FIA Thread

[AR3-GP]

I was talking about this on the McLaren thread. The penalty isn't the problem, so much as, there should be a bonus 60 second penalty for being "at fault" and causing a DNF collision. Naturally, if both cars get DNF'd, there no need for it.

Mind you, that wouldn't have helped in this instance. I think the biggest disparity occurs when one car gets DNF'd.

I think some time ago someone from FIA, might have been Whiting himself even, said that the consequence of the collision must no have any effect on the judgement and penalty. Meaning, if someone makes a really tiny driving error without any evidence or context suggesting intent and the consequence is DNF for the other car, driver who made a tiny error must not be exposed to draconian penalties simply because unfortunate turn of events struck the other car.

This makes sense, but again how to judge if error was innocent or intentional and distinguish intentional errors? It's racing, as in life it should be innocent until proven guilty. If judges would start reading intent of crashes, that would make all drivers more conservative and would not promote good close racing.

It doesn't make sense to me. Penalty should be judged on the consequences. Rivals should not be able to profit from "tiny driving error" causing their main rival a DNF otherwise you will never encourage respect on the track.

[Vanja #66]

It doesn't make sense to me. Penalty should be judged on the consequences. Rivals should not be able to profit from "tiny driving error" causing their main rival a DNF otherwise you will never encourage respect on the track.

I agree on principle. How do you oversee and administer this in reality? How do you sort real errors from "errors" ? Introduce special penalties if you tangle with direct WCC competitor, whichever place you two are fighting for? Does this counter cross-season spats?

Its a tricky one. One thing is for sure, the more FIA gives leeway to free interpretation of rules for the sake of FOM and show, the less respect there will be on track. You now have Norris openly disputing his less than lenient penalty, saying that's just racing.

[AR3-GP]

It doesn't make sense to me. Penalty should be judged on the consequences. Rivals should not be able to profit from "tiny driving error" causing their main rival a DNF otherwise you will never encourage respect on the track.

I agree on principle. How do you oversee and administer this in reality? How do you sort real errors from "errors" ? Introduce special penalties if you tangle with direct WCC competitor, whichever place you two are fighting for? Does this counter cross-season spats?

Its a tricky one. One thing is for sure, the more FIA gives leeway to free interpretation of rules for the sake of FOM and show, the less respect there will be on track. You now have Norris openly disputing his less than lenient penalty, saying that's just racing.

I think i misspoke. It doesn't even have to a "direct rival". It should be any other car.

If you've taken another car out, the penalty should be proportionate in the case that the FIA determines you are predominantly at fault.

If the FIa judges it a "racing incident" then that's just racing and it would be acceptable not to punish anyone there. But we've had plenty of incidents where the FIA deemed one driver predominantly at fault where there was a race ending crash, and then nothing happened. Look at what George Russell got away with in Silverstone! That must change.

[diffuser]

It doesn't make sense to me. Penalty should be judged on the consequences. Rivals should not be able to profit from "tiny driving error" causing their main rival a DNF otherwise you will never encourage respect on the track.

I agree on principle. How do you oversee and administer this in reality? How do you sort real errors from "errors" ? Introduce special penalties if you tangle with direct WCC competitor, whichever place you two are fighting for? Does this counter cross-season spats?

Its a tricky one. One thing is for sure, the more FIA gives leeway to free interpretation of rules for the sake of FOM and show, the less respect there will be on track. You now have Norris openly disputing his less than lenient penalty, saying that's just racing.

Typically, you don't get a penalty if it's a racing incident. That leads to another pet peeve of mine with regs, too much interpretation in them. Which is why if the Stewards rule "at fault" the 60 seconds gets tacked on automatically with a dnf.

[Vanja #66]

I think i misspoke. It doesn't even have to a "direct rival". It should be any other car.

No no, I understood you, just added some thoughts of mine

Typically, you don't get a penalty if it's a racing incident. That leads to another pet peeve of mine with regs, too much interpretation in them. Which is why if the Stewards rule "at fault" the 60 seconds gets tacked on automatically with a dnf.

Ok, but what if DNF happens 15-20 laps later on a failure of part completely unrelated to the incident? Or other way, what if DNF happens 15-20 laps later on a slow failure of a part related to incident, but could have arguably failed on its own? It's tricky

FIA should simply implement rules and penalties consistently as they are written. This is simply against the interests of FOM, as controversy attracts audience and audience brings cash, so they work together and seemingly try to balance things out with equal amount of controversial decisions over a season. I say try, because they fail miserably at it.

[diffuser]

I think i misspoke. It doesn't even have to a "direct rival". It should be any other car.

No no, I understood you, just added some thoughts of mine

Typically, you don't get a penalty if it's a racing incident. That leads to another pet peeve of mine with regs, too much interpretation in them. Which is why if the Stewards rule "at fault" the 60 seconds gets tacked on automatically with a dnf.

Ok, but what if DNF happens 15-20 laps later on a failure of part completely unrelated to the incident? Or other way, what if DNF happens 15-20 laps later on a slow failure of a part related to incident, but could have arguably failed on its own? It's tricky

FIA should simply implement rules and penalties consistently as they are written. This is simply against the interests of FOM, as controversy attracts audience and audience brings cash, so they work together and seemingly try to balance things out with equal amount of controversial decisions over a season. I say try, because they fail miserably at it.

At least they would have addressed the immediate DNF. I agree with everything else you are saying.

[Wouter]

https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/96714 ... eaves-fia/
.

A former special advisor to Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff has departed the FIA just six months into her role.

Shaila-Ann Rao, who served as general counsel to Mercedes before taking up a key position alongside Wolff, was appointed as interim secretary general for motor sport in June this year following the surprise departure of Peter Bayer.

Rao had been speculatively linked to the budget cap row as Wolff had claimed prior to the Singapore Grand Prix that he understood Red Bull to be in breach even though the process was private.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner had questioned how Wolff knew the results of his team's financial report to the FIA prior to them being publicly disclosed. Nothing was ever proven against Rao.

Rao was also the person who confirmed to Horner, one hour after Max Verstappen had won the second F1 title of his career in Japan, that Red Bull was in breach.

[chrisc90]

Sounds like a good riddance

[littlebigcat]

Sounds like a good riddance

Why’s that?

[chrisc90]

Sounds like a good riddance

Why’s that?

The whole thing seems a bit odd really in my opinion. I think the results were leaked out, especially when others knew before the team in question did. The fact that Toto and Binotto both failed to show up to the race before - citing cost concerns - yet toto has use of a private plane that many other members of staff use.

Just seems a bit ‘off’ if you ask me.

[Big Tea]

Sounds like a good riddance

Why’s that?

The whole thing seems a bit odd really in my opinion. I think the results were leaked out, especially when others knew before the team in question did. The fact that Toto and Binotto both failed to show up to the race before - citing cost concerns - yet toto has use of a private plane that many other members of staff use.

Just seems a bit ‘off’ if you ask me.

What sounds 'off' to me is the team themselves claiming not to know. The rest of the paddock seemingly did but not Horner?

[dans79]

more relevant!

https://www.racefans.net/2022/11/23/fia ... step-down/

Rao was hired to replace outgoing secretary general Peter Bayer. The FIA said in a statement she “successfully managed this transition period, providing valuable support and assistance to the FIA president and the organisation during this period which is now coming to an end”.

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem thanked Rao for “her invaluable contribution in her role as interim secretary general for motor sport during an important transitional phase for the organisation.

“In particular, Shaila-Ann has provided me with great support in respect to F1, always acting with professionalism and integrity.”

[caddy]

more relevant!

https://www.racefans.net/2022/11/23/fia ... step-down/

Rao was hired to replace outgoing secretary general Peter Bayer. The FIA said in a statement she “successfully managed this transition period, providing valuable support and assistance to the FIA president and the organisation during this period which is now coming to an end”.

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem thanked Rao for “her invaluable contribution in her role as interim secretary general for motor sport during an important transitional phase for the organisation.

“In particular, Shaila-Ann has provided me with great support in respect to F1, always acting with professionalism and integrity.”

When such a statement needed to be made, it means there was an issue to be whitewashed. I think this was pushed by Redbull.

[f1jcw]

more relevant!

https://www.racefans.net/2022/11/23/fia ... step-down/

Rao was hired to replace outgoing secretary general Peter Bayer. The FIA said in a statement she “successfully managed this transition period, providing valuable support and assistance to the FIA president and the organisation during this period which is now coming to an end”.

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem thanked Rao for “her invaluable contribution in her role as interim secretary general for motor sport during an important transitional phase for the organisation.

“In particular, Shaila-Ann has provided me with great support in respect to F1, always acting with professionalism and integrity.”

When such a statement needed to be made, it means there was an issue to be whitewashed. I think this was pushed by Redbull.

wow, with that leap and bound, you could jump over a mountain

[Sieper]

I am just very glad she is gone. How can there be a person who worked for Mercedes (in a high level job) in 2021 be expected to judge over the Mercedes competitors (as well as Mercedes) PER 2021. That situation should have never been allowed to exist. Impossible. I am incredibly unhappy with this, it is so not right.

If you want to work for the fia there must be something more than a gardening leave (which there doesn't even seem to have been) you cannot go straight from a team directly to the FIA, or vice versa. At least 2 seasons should be in between them if you want to be able to uphold the standard of an independent governing body. Fill those years working outside F1 or for a party serving all teams (Pirelli, Sky f.e.)