Max takes the blame. Seriously.
Discussion
What the hell is going on?! I mean, he sort of takes it back later on in the article, but even a vague admission of fault is an epic development in the way the FIA is presenting itself.
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news/172612-0/f...
EDIT: could a mod please sort out the title for me and add an 's' to 'take' please? I was so stunned I could barely type. Ta.
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news/172612-0/f...
EDIT: could a mod please sort out the title for me and add an 's' to 'take' please? I was so stunned I could barely type. Ta.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Thursday 11th December 13:36
MrKipling43 said:
EDIT: could a mod please sort out the title for me and add an 's' to 'take' please? I was so stunned I could barely type. Ta.
And fixed the spelling mistake. 
Max is playing the game, jumping on the bandwagon. The teams are probably blaming him behind closed doors and he is coming out in public as accepting the blame before they go public to try and defuse the situation. Must be getting close to election lime again I guess.
FourWheelDrift said:
MrKipling43 said:
EDIT: could a mod please sort out the title for me and add an 's' to 'take' please? I was so stunned I could barely type. Ta.
And fixed the spelling mistake. 
FourWheelDrift said:
Max is playing the game, jumping on the bandwagon. The teams are probably blaming him behind closed doors and he is coming out in public as accepting the blame before they go public to try and defuse the situation. Must be getting close to election lime again I guess.
I'm sure, but it's still unprecedented, is it not?Max said:
What is wrong with Formula 1 today was wrong before any of the present economic problems cropped up and essentially it is because of the rules. You might well say (might well say?! - Kipling) that the rules are made by the FIA, so it is the FIA's fault.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
Now these huge teams, with between 700 and 1,000 employees, are constantly searching for tiny incremental gains on their car. Success in Formula 1 today consists of optimising every single tiny detail on the chassis to the absolute, ultimate degree, and that is extremely expensive, but also utterly pointless.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
Now these huge teams, with between 700 and 1,000 employees, are constantly searching for tiny incremental gains on their car. Success in Formula 1 today consists of optimising every single tiny detail on the chassis to the absolute, ultimate degree, and that is extremely expensive, but also utterly pointless.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Thursday 11th December 13:42
I like the way he accuses the engineers of only being 'comfortable' in refinement. It's not comfort, it's the only space that's left.
For once I agree with him. It is his fault. Over the period where he has been in charge the regulations have become the problem. His regulations.
It's a strange time to come out with this though. It's not earth-shattering that he's at fault. It has been known, and gone over on these pages and many others, for some time, but all of a sudden he's turned contrite.
I used to have a superintendent who used to try and be pleasant, sometimes going so far as to even attempt a smile, when he wanted you on his side, once when for reasons unknown he'd ordered the destruction of evidence.
I can't think why that memory should suddenly come to mind.
So he's become all apologetic at a time when the FOTA start to throw their weight around.
Well I'm confused. I have no idea which way this is going. Had it not been for his compelte lack of embarrassment over the revelations of his sordid desire to beat women, allied to his lack of appreciation why he should have resigned immediately, I would have said that something was about to blow that would undermine him. But what could be worse than getting your socks off beating women?
Corruption, prejudice, pelvic flying, and thinking you are Thursday would all look good on your CV if applying for the post of president of the FiA compared with buying women to beat.
I am confused.
For once I agree with him. It is his fault. Over the period where he has been in charge the regulations have become the problem. His regulations.
It's a strange time to come out with this though. It's not earth-shattering that he's at fault. It has been known, and gone over on these pages and many others, for some time, but all of a sudden he's turned contrite.
I used to have a superintendent who used to try and be pleasant, sometimes going so far as to even attempt a smile, when he wanted you on his side, once when for reasons unknown he'd ordered the destruction of evidence.
I can't think why that memory should suddenly come to mind.
So he's become all apologetic at a time when the FOTA start to throw their weight around.
Well I'm confused. I have no idea which way this is going. Had it not been for his compelte lack of embarrassment over the revelations of his sordid desire to beat women, allied to his lack of appreciation why he should have resigned immediately, I would have said that something was about to blow that would undermine him. But what could be worse than getting your socks off beating women?
Corruption, prejudice, pelvic flying, and thinking you are Thursday would all look good on your CV if applying for the post of president of the FiA compared with buying women to beat.
I am confused.
It's nothing new though. F1 have never been run properly and never been designed from the ground-up. It walsy been an unsteady ground of bickering personal-agenda politics between the teams and the management.
The only addition here is the current financial crisis, and is something the personal prejudices of those involved in running F1 cannot ignore.
The only addition here is the current financial crisis, and is something the personal prejudices of those involved in running F1 cannot ignore.
Derek Smith said:
I like the way he accuses the engineers of only being 'comfortable' in refinement. It's not comfort, it's the only space that's left.
I think he did acknowledge that, albeit in his own perverse way.Derek Smith said:
It's a strange time to come out with this though. It's not earth-shattering that he's at fault. It has been known, and gone over on these pages and many others, for some time.
It has been known for some time of course that it's all his fault, but he has always maintained that he was doing the right thing.The very fact that he has admitted that this may not be the case, while not neccesarily 'earth shattering', is almost certainly 'significant'.
Derek Smith said:
So he's become all apologetic at a time when the FOTA start to throw their weight around.
Well I'm confused. I have no idea which way this is going. Had it not been for his compelte lack of embarrassment over the revelations of his sordid desire to beat women, allied to his lack of appreciation why he should have resigned immediately, I would have said that something was about to blow that would undermine him. But what could be worse than getting your socks off beating women?
I suspect that Mosley's argument would be that the 'allegations' regarding his, er... 'alternative' tastes in the bedroom had nothing to do with his ability to do his job (how true that is is a moot point now, really). But it's possible that recent developments regarding FOTA's new found confidence mean they will be happier to stand together and openly criticise the regulator. Perhaps he trying to take the wind from their sails by coming out and admitting that he's cocked up first.Well I'm confused. I have no idea which way this is going. Had it not been for his compelte lack of embarrassment over the revelations of his sordid desire to beat women, allied to his lack of appreciation why he should have resigned immediately, I would have said that something was about to blow that would undermine him. But what could be worse than getting your socks off beating women?
He's clearly very worried about something.
Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Thursday 11th December 14:50
MrKipling43 said:
He's clearly very worried about something.
As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Derek Smith said:
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.
It is a bit said, yeah. But, as my mum used to say when I came home with bloody knees after trying to do wheelies on my push bike: "you've got no one to blame but yourself."It is a lot of fun, it's like Christmas eve for F1 fans - we can shake the box, but we won't know what's really inside until we can take the wrapping off tomorrow!
Edited by MrKipling43 on Thursday 11th December 15:01
It has to be a step in the right direction that he has said this, but as ever with MM there is almost certainly a hidden agenda which may or may not become clear. Glad he has said this though, it's getting fun.
All we need now is some good racing in individually designed and developed cars and we could have top notch F1 again.
All we need now is some good racing in individually designed and developed cars and we could have top notch F1 again.
Derek Smith said:
MrKipling43 said:
He's clearly very worried about something.
As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
I think you chaps are reading him wrong. He's not accepting any blame. Rather, he's trying to pre-empt it:
You might well say that the rules are made by the FIA, so it is the FIA's fault.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
He's saying that in a narrow, literal sense it was the FIA that narrowed the designers' options, EXCEPT THAT, they had no choice, because they had to cap the speeds.
That's not taking even partial responsibility, that's passing the buck.
As usual with Mosley, it's utter bull5hit. If he really cared about technical innovation, and giving the designers the freedom to do their best, he would have imposed the single tyre supplier (or created an equivalency) to provide one spec tyre with much reduced grip. Had the FIA done that, raised the minimum ride height, and then opened up the formula to allow the innovation that the FIA had precluded, the job would have been done.
You might well say that the rules are made by the FIA, so it is the FIA's fault.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
He's saying that in a narrow, literal sense it was the FIA that narrowed the designers' options, EXCEPT THAT, they had no choice, because they had to cap the speeds.
That's not taking even partial responsibility, that's passing the buck.
As usual with Mosley, it's utter bull5hit. If he really cared about technical innovation, and giving the designers the freedom to do their best, he would have imposed the single tyre supplier (or created an equivalency) to provide one spec tyre with much reduced grip. Had the FIA done that, raised the minimum ride height, and then opened up the formula to allow the innovation that the FIA had precluded, the job would have been done.
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
MrKipling43 said:
He's clearly very worried about something.
As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Edited by mattikake on Thursday 11th December 23:55
mattikake said:
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
MrKipling43 said:
He's clearly very worried about something.
As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Edited by mattikake on Thursday 11th December 23:55
FNG said:
mattikake said:
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
MrKipling43 said:
He's clearly very worried about something.
As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Sad though it is that a man in his EARLY 60s should have to confess this, but I'm excited by this too. Anticipation eh? How much fun is that.Derek Smith said:
I am confused.
Me too, but it's very exciting don't you think?! As for as I'm concerned the significance here is not what he's said, but the fact that he has said it.
Unless I've missed the point, and you're suggesting that Derek is Hitler's son?
Edited by jamieboy on Friday 12th December 09:03
I'd like to settle this once and for all: I am not Hitler's son. I never have been Hitler's son and, hopefully, never will be Hitler's son. For reasons of geography, I was unable to be conceived until Hitler was dead and the war in Europe and Japan was over. My father was on board a boat, destined for the far east, when they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.
As regards the suggestion as to whether Max Rufus was Hitler's love-child, I can say there is absolutely no truth in this whatsoever. Max Rufus' auntie, one of the Mitford girls - a sort of pre-war Spice Girls, but without their rectitude and good sense - was Hitler's lover and, the theory went, realised she was losing his favour and so decided to get pregnant. This was not the total success one might have expected and she came to Britain - her home, the place that has to take you in even if you are a raving fascist – heavily pregnant, according to a report in the Guardian. There was a suggestion that she had tried to kill herself by shooting herself in the head but missed. However, there is contradictory evidence that this mortally wounded women walked from the special plane to an ambulance where she was taken miles away to a hospital, as one would expect with a serious head wound.
But here it gets a bit strange. With all the trauma hospitals available within a reasonable radius to really posh people, the only one where they could find an empty bed was a maternity hospital. Cor, what are the odds, eh?
The Guardian researcher found the daughter of a women, since deceased, who said she remembers her mother talking about the Mitford giving birth to a boy. However, no record could be found of the birth. There was a suggestion that he fled to America, where Hitler’s nephew’s son (Brian!) lived.
Now the silly and unsubstantiated suggestion that Max was Hitler’s love child is based around the coincidence of their virtually identical birth dates. Just one of those things. Oh, and the fact that he was rejected by his mother when she was placed in a secure cottage during the war, or at least the first couple of years, with hubby Ozzy. Too much emphasis is placed on this as, let’s face it, if you were the parents of Max Rufus, wouldn’t you have rejected him?
It’s a lovely thought of course, and given Max Rufus’ way of governing the FiA, together with his fascination with German military uniforms . . . And I’m sure Hitler screamed out in German when indulging in his warped desires. But let’s face it: Max Rufus hasn’t invaded Poland.
Joking apart, it does make one wonder where Hitler junior has got to. I had this superintendent in Brighton. He could have been Hitler’s twin apart from the fact that he lacked his interpersonal skills.
As regards the suggestion as to whether Max Rufus was Hitler's love-child, I can say there is absolutely no truth in this whatsoever. Max Rufus' auntie, one of the Mitford girls - a sort of pre-war Spice Girls, but without their rectitude and good sense - was Hitler's lover and, the theory went, realised she was losing his favour and so decided to get pregnant. This was not the total success one might have expected and she came to Britain - her home, the place that has to take you in even if you are a raving fascist – heavily pregnant, according to a report in the Guardian. There was a suggestion that she had tried to kill herself by shooting herself in the head but missed. However, there is contradictory evidence that this mortally wounded women walked from the special plane to an ambulance where she was taken miles away to a hospital, as one would expect with a serious head wound.
But here it gets a bit strange. With all the trauma hospitals available within a reasonable radius to really posh people, the only one where they could find an empty bed was a maternity hospital. Cor, what are the odds, eh?
The Guardian researcher found the daughter of a women, since deceased, who said she remembers her mother talking about the Mitford giving birth to a boy. However, no record could be found of the birth. There was a suggestion that he fled to America, where Hitler’s nephew’s son (Brian!) lived.
Now the silly and unsubstantiated suggestion that Max was Hitler’s love child is based around the coincidence of their virtually identical birth dates. Just one of those things. Oh, and the fact that he was rejected by his mother when she was placed in a secure cottage during the war, or at least the first couple of years, with hubby Ozzy. Too much emphasis is placed on this as, let’s face it, if you were the parents of Max Rufus, wouldn’t you have rejected him?
It’s a lovely thought of course, and given Max Rufus’ way of governing the FiA, together with his fascination with German military uniforms . . . And I’m sure Hitler screamed out in German when indulging in his warped desires. But let’s face it: Max Rufus hasn’t invaded Poland.
Joking apart, it does make one wonder where Hitler junior has got to. I had this superintendent in Brighton. He could have been Hitler’s twin apart from the fact that he lacked his interpersonal skills.
Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 12th December 09:44
Since we've gone miles away from the original (interesting) discussion, why do we call him "Max Rufus" now? It's always been his middle name, but using it on here when either 'Max' or 'Max Mosley' would fit equally well or better is a fairly recent phenomenon - just wondered what the thinking behind it was?
flemke said:
I think you chaps are reading him wrong. He's not accepting any blame. Rather, he's trying to pre-empt it:
You might well say that the rules are made by the FIA, so it is the FIA's fault.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
He's saying that in a narrow, literal sense it was the FIA that narrowed the designers' options, EXCEPT THAT, they had no choice, because they had to cap the speeds.
That's not taking even partial responsibility, that's passing the buck.
As usual with Mosley, it's utter bull5hit. If he really cared about technical innovation, and giving the designers the freedom to do their best, he would have imposed the single tyre supplier (or created an equivalency) to provide one spec tyre with much reduced grip. Had the FIA done that, raised the minimum ride height, and then opened up the formula to allow the innovation that the FIA had precluded, the job would have been done.
Back to track after an interesting diversion (thanks Derek).You might well say that the rules are made by the FIA, so it is the FIA's fault.
In a sense that is true because the rules in Formula 1 are ever-more restrictive, compressing the work of the engineers into an ever-smaller area – but we had to do that otherwise the speeds of the cars would have risen to a point where the safety precautions on the circuit, and the cars themselves, would have become inadequate.
He's saying that in a narrow, literal sense it was the FIA that narrowed the designers' options, EXCEPT THAT, they had no choice, because they had to cap the speeds.
That's not taking even partial responsibility, that's passing the buck.
As usual with Mosley, it's utter bull5hit. If he really cared about technical innovation, and giving the designers the freedom to do their best, he would have imposed the single tyre supplier (or created an equivalency) to provide one spec tyre with much reduced grip. Had the FIA done that, raised the minimum ride height, and then opened up the formula to allow the innovation that the FIA had precluded, the job would have been done.
Flemke, unfortunately I think you are right. The one word which is very important is might. Once again, MM's legal training seems to have worked wonders allowing him to say something whilst many think he is saying something else. Back to form them, lets see what he comes up with later today.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff