more it is the fans, the motor racing aspirants, and the thousands of behind-the-scenes workers who put in eighty-hour weeks for a tiny fraction of what Kimi and Michael take down, and to whom no one is offering endorsement contracts or the best table when they dine - at the local chippie.
All these people deserve an open, honest competition that is run for the sake of sport. Modern F1 seems to be light years away from that.
If you have a problem with people who express criticism of F1, you might well find a friend in Max Mosley. I suspect that he would like nothing more than a huge, homogeneous community of F1 sycophants...a master race, if you will.
Interesting that in your reply you should make the inference that I am in agreement with Mosley. This is not actually the case.
In the case of the Alonso penalty, I am 100% in agreement with what seems to be the vast majority. In fact I have yet to hear from someone on this site who can offer any reason as to why it was enforced. Additionally, I enjoy reading these posts, as I am more a 'reader' of the forum, rather than a written contributer.
I hope you don't mind me saying that I find the tone of some your posts somewhat dictatorial in that anyone who expresses a disagreement with your statement is portrayed in your reply to be ill informed and missing the supposed point. In fact, this approach is very similar to a certain member of the FIA, whom you seem to have very little time for. Additionally, I am unaware of what qualifies you to take this tone - if anything. As you suggest, the forums are a great place to learn both fact, and other people's viewpoints. I for one would not wish to see an end to this.
However, I do still stand by the point which I made: I do not understand why people spend so long being critical of something. Why did I make this point? Because I do not agree with your sentiments entirely, and felt the need to put something positive across, as to me F1 provides a great deal of interest to me. Maybe you should try it sometime.
festernath said:
However, I do still stand by the point which I made: I do not understand why people spend so long being critical of something.
I think that most people I know with an interest in motorsport want to look at F1 as the pinnacle - the pinnacle of skill, racing, technology, drivers, circuits, and of entertaintment. I am passionate about F1 and want to see a racing spectacle, not a debacle. I criticise yes - however, I would much rather (and do when I can) praise. I would love to be in a position to help make it what I (and I suspect most fans) want it to be, but I don't see a practical way of helping.
To say, effectively, "like it or shut up" is nonesense.
Should we say the same about our government?
The FIA would have us believe they are doing things in the interests of the fans and the "sport" and yet I very rarely hear anyone in agreement with them.
Joe911 said:
festernath said:
However, I do still stand by the point which I made: I do not understand why people spend so long being critical of something.
I think that most people I know with an interest in motorsport want to look at F1 as the pinnacle - the pinnacle of skill, racing, technology, drivers, circuits, and of entertaintment. I am passionate about F1 and want to see a racing spectacle, not a debacle. I criticise yes - however, I would much rather (and do when I can) praise. I would love to be in a position to help make it what I (and I suspect most fans) want it to be, but I don't see a practical way of helping.
To say, effectively, "like it or shut up" is nonesense.
Should we say the same about our government?
The FIA would have us believe they are doing things in the interests of the fans and the "sport" and yet I very rarely hear anyone in agreement with them.
Not disagreeing with what you are saying there. Not saying "like it or shut up" either. But if you really don't like F1, and portray it as a lost cause by constantly criticising it, move on - I mean that in a good way. Regarding your government analogy - that is what a vote is for. And you can always vote with your remote by not watching F1!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff