Discussion
Does anyone else feel the FIA now seem to think they can operate outide a country's law? After the Minardi farce, they (I think) rightly went to court and got an injuction to take part in qualifying only and then to be reviewed. This seem to have upset the FIA who are no threating to pull F1 and Rally out of Auz.
It seems the FIA believe they have all the power in the world and anyone that opposes it is dropped or threatened, such as Belguim and the tobacco ban. Is it just me that thinks they are out of order, and should concentrate on giving us back a great sport?
It seems the FIA believe they have all the power in the world and anyone that opposes it is dropped or threatened, such as Belguim and the tobacco ban. Is it just me that thinks they are out of order, and should concentrate on giving us back a great sport?
The FIA are absolutley correct....you really want to see a local judge over-rule the F1 regulations and allow illegal cars to race?
That happens and the whole thing descends into anarchy.
What next, a Tennis player going to court to have a disputed line-call settled in court?
Stoddart was wrong to go to court. The day that the legal system starts deciding on which cars should or should not start a race, is the day the sport dies.
That happens and the whole thing descends into anarchy.
What next, a Tennis player going to court to have a disputed line-call settled in court?
Stoddart was wrong to go to court. The day that the legal system starts deciding on which cars should or should not start a race, is the day the sport dies.
PJS917 said:
The FIA are throwing their toys out of the pram and look rather stupid. They should get on with running the sport, not trying to run countries.
It's Stodard that looks the fool.. if he had not withdrawn his legal challenge he would have been in court again today and this time the FIA would have been present with the tech regs.
He has been moaning for 6 months that he cant afford to make a 2005 spec car yet overnight he has exactly that.. the blokes a complete tit.
tonytonitone said:
The FIA are throwing their toys out of the pram and look rather stupid. They should get on with running the sport, not trying to run countries.
It's Stodard that looks the fool.. if he had not withdrawn his legal challenge he would have been in court again today and this time the FIA would have been present with the tech regs.
He has been moaning for 6 months that he cant afford to make a 2005 spec car yet overnight he has exactly that.. the blokes a complete tit.
Or ...
He really did not have the money and resources to make the changes in good time to test thoroughly and knew it was likley to be a problem for them way back in September when he solicited and got agreement from the other teams. Now he is forced into last minute preparations out on the road with all the problems (Albers not made it out for his second qualifying lap just now) and danger that might entail.
Quite why the FIA thinks it best to bully the entire motor sport spectrum in the style it does is difficult to assess.
Or is it?
tonytonitone said:
3 teams were objecting to him running, why should Jordan risk losing points to a car that doesnt meet the regs?
I thought just Ferrari and Jordan left objecting?
I would have thought not running the risk of getting one of their cars shunted off by some sort of failure of untested components might be an issue.
But then again maybe Stoddart was playing a blinder in terms of publicity for an aussie (and the GP of course) on home ground.
I beleive Red Bull withdrew their consent, which had been given by Jaguar back in September. Having thought about it, I have to come down against Stoddart here. Much is being made recently of marketing F1 to the 'casual' fan. Now, if a car is allowed to race, and possibly score point, whilst being completely outside the rules, what are those casual fans going to think?
As an aside, does anyone else think that this may have been a political stunt by Minardi? They seem to have managed to make new front and rear wings rather rapidly, without the use of an autoclave or any of the other things you generally need to make a big carbon part like that. Just a thought...
As an aside, does anyone else think that this may have been a political stunt by Minardi? They seem to have managed to make new front and rear wings rather rapidly, without the use of an autoclave or any of the other things you generally need to make a big carbon part like that. Just a thought...
The DJ 27 said:
I beleive Red Bull withdrew their consent, which had been given by Jaguar back in September. Having thought about it, I have to come down against Stoddart here. Much is being made recently of marketing F1 to the 'casual' fan. Now, if a car is allowed to race, and possibly score point, whilst being completely outside the rules, what are those casual fans going to think?
As an aside, does anyone else think that this may have been a political stunt by Minardi? They seem to have managed to make new front and rear wings rather rapidly, without the use of an autoclave or any of the other things you generally need to make a big carbon part like that. Just a thought...
I read the Christian Horner had in the end agreed to go along with the Purnell signature from last Autumn.
New management, new brooms and all that.
As for the parts - stuff can be flown in rapidly these days - in fact it could be done 30 odd years ago. So if they have pulled out some manufacturing resource at the 11th hour, had enough luck for it to appear to work well enough to make enough parts for 2 cars and then fly it to Melbourne they may have achieved a result that was not guaranteed.
Or maybe they have simply hacked some old stuff and bonded it together again somehow.
F1 has often exhibited battles about rules in public whilst being more co-operative (sort of) behind the scenes.
If you don't play the game that way - you don't win and you certainly don't last long.
longq said:
The FIA are throwing their toys out of the pram and look rather stupid. They should get on with running the sport, not trying to run countries.
Quite why the FIA thinks it best to bully the entire motor sport spectrum in the style it does is difficult to assess.
Or is it?
I think it's pretty simple. The reason that I call the tinpot dictator who runs the FIA "Max The-Apple-Didn't-Fall-Far-From-The-Tree Mosley" is that his mummy and daddy were Diana and Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Nazi Party in the '30s and were fast friends of that poor, misunderstood genius Adolf what's-his-name. It seems obvious that Mosley thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, which would give him the right to impose his will upon us and save us from ourselves.
>> Edited by flemke on Sunday 6th March 13:00
tonytonitone said:
3 teams were objecting to him running, why should Jordan risk losing points to a car that doesnt meet the regs?
As far as I am concerned there is only one team that could complain, and that is Ferrari. The other two teams were sold as going concerns and that included all agreements entered into, therefore there should be no question of them going back on previous signatures.
Fact is Mosley and the FIA are acting like spoilt children. Mosley's days are hopefully numbered and this is a last ditch atempt flexing his muscles. By releasing press statements on the FIA website about withdrwaing all championship events from Oz, before the ink has dried on the judges signature, just proves that the FIA are not understanding the magnitude of opposition there is to their outdated inefectual unimaginative management style.
Result Stoddart 1 FIA 0
Result Stoddart 1 FIA 0
I think it's pretty simple. The reason that I call the tinpot dictator who runs the FIA "Max The-Apple-Didn't-Fall-Far-From-The-Tree Mosley" is that his mummy and daddy were Diana and Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Nazi Party in the '30s and were fast friends of that poor, misunderstood genius Adolf what's-his-name. It seems obvious that Mosley thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, which would give him the right to impose his will upon us and save us from ourselves.
>> Edited by flemke on Sunday 6th March 13:00[/quote]
I'm sorry, I don't see WTF Max Mosley's parents have to do with his current presidency of the FIA???
Has no-one copped-on that this was a publicity stunt for Stoddart and his newly set-up airline??? If you looked at any of the Minardi cars you could see the name of this new venture, so I'm not going to give him more publicity.
The fact remains that he had the 2005 parts ready and waiting to go on the car, yet chose to play a stupid game which he ultimately lost. A tin-pot local court has NO RIGHT to judge whether an F1 car is legal or not, and that is why the FIA are using their power to ensure that everyone knows that. They employ incredibly qualified professionals to check and measure the legitimacy of each and every car on the grid, so if some fat, ignorant judge decides that a car is 'legal' then where is there left to go???
Do we then have teams contesting the ban on turbo engines, slicks, etc???
Stoddart got into the F1 game a few years ago, hoping, IMO, to make a quick buck. This was the time when teams were valued in the hundreds of millions, and my suspicion is that he got greedy, saw a chance for a quick buck, and threw his hat in the ring. It is now obvious that nobody wants to buy his team, and shock-horror, he actually has to make a go of it himself. But rather than doing that, he just moans and whinges like a feckless gobshite, and quite honestly, he has totally destroyed the ethos of the 'real' Minardi, back in the days when Giancarlo Minardi and Gabrielle Rumi ran the team.
Time to step down from soapbox...
GarrettMacD said:
flemke said:
I think it's pretty simple. The reason that I call the tinpot dictator who runs the FIA "Max The-Apple-Didn't-Fall-Far-From-The-Tree Mosley" is that his mummy and daddy were Diana and Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Nazi Party in the '30s and were fast friends of that poor, misunderstood genius Adolf what's-his-name. It seems obvious that Mosley thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, which would give him the right to impose his will upon us and save us from ourselves.
I'm sorry, I don't see WTF Max Mosley's parents have to do with his current presidency of the FIA???
Garrett,
It's not a matter of his current presidency per se, it's a matter of the attitude that he has displayed throughout his tenure at the FIA, which attitude was dubious in the early years and has more recently become insufferable.
Do you have a justification for why Mosley, for example, dictated to the teams that they must develop eight cylinder engines under the pretext that that would reduce costs when the teams were virtually unanimous in asserting that that would increase costs? How likely is it that he would actually know better than they what their costs will be?
Can you defend the FIA's (that is to say, Mosley's) being a co-signatory with Ecclestone and Ferrari to the pre-emptive new Concorde Agreement. The CA is meant to be a commercial contract, and the FIA is meant to be a neutral, disinterested regulator. To paraphrase you, WTF does the FIA have to do with Bernie's contriving a secret deal with one team in order to force the hands of the other nine?
As a PHer, Garrett, what did you think about the high-profile speech that Mosley made three years ago on the subject of road safety? That was the one in which he - in his capacity as president of the FIA, which represents the national motoring organisations of more than a hundred countries - seriously proposed to lawmakers that all road cars be fitted with speed limiters set to the limit for the road they're travelling on?
I accept that a man should not be blamed for his parents' misdeeds. You would think that if a man's parents had engaged in particularly infamous, despicable behaviour, he would make an effort to disassociate himself from that behaviour and lead an honourable life. In this case, however, Mosley's parents were committed to supporting and extending the reach of an intolerant dictator, and that description is terribly reminiscent of Mosley's actions within his own tiny, self-important world. The point, as I say, is that the apple didn't fall far from the tree, and motoring and motorsports are the worse for it.
>> Edited by flemke on Monday 7th March 00:12
flemke said:
A lot of interesting observations ...
The only possible justification for the coercive action on forcing technical changes would be to make the sport more exciting for its future good by taking action where the teams fail to agree.
In days gone by there would be broad agreement - though not without whinging, positioning and some sailing very close to the edge of the rules.
Now the teams seem to want someone else to do that for them - and MM seems happy to oblige, even staying on to grab the opportunity when he had announced his retirement as I recall.
Trouble is that, despite the Melbourne weather induced qualifying fiasco and the potential from the rather odd grid it produced, the race was about as boring as they get.
As I recall Alonso made a couple of passes on Villeneuve but as JV was about 3 secs a lap off the pace I really don't see how the changes which were partly meant to spice up the action made it so difficult for Alonso.
Still, nice to see the Michael has not lost his ability to run people off the track on right handers. Seems to be an Oz habit for him.
The most significant moves of the event in terms of place changes seemed to be Barichello and Alonso passing DC and Webber but that happened while the latter two were in the pits it seems.
That and Brundle suddenly realising he had walked passed Stirling Moss on the grid and going back to interview him.
Anyone else get the impression that the most exciting thing this season might be the creaticity the teams come up with for optimising their position vis a vis engine changes and tyres?
flemke said:
flemke said:
I think it's pretty simple. The reason that I call the tinpot dictator who runs the FIA "Max The-Apple-Didn't-Fall-Far-From-The-Tree Mosley" is that his mummy and daddy were Diana and Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Nazi Party in the '30s and were fast friends of that poor, misunderstood genius Adolf what's-his-name. It seems obvious that Mosley thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, which would give him the right to impose his will upon us and save us from ourselves.
I'm sorry, I don't see WTF Max Mosley's parents have to do with his current presidency of the FIA???
Garrett,
It's not a matter of his current presidency per se, it's a matter of the attitude that he has displayed throughout his tenure at the FIA, which attitude was dubious in the early years and has more recently become insufferable.
Do you have a justification for why Mosley, for example, dictated to the teams that they must develop eight cylinder engines under the pretext that that would reduce costs when the teams were virtually unanimous in asserting that that would increase costs? How likely is it that he would actually know better than they what their costs will be?
Can you defend the FIA's (that is to say, Mosley's) being a co-signatory with Ecclestone and Ferrari to the pre-emptive new Concorde Agreement. The CA is meant to be a commercial contract, and the FIA is meant to be a neutral, disinterested regulator. To paraphrase you, WTF does the FIA have to do with Bernie's contriving a secret deal with one team in order to force the hands of the other nine?
As a PHer, Garrett, what did you think about the high-profile speech that Mosley made three years ago on the subject of road safety? That was the one in which he - in his capacity as president of the FIA, which represents the national motoring organisations of more than a hundred countries - seriously proposed to lawmakers that all road cars be fitted with speed limiters set to the limit for the road they're travelling on?
I accept that a man should not be blamed for his parents' misdeeds. You would think that if a man's parents had engaged in particularly infamous, despicable behaviour, he would make an effort to disassociate himself from that behaviour and lead an honourable life. In this case, however, Mosley's parents were committed to supporting and extending the reach of an intolerant dictator, and that description is terribly reminiscent of Mosley's actions within his own tiny, self-important world. The point, as I say, is that the apple didn't fall far from the tree, and motoring and motorsports are the worse for it.
>> Edited by flemke on Monday 7th March 00:12
Good evening Flemke,
I agree that Max Mosley has seemed to take a more dictatorial approach to motorsport in general, and F1 in particular, over the last 5-8 years, and certainly I, like many others, am uncomfortable with the level of persuasion Bernie Ecclestone wields over him.
The FIA can NEVER be either neutral or disinterested in the Concorde Agreement, since it forms the basis of the pinnacle of World Motorsport, namely Formula 1. I believe that Bernie contrived the deal with Ferrari because he knew that if he got them, the others would follow. This so-called 'manufacturer breakaway' would be a waste of time, since each manufacturer would be trying to invent new technologies particular to that company, in the hope of gaining an advantage. So, we would be left with numerous manufacturers squabbling over the rights to introduce their own technologies, each one trying to out-do the other, each one trying to stop the other from getting an advantage.
At least with F1 each team has a level playing ground in terms of the 'rules' they must adhere to. Whether they can afford to fully exploit those rules is another matter. Ferrari can exploit every rule, Jordan can't, since money ultimately dictates the level of success a team can expect in F1 (Toyota excepted!!!) There can be all sorts of new 'competition' for F1, but they will never have the heritage, nor the breeding, nor the romance of the likes of Fangio, Farina, Moss and countless other drivers who most of us hark back to, even though we're too young to remember them!
The speeding proposal was, and is, a complete waste of time, and certainly shows a level of arrogance from the FIA, and Mosley in particular, which many found distasteful. The FIA's raison d'etre is world Motorsport, although IMO their EuroNCAP scheme desrves all the plaudits it receives. I believe that they just went a bit too far into the road-car activities, possibly as a result of getting carried away with the success of NCAP, maybe they found a link (in their eyes) between safety and speeding. My opinion on that is that a driver can be just as dangerous at 20mph as at 120mph. However, I cannot condone anyone driving at more than 30mph in a built-up zone, the risk to innocent pedestrians is too great. Speeding in built-up zones is best left to BMW 3-series drivers, and to be honest, they deserve all the penalty points they get!!!
Down off the soap box again, off to bed now, thanks for the discussion.
Garrett
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff