So, Tomorrow's the day! (FIA World Council)

[Derek Smith]

RYH64E said:

As it is a team sport perhaps the drivers championship should be abandoned and competition limited to the constructors championship? The only way to eliminate team orders is to remove the incentive for a team to favour one driver over another, if only constructor points were at stake it wouldn't matter to the team which driver won.

There is a certain logic to that.

I've supported teams over drivers since the death of Clark. But even then politics comes into it.

McLaren, 'my' team, allowed Hamilton to race the chosen one of their main sponsor. This sponsor had a major investment in F1. Mclaren upset them and, it would appear, upset some bloke doing voluntary work for the FIA. And then they were hit with a totally unconnected £50,000,000 fine.

Some teams might have felt that you do what the major sponsor of F1 wants or else.

Santander should be careful. Many people might start to draw conclusions about favouritism if their team continues to swan through the regs obeying just those that if feels do not hurt their championship chances.

Image is everything.

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

35secToNuvolari said:

Other teams have had drivers on different fuel maps. Massa can make his move obvious, that's not against the rules or definite proof of an order. Hamilton quite easily got past HK. HK's engineer even gave him a similar message: Hamilton's faster..."

We're assuming Smedley apologized for giving a team order, but Smedley also thanked Massa for his magnanimity. Obedience is not often characterized as generosity.

The situation is made more difficult when other teams are quacking, waddling, and snapping their bills as well.

A straight question to you, sir:

Do you believe that, if neither Smedley nor any other Ferrari official had said or signaled anything to Massa during the race, or before the race, and if Massa had thought that there would be no negative consequences to himself if he were to stay in P1, that he would nonetheless have conceded the position to Alonso as he did?

Drivers wouldn't hold position at the end of the race if they weren't given instructions from the team to turn down their fuel, as well. It has been accepted that teams can express their wishes via 'informational' messages.

Sorry; there may be too many negatives in your first sentence for me to follow it.
Do you think that Massa - if he had been acting of his own free will entirely - would have slowed as he did to enable Alonso to cruise past him? Was the decision to slow down purely his?

[sstw]

If i remember correctly (and there's a fair chance i don't), didn't the FIA send a delegate to Mclaren in 2007 to make sure the drivers were being treated equally after Alonso threw his toys out the pram?

The FIA were obviously treating the team orders rule with the utmost importance back then, maybe the rules have changed since...

[Derek Smith]

sstw said:

If i remember correctly (and there's a fair chance i don't), didn't the FIA send a delegate to Mclaren in 2007 to make sure the drivers were being treated equally after Alonso threw his toys out the pram?

The FIA were obviously treating the team orders rule with the utmost importance back then, maybe the rules have changed since...

There is/was, of course, no requirement for teams to treat drivers identically. The only thing banned was team orders. The placing of 'delegates' in the McLaren pits was little more than a deliberate insult. There was a fair bit less than no justification for it. Team orders were no part of the enquiry. Alonso was, by his own admission, an offender.

However, in sports car races that I've been involved in there are observers placed in each pit during pit stops. Why not have observers permanently in pits in F1? They could monitor everything going on.

[jamieboy]

IIRC, Alonso was given immunity from punishment by the FIA in exchange for giving evidence about spygate. The observer was in the pits to make sure McLaren didn't actively punish him for telling the truth - preventing team orders may have been a side-effect of this, but wasn't really the primary purpose.

[35secToNuvolari]

flemke said:

35secToNuvolari said:

flemke said:

35secToNuvolari said:

Other teams have had drivers on different fuel maps. Massa can make his move obvious, that's not against the rules or definite proof of an order. Hamilton quite easily got past HK. HK's engineer even gave him a similar message: Hamilton's faster..."

We're assuming Smedley apologized for giving a team order, but Smedley also thanked Massa for his magnanimity. Obedience is not often characterized as generosity.

The situation is made more difficult when other teams are quacking, waddling, and snapping their bills as well.

A straight question to you, sir:

Do you believe that, if neither Smedley nor any other Ferrari official had said or signaled anything to Massa during the race, or before the race, and if Massa had thought that there would be no negative consequences to himself if he were to stay in P1, that he would nonetheless have conceded the position to Alonso as he did?

Drivers wouldn't hold position at the end of the race if they weren't given instructions from the team to turn down their fuel, as well. It has been accepted that teams can express their wishes via 'informational' messages.

Sorry; there may be too many negatives in your first sentence for me to follow it.
Do you think that Massa - if he had been acting of his own free will entirely - would have slowed as he did to enable Alonso to cruise past him? Was the decision to slow down purely his?

I was trying to say that, yes, the team's message influenced Massa's actions. But other teams influence their drivers' behavior when they give out 'save fuel' type messages, and the drivers finish in formation. Yes, there are some situations where a driver can give up a fight all on his own, but there are other times when the message prevents them from driving how they would like to drive, if unencumbered. It has been accepted that teams can express their wishes via 'informational' messages and influence drivers.

Cheers

[BBS-LM]

Jean Todt, President of the FIA, who was head of F1 at Ferrari. Did you really think the out come would be anything but in Ferrari's favour.

[Derek Smith]

BBS-LM said:

Jean Todt, President of the FIA, who was head of F1 at Ferrari. Did you really think the out come would be anything but in Ferrari's favour.

At the time that Todt 'left' Ferrari it was apparent that there was a certain animosity between him and Luca de.

Further, last year at Silverstone I was talking to a couple who ran a classic Ferrari and it was apparent that Todt was not someone they would invite around to their house for a friendly chat. Whatever caused the rift between the faithful and Todt was something quite big.

Mind you, it is possible that Luca De and Todt have some kind of truce as the pair met a week or so before the hearing. I wonder what they talked of.

It is clear that the changes in the regs of F1 could well not be the major change come 2013. It is possible that FOM/CVC's position as the mover and shaker of the sport might well come under attack.

There are two power blocks, neither of which is the FIA. However, they might well be kingmaker.

I'm not too well up on all the intrigue and politics so I'll be corrected by anyone who is, and would appreciate it, but it would appear that Ferrari can challenge CVC/FOM. Whether their victory would be for the good of the sport, at least from the spectators' point of view, is a moot point. I have my doubts.

A partnership between Ferrari and the FIA might well be enough to dominate any talks on the concord agreement. It would be enough to dominate the sport as well.

I am worried for the health of our sport come 2013. Talks of ground effect, four-pots and turbo-hcarging is all smokescreen. The biggeest change might well be who is in charge.

CVC holds the rights to the title Formula 1. It would appear that a lot of faith is being placed on the value of a name. I'm not sure it is justified. Who remembers Oil of Olay? Marathon anyone. How about Grand Prix Series?

Any battle for supremancy will hurt CVC/FOM's value.

I think Todt and Luca de have buried the hatchet because of the money involved. I've got to say that we might have seen the first example of what is to come on Weds.

There is no doubt that Ferrari are the biggest draw in F1. However, they need competition. There are other motor sports, ones that might provide a better return on investment for, say, a sports car manufacturer.

The next three years are going to be financially challenging for the sport. It might well be that the F1 (or GPS?) that we watch on 2013 will be different from what we are seeing this year. I think the only thing in doubt is whether it will be significantly different or another motor sport entirely.