International views of the FIA

[andyps]

There have been many postings in this section over the last couple of weeks about the FIA with two predominant opinions. One is that the FIA made a good decision because McLaren obviously cheated, generally coming from fans of Ferrari. The second is that there was a massive miscarriage of justice and that the FIA have a strong bias, I am not sure that this view is completely from McLaren fans, but quite likely to be the case. As Pistonheads is largely a UK forum it might be expected that there would be strong support for McLaren, and Ferrari are fairly universal in their appeal so the support there is understandable.

However, I do not know how the rest of the world views the FIA, and in particular the decision made last week, but would like to get a feeling for it. I know there will be biases from some countries (Italy, UK and Germany in particular), but how about elsewhere? Does anyone have information about how the decision was reported in other countries, and what the general feeling of motorsport fans is? If my language skills were better I could try reading online newspapers from around the world, but unfortunately I don't have the capability to find, and then translate things!

Any information would be welcomed.

Cheers

Andy

PS - how can we get Google to include McLaren in their spell checking dictionary? It always highlights McLaren, but recognises Ferrari. Now I am getting paranoid that even Google are biased!

[marvelharvey]

Some anecdotal evidence for you

I visit an American gaming forum which has an off-topic section where there was a discussion on this very subject. The Ferrari fans thought McLaren got off lightly, everyone else thought the FIA were far too harsh. Seems to be the same as PH in opinion.

[MartinD]

andyps said:

PS - how can we get Google to include McLaren in their spell checking dictionary? It always highlights McLaren, but recognises Ferrari.

When you click on the Google toolbar spell check it highlights McLaren, then when you click on McLaren it opens a box with spelling alternatives , at the bottom it says 'add to dictionary', just click on that & its done.

[Scuffers]

It does seem to be a tribal thing...

shame really as this detracts from the real issues here...

Personally I am not a Ferarri fan, that's not so say I am an out and out Mclaren supporter though...

to my mind the FIA have made an arse of themselves (again), the precident for this was the Toyota scandal (where they did NOTHING) yet this time they went for the kill....

when all said and done, this was all caused by a Ferarri employee (as it was with the Toyota case) yet they seem to shoulder NO responcibility for this??

[EDLT]

I wouldn't call myself a fan of either Mclaren or Ferrari, but when the FIA have always favored Ferrari, for example switching to one tyre supplier and choosing Bridgestone despite most teams using Michelin and only have Michelin data.

[jamieboy]

EDLT said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan of either Mclaren or Ferrari, but when the FIA have always favored Ferrari, for example switching to one tyre supplier and choosing Bridgestone despite most teams using Michelin and only have Michelin data.

I believe that Michelin pulled out of F1 when the FIA announced they were moving to a single tyre supplier. I don't think the FIA chose Bridgestone, forcing Michelin out.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

EDLT said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan of either Mclaren or Ferrari, but when the FIA have always favored Ferrari, for example switching to one tyre supplier and choosing Bridgestone despite most teams using Michelin and only have Michelin data.

I believe that Michelin pulled out of F1 when the FIA announced they were moving to a single tyre supplier. I don't think the FIA chose Bridgestone, forcing Michelin out.

This is true, but there was an extended period between when the FIA said that they were contemplating going to a single supplier, and when the commitment was made to do so.
During that "consultation period", Michelin made clear that they were opposed to operating in a single-tyre formula. Thus the FIA knew before their commitment to single-tyre that, by imposing that rule, they would be excluding Michelin.
I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.
They claimed that the change to single-tyre was in order to save money, as it would reduce tyre testing. That was true, but ignored the fact that you could reduce tyre testing expense by limiting testing days - which they've done anyhow!

Interesting that in MotoGP there have recently been rumours of a move to single tyre, and both Michelin and Bridgestone have said that they prefer tyre competition.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.

A know-it-all arrogance which in this case was, I believe, supported by most of the teams competing.

[ph123]

All the teams are competing with and being beaten by, Mclaren, so if McLaren are distracted ... obviously they will support it.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.

A know-it-all arrogance which in this case was, I believe, supported by most of the teams competing.

Odd, then, that it was not supported by the tyremakers.

Why could not the same result have been achieved by simply limiting testing days?

[David_s]

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.

A know-it-all arrogance which in this case was, I believe, supported by most of the teams competing.

Odd, then, that it was not supported by the tyremakers.

Why could not the same result have been achieved by simply limiting testing days?

I remember reading that the benefits a good driver brought to a team could be measured in 10ths, similarly engine and aero developments. Tyre developments could improve lap times by whole seconds and so the money spent on tyre development was enormous.

By standardising on a single tyre manufacturer not only could lap times be 'controlled' but a very expensive area of competition could be removed without adversely affecting the show. Nobody really cared what tyres a team used, but whilst race results could be determined by tyre performance no team, let alone tyre manufacturer, could avoid spending huge amounts on development.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the teams were broadly in agreement with the single tyre manufacturer policy.

[flemke]

David_s said:

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.

A know-it-all arrogance which in this case was, I believe, supported by most of the teams competing.

Odd, then, that it was not supported by the tyremakers.

Why could not the same result have been achieved by simply limiting testing days?

I remember reading that the benefits a good driver brought to a team could be measured in 10ths, similarly engine and aero developments. Tyre developments could improve lap times by whole seconds and so the money spent on tyre development was enormous.

By standardising on a single tyre manufacturer not only could lap times be 'controlled' but a very expensive area of competition could be removed without adversely affecting the show. Nobody really cared what tyres a team used, but whilst race results could be determined by tyre performance no team, let alone tyre manufacturer, could avoid spending huge amounts on development.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the teams were broadly in agreement with the single tyre manufacturer policy.

All your observations about the effect of tyres are right, so far as I know.
The thing is, the cost to the teams was mostly the cost of testing. They only did the amount of testing that they were allowed. If they're not allowed to experiment with different tyre compounds, they spend the maximum allowed testing time (and therefore money) on testing other things.
The tyremakers bore the expense of making the tyres, so there has been no meaningful savings to the teams by going to a single tyre.
The time spent testing is what ate up the teams' money, regardless of what they were testing.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.

A know-it-all arrogance which in this case was, I believe, supported by most of the teams competing.

FWIW, interesting interview with Pierre Dupasquier, head of Michelin Sporting Dep't, on the subject of single-tyre.
This was conducted in '05, after the subject had come under discussion, but before the FIA committed to the single-tyre rule.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2005/9/3526...

[LongQ]

Well there are a few names from the past amongst the media men who have a good recollection of how motor racing was and has developed.

Their opinions and reputations probably count for something though I could not comment on any bias that may be perceived based on history of which I am unaware. In other words I have not read everything they have written.

That said this article may be a resaonable interpretation of the North American view.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/thew...

[LongQ]

Having read a little further through the past items there are a whole load of interesting thought and ideas in there.

An article about John Barnard, notably the number of teams he has designed for, moving from McLaren to Ferrari for example, makes for an interesting read.

Apparently he no longer follows F1 but goes to MotoGP events as often as he can.

Which is interesting.

[skwdenyer]

flemke said:

This is true, but there was an extended period between when the FIA said that they were contemplating going to a single supplier, and when the commitment was made to do so.
During that "consultation period", Michelin made clear that they were opposed to operating in a single-tyre formula. Thus the FIA knew before their commitment to single-tyre that, by imposing that rule, they would be excluding Michelin.
I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.
They claimed that the change to single-tyre was in order to save money, as it would reduce tyre testing. That was true, but ignored the fact that you could reduce tyre testing expense by limiting testing days - which they've done anyhow!

As a spectator, I think that single-tyre is a much better proposition. Everything else about the cars' development and performance is in the hands of the teams. A "tyre war" simply has the effect of artifically hampering some teams or giving an advantage to others based on nothing so much as their contractual choice some months / years previously ("and here come the first of the Michelin runners" isn't something to be proud of), not to mention the US Grand Prix debacle.

From a Michelin perspective, I can quite understand why they might be opposed. It can be seen as hard to derive a commercial advantage from an investment in F1 when there is no competition and hence no press / PR advantage is being able to say "a car on our tyres won against our competitors". That's fine if that's their view.

Bridgestone appear to have taken a different tack, in accepting F1 as it is, perhaps to help in tyre development, perhaps to help in staff development, perhaps to help them sell more tyres simply by association.

Either way, I see a hundred quite reasonable reasons why the decisions were made by the parties concerned, as opposed to just a single conspiracy theory favouring Ferrari (who I have no allegience to, incidentally). To be honest, I don't see a smoking gun here - move along, nothing to see

[flemke]

skwdenyer said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.
They claimed that the change to single-tyre was in order to save money, as it would reduce tyre testing. That was true, but ignored the fact that you could reduce tyre testing expense by limiting testing days - which they've done anyhow!

Either way, I see a hundred quite reasonable reasons why the decisions were made by the parties concerned, as opposed to just a single conspiracy theory favouring Ferrari (who I have no allegience to, incidentally). To be honest, I don't see a smoking gun here - move along, nothing to see

[allthingsaston]

I don't think much of the FIA, partly because the FIA has never really attempted to cultivate much of a fan base in the U.S. It always seems to have been more of a case of "you show me the money, and we will come". What else could explain an F1 race held in a Las Vegas parking lot (Talk about bringing the sport into disrepute). So the FIA's decision in this latest scandal doesn't hold a lot of credibility. Also, the relationship between the FIA and everyone else appears so one sided. With the exception of safety improvements, all the money being dumped into F1 has only served to cheapen the sport. And now lawyers are getting involved.......I am seeing Phil Hill next weekend and will have to get his view on the current state of F1.

[skwdenyer]

flemke said:

skwdenyer said:

flemke said:

I don't think this particular instance was one of the many in which the FIA sought to favour Ferrari. Rather, it was one of the many in which the FIA imposed its know-it-all arrogance on the sport.
They claimed that the change to single-tyre was in order to save money, as it would reduce tyre testing. That was true, but ignored the fact that you could reduce tyre testing expense by limiting testing days - which they've done anyhow!

Either way, I see a hundred quite reasonable reasons why the decisions were made by the parties concerned, as opposed to just a single conspiracy theory favouring Ferrari (who I have no allegience to, incidentally). To be honest, I don't see a smoking gun here - move along, nothing to see

In the case in question (i.e. the single-tyre rule) I see no conspiracy. That doesn't prove or disprove the case for any other alleged pro-Ferrari action.

[David_s]

flemke said:

All your observations about the effect of tyres are right, so far as I know.
The thing is, the cost to the teams was mostly the cost of testing. They only did the amount of testing that they were allowed. If they're not allowed to experiment with different tyre compounds, they spend the maximum allowed testing time (and therefore money) on testing other things.
The tyremakers bore the expense of making the tyres, so there has been no meaningful savings to the teams by going to a single tyre.
The time spent testing is what ate up the teams' money, regardless of what they were testing.

As I remember, there was also the question of trying to control the increase in lap speeds. Removing tyres as an area of competition was an easy way of bringing lap speeds down, or at least trying to control any inevitable increase.